id
stringlengths 9
10
| text
stringlengths 1
18.1M
| source
stringclasses 1
value | created
timestamp[s] | added
stringlengths 26
26
| metadata
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0805.0243 | # Spatial characterization of the magnetic field profile of a probe tip used
in magnetic resonance force microscopy
E. Nazaretski Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545 E. A.
Akhadov Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545 I. Martin Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545 D. V. Pelekhov Department
of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus OH 43210 P. C. Hammel Department
of Physics, Ohio State University, Columbus OH 43210 R. Movshovich Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545
###### Abstract
We have developed the experimental approach to characterize spatial
distribution of the magnetic field produced by cantilever tips used in
magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM). We performed MRFM measurements on
a well characterized diphenyl-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) film and mapped the 3D
field profile produced by a $Nd_{2}Fe_{14}B$ probe tip. Using our technique
field profiles of arbitrarily shaped probe magnets can be imaged.
Magnetic resonance force microscopy attracted a lot of interest in the last
few years due to its high force sensitivity and excellent spatial resolution
of magnetic properties. MRFM has been used in studies of electron and nuclear
spin systems culminating in the detection of the force signal originating from
a single electron spin Rugar 2004 . Recent experiments on nuclear spins of
${}^{19}F$ in $CaF_{2}$ samples demonstrated the spatial resolution of 90 nm
Mamin 2007 , orders of magnitude better than conventional magnetic resonance
imaging technique. In the long term, MRFM is envisioned as a possible route to
achieve imaging of individual molecules. Experiments on ferromagnetic systems
showed the potential for spatially resolved ferromagnetic resonance in
continuous and microfabricated samples Nazaretski 2007 ; Mewes 2006 . In MRFM
experiments, force F exerted on a cantilever, is a convolution of the sample’s
magnetization and the gradient of the magnetic field produced by the probe
tip. To perform correct imaging, quantitative knowledge of the spatial
distribution of the tip field is required. At present, the most common way to
characterize magnetic tips is to use the cantilever magnetometry Rossel 1996 ;
Stipe 2001 . It provides information about the magnetic moment of the tip m,
however, it is also sensitive to the relative orientation of m with respect to
the external magnetic field and the direction of cantilever’s oscillations.
Moreover, the detailed spatial field profile of the magnetic tip can not be
inferred. Alternative approach utilizes the spectroscopic nature of MRFM and
has been demonstrated in previous studies Mamin 2007 ; Chao 2004 ; Wago 1998 ;
Bruland 1998 ; Hammel 2003 . In these experiments the strength of the probe
field has been determined from the position of the onset in the MRFM spectra
as a function of the probe-sample separation $z$. Based on this information,
the point dipole approximation has been used to model the magnetic tip. The
situation becomes more complicated if the shape of the tip is irregular or m
is tilted with respect to the $\hat{z}$ direction. Under these circumstances
the one-dimensional approach is insufficient, and does not reveal the spatial
field profile of the probe tip. In this letter we propose a method for
detailed mapping of the tip magnetic field, free of any assumptions about the
tip shape, size, or composition.
In MRFM experiments the magnetic tip of a cantilever is used to generate the
inhomogeneous magnetic field causing local excitation of the spin resonance in
a small volume of the sample known as sensitive slice. The resonance condition
is written as follows
$|{\bf H}_{tot}(r)|=\frac{\omega_{RF}}{\gamma},$ (1)
where $\gamma$ is the gyromagnetic ratio. The total field ${\bf H}_{tot}(r)$
can be expressed as
${\bf H}_{tot}(r)={\bf H}_{ext}+{\bf H}_{tip}(r),$ (2)
where ${\bf H}_{ext}$ is the externally applied magnetic field and ${\bf
H}_{tip}(r)$ is the field of the probe tip. Width $\Delta z$ of the sensitive
slice is determined by the ratio of the resonance linewidth $\Delta H_{res}$
and the strength of the gradient field $\nabla H_{tip}$ produced by the probe
tip, $\Delta z$ = $\frac{\Delta H}{|\nabla H_{tip}|}$ Suter 2002 . Three
dimensional images of electron spin densities can be reconstructed by
performing lateral and vertical scanning of the sensitive slice across the
sampleWago 1998 ; Chao 2004 .
The concept behind our method for detailed characterization of the tip field
profile is illustrated in Fig. 1. It requires a thin-film sample with sharp
edges. When the sensitive slice touches the sample edge, a leading edge signal
is detected. At this location, the sample edge is a tangent line to the
sensitive slice for a reasonable magnetic tip. Thus, scanning in 3D and
recording the locations corresponding to the leading edge enables full
reconstruction of the sensitive slice. If desired, it can be then
parameterized using dipolar, quadrupolar, etc moments.
To illustrate this procedure, we report on MRFM measurements on a well
characterized DPPH film, while laterally scanning the cantilever over its
edge. We used a commercially available Veeco $Si_{3}N_{4}$ cantilever with the
resonance frequency of $\approx$ 8 kHz and the spring constant $k$ of
$\approx$ 0.01 N/m Veeco . The original tip was removed by focused ion milling
and a small magnetic particle of $Nd_{2}Fe_{14}B$ available from Magnequench
Inc. Magnequench has been glued to the end of a cantilever with Stycast 1266
epoxy in the presence of an aligning magnetic field. Consequently, the tip has
been magnetized in the field of 80 kOe. The MRFM tip has a spherical shape
with the diameter of $\approx$ 2.4 $\mu$m and its SEM images are shown in
panels (1) and (2) in Fig. 2. The saturation magnetization of $Nd_{2}Fe_{14}B$
particles has been measured in a SQUID magnetometer, and is equal to $4\pi
M_{s}$ = 13 kG Nazaretski 2006a . Based on the SEM image we estimate the probe
moment to be (7.5$\pm$0.4)$\times$10-9 emu, in agreement with the value of
(6.9$\pm$0.5)$\times$10-9 emu measured by the cantilever magnetometry. The
cantilever is mounted on top of a double scanning stage of a low temperature
MRFM system Nazaretski 2006 ; Attocube . For data acquisition, the
temperature was stabilized at 10 K and the amplitude modulation scheme has
been implemented to couple to the in-resonance spins. The DPPH powder DPPH
was dissolved in acetone and deposited on a 100 $\mu$m thick silicon wafer in
a spin-coater at 3000 rpm. To protect the film, 20 nm of Ti was deposited on
top of DPPH. Approximately 2$\times$1.6 mm2 piece was cleaved from a wafer and
glued to the strip-line resonator of the microscope. The structure of the film
and sharpness of edges were inspected in SEM and are shown in Fig. 2. The film
was found to be continuous, and its thickness varied between 400 and 600 nm.
Fig. 3 shows the typical MRFM spectrum recorded in a DPPH film. When the tip
is located above the film, the strongest tip field experienced by the sample
is situated directly under the probe magnet (assuming ${\bf m}$ $\parallel$
${\bf H}_{ext}$). The field value in the MRFM spectrum where the sensitive
slice just touches the DPPH film is called the leading edge Suter 2002 , and
is indicated by arrows in Fig. 3.
The large positive peak at $\approx$ 3.34 kOe corresponds to the bulk-like
resonance. It originates from the large region of the sample where the tip
field is small, but due to the large number of spins the MRFM signal is
significant. The field difference between the bulk-like resonance and the
position of the leading edge provides the direct measure of the probe field
strength.
Fig. 1 shows the schematic of the characterization experiment. We fixed the
probe-sample separation $z$, and approached different edges of the DPPH film
while tracking the leading edge. The left panel of Fig. 4 shows the field
evolution of the leading edge for two values of $z$ and three different
directions of lateral scanning over the film edge. The almost identical shape
of the curves indicates that m is approximately parallel to the direction of
${\bf H}_{ext}$. In the first approximation, our tip can be modeled as a
magnetic dipole. The field profile produced on the surface of the sample can
be written as follows Jackson 1975 :
$\displaystyle H(R,\theta,\varphi)$ $\displaystyle=\frac{4\pi
M_{s}r_{0}^{3}}{3}\times\\{\frac{-3z(\sin\theta(x\sin\varphi+y\cos\varphi))}{R^{5}}+$
(3)
$\displaystyle+\frac{3z^{2}\cos\theta}{R^{5}}-\frac{\cos\theta}{R^{3}}\\},$
where $4\pi M_{s}$ is the saturation magnetization of $Nd_{2}Fe_{14}B$,
$r_{0}$ is the radius of the tip, $R$ is the vector to the point where the
field is determined, $\theta$ and $\varphi$ are the angles which describe the
spatial orientation of m (see Fig. 1).
The right panel of Fig. 4 shows the z-component of the probe field on the
sample’s surface as a function of $z$. Solid line is the fit using Eq. 3 and
assuming parallel orientation of m and ${\bf H}_{ext}$. Fig. 5(a) shows the
comparison between the lateral field profile of the tip simulated according to
Eq. 3, and the actual data points taken from the left panel of Fig. 4. Good
agreement between the observed and expected behavior suggests that, indeed,
our probe tip can be approximated as a dipole, and its magnetization is
aligned along the direction of ${\bf H}_{ext}$. In case of any significant
misalignment the tip field profile would change substantially, as shown in
Fig. 5(a). For both simulations shown in Fig. 4 and 5, we had to offset the
probe-sample separation by 1.42 $\pm$ 0.03 $\mu$m ($z$ is the only free
parameter in the fit) which suggests that due to the short range probe-sample
interaction the cantilever snaps to the sample at distances smaller than 1.42
$\mu$m Berger 1999 ; Dorofeyev 1999 . The presence of an offset may indicate
the reduced magnetic moment of the tip. However, our cantilever magnetometry
measurements of the tip moment agree well with the expected value, as
mentioned earlier in the paper. Moreover, in Fig. 5(b) we show the calculated
spatial field profile of 2 $\mu$m, 2.2 $\mu$m and 2.4 $\mu$m diameter tips.
The fit for the 2.4 $\mu$m diameter tip provides the best agreement with the
data points. Another argument in support of our tip model pertains to the
magnitude of the MRFM force exerted on a cantilever in a particular sensitive
slice. In Fig. 3 we take the measured MRFM force at $H_{ext}$ = 3.038 kOe and
compare it to our estimates. The calculations yield the force value of
$\approx$ 6.9$\times$10-13 N in good agreement with the measured value of
5.7$\times$10-13 N. Thus, dipolar approximation and our assumptions for the
tip moment were adequate for the present experiment. Importantly, the same
technique could be applied to map field profile from a more irregular tip.
In summary, we have studied the evolution of locally excited electron-spin
resonance in a DPPH film. By tracking the position of the leading edge in MRFM
spectra for different hight and direction of the approach to the sample, we
have determined the spatial field profile of the cantilever tip. Measuring the
MRFM signal onset over the large range of positions with adequate sensitivity
allows to deconvolve the spatial field profile produced by arbitrarily shaped
magnetic tips used in the magnetic resonance force microscopy.
This work was supported by the US Department of Energy and was performed, in
part, at the Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies at Los Alamos and Sandia
National Laboratories. Personnel at Ohio State University was supported by the
US Department of Energy through grant DE-FG02-03ER46054.
## References
* (1) D. Rugar, R. Budakian, H. J. Mamin, and W. Chui, Nature 430, 329 (2004)
* (2) H.J. Mamin, M. Poggio, C. L. Degen, D. Rugar, Nature Nanotech. 2, 301 (2007)
* (3) E. Nazaretski, D. V. Pelekhov, I. Martin, M. Zalalutdinov, J. W. Baldwin, T. Mewes, B. Houston, P. C. Hammel, and R. Movshovich, Appl. Phys. Lett. 90 234105 (2007)
* (4) T. Mewes, J. Kim, D. V. Pelekhov, G. N. Kakazei, P. E. Wigen, S. Batra, and P. C. Hammel, Phys. Rev. B 74, 144424 (2006)
* (5) S. Chao, W. M. Dougherty, J. L. Garbini and J. A. Sidles, Rev. Sci. Inst. 75, 1175 (2004)
* (6) K. Wago, D. Botkin, C. S. Yannoni, and D. Rugar, Appl. Phys. Lett. 72, 2757 (1998)
* (7) K. J. Bruland, W. M. Dougherty, J. L. Garbini, J. A. Sidles, and S. H. Chao, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 3159 (1998)
* (8) P. C. Hammel, D. V. Pelekhov, P. E. Wigen, T. R. Gosnell, M. M. Mizdor, and M. L. Roukes, Proceedings of IEEE, 91 789 (2003)
* (9) C. Rossel, P. Bauer, D. Zech, J. Hofer, M. Willemin, and H. Keller, J. Appl. Phys., 79 8166 (1996)
* (10) B. C. Stipe, H. J. Mamin, T. D. Stowe, T. W. Kenny, and D. Rugar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2874 (2001)
* (11) B. C. Stipe, H. J. Mamin, C. S. Yannoni, T. D. Stowe, T. W. Kenny, and D. Rugar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 277602 (2001)
* (12) Veeco Probes, type MLCT-NO, cantilever C
* (13) http://www.magnequench.com/
* (14) Staveley Sensors piezotube is mounted on top of an Attocube 3D positioner ANPxyz100/LIN/LT/HV equipped with the optical position redout.
* (15) E. Nazaretski, J. D. Thompson, M. Zalalutdinov, J. W. Baldwin, B. Houston, T. Mewes, D. V. Pelekhov, P. Wigen, P. C. Hammel, and R. Movshovich, J. Appl. Phys. 101, 074905 (2007)
* (16) E. Nazaretski, T. Mewes, D. Pelekhov, P. C. Hammel, and R. Movshovich, AIP Conf. Proc. 850, 1641 (2006)
* (17) Sigma Chemical Co. (St. Louis, USA)
* (18) A. Suter, D. Pelekhov, M. Roukes, and P. C. Hammel, J. Magn. Res., 154, 210 (2002)
* (19) J. D. Jackson Classical Electrodynamics 3rd edition, Wiley, New York, 1999
* (20) M. Saint Jean, S. Hudlet, C. Guthmann, and J. Berger, J. Appl. Phys. 86, 5245 (1999)
* (21) I. Dorofeyev, H. Fuchs, G. Wenning, and B. Gotsmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2402 (1999)
Figure Caption
FIG.1 Schematic of the tip characterization technique. Detection of the
leading edge signal indicates that the sample edge is tangent to the sensitive
slice. 3D scanning can thus be used to fully reconstruct the shape of the
sensitive slice.
FIG.2 Panel (1)and (2): SEM images of the probe magnet. Panel (3) shows the
edge of the DPPH film and panel (4) is the top view showing fine structures on
the surface of the film.
FIG.3 Amplitude and phase of the MRFM signal recorded at $T$ = 10 K,
$\omega_{RF}$ = 9.35 GHz, $z$ = 0.73 $\mu$m. The position of the leading edge
is indicated by arrows.
FIG.4 Left panel: field evolution of the leading edge as a function of lateral
position over the DPPH film edge. The upper and lower set of curves correspond
to $z$ = 2.35 $\mu$m and $z$ = 0.53 $\mu$m respectively. Circles represent the
approach of the sample from side ’1’, squares from side ’2’ and triangles form
side ’3’ of the sample as shown in Fig. 1. Right panel: the $z$-component of
the tip field as a function of the probe-sample separation (left Y-axis) and
the corresponding field gradient (right Y-axis). Solid curve is the fit to Eq.
3.
FIG.5 (a) Lateral field profile of the tip for approaches of sides ’1’ and ’3’
of the sample, as shown in Fig. 1. Data points are taken from the left panel
in Fig. 4. ’0’ on the X-axis corresponds to the edge of the film. Upper and
lower data points correspond to $z$ = 0.53 $\mu$m and $z$ = 2.35 $\mu$m
respectively. Solid curve is fitted to the data using Eq. 3. Dotted and dashed
lines show the expected field profile of the tip where $\theta$ = $\varphi$ =
20∘ and $\theta$ = -20∘, $\varphi$ = 20∘ respectively. (b) expected field
profile for the tip with $r_{0}$=1.2 $\mu$m, z-offset=1.4 $\mu$m (solid line),
$r_{0}$=1.1 $\mu$m, z-offset=1.12 $\mu$m (dotted line) and $r_{0}$=1.0 $\mu$m,
z-offset=0.85 $\mu$m (dashed line).
Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3:
Figure 4: Figure 5:
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-02T15:21:29 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.611144 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "E. Nazaretski, E. A. Akhadov, I. Martin, D. V. Pelekhov, P. C. Hammel,\n and R. Movshovich",
"submitter": "Evgueni Nazaretski",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0243"
} |
0805.0270 | # Anomalous Diffusion
Mendeli H. Vainstein mendeli@fis.unb.br Institute of Physics and
International Center of Condensed Matter Physics, University of Brasília, P.O.
Box: 04513, 70919-970 Brasília-DF, Brazil Luciano C. Lapas
luciano@fis.unb.br Institute of Physics and International Center of Condensed
Matter Physics, University of Brasília, P.O. Box: 04513, 70919-970 Brasília-
DF, Brazil Fernando A. Oliveira fao@fis.unb.br Institute of Physics and
International Center of Condensed Matter Physics, University of Brasília, P.O.
Box: 04513, 70919-970 Brasília-DF, Brazil
###### Abstract
Recent investigations call attention to the dynamics of anomalous diffusion
and its connection with basic principles of statistical mechanics. We present
here a short review of those ideas and their implications.
1\. Introduction. - Diffusion is a fundamental problem in statistical physics
Brown28 ; Einstein05 ; Smoluchowski06 ; Langevin08 and much more simple to
describe than reaction rates Kramers40 ; Hanggi90 ; Oliveira98 , for example.
From the studies of diffusion, it is possible to obtain a direct description
of important concepts in physics, such as the ergodic hypothesis (EH) Lee07a ;
Khinchin49 ; Boltzmann74 ; Lee01 and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem
(FDT) Langevin08 ; Kubo66 ; Costa03 . Some of the first concepts of
statistical mechanics, for instance the Gaussian distribution of particles,
were obtained in the study of diffusion, which also led promptly to other
concepts as the Boltzmann equilibrium distribution. In our study of diffusion,
we use the Mori formalism Mori65 which has a well defined memory function for
non-Markovian systems. In this context, the Kubo response function Zwanzgi01
is of special importance, since it was formulated in terms of correlation
functions which can be obtained by the use of linear response theory and are
directly connected with experiments, such as light or neutron scattering
Oliveira81 . In this article we display some recent results in this area, and
we point the reader to selected literature directly related to this topic.
2\. Anomalous Diffusion. - Anomalies in the traditional Einstein diffusion
have been the focus of extensive research in many disciplines Astumian02 ;
Morgado02 ; Bulashenko02 ; Costa03 ; Bao03 ; Budini04 ; Dorea06 ; Bao06 . In
order to address this problem let us consider the generalized Langevin
equation (GLE) in the form Mori65 ; Kubo66 ; Zwanzgi01
$\frac{dP(t)}{dt}=-\int_{0}^{t}\Pi(t-t^{\prime})P(t^{\prime})dt^{\prime}+F(t),$
(1)
where $P$ is the particle momentum, $\Pi(t)$ is a kernel, or memory function,
and $F(t)$ is a random force, which fulfills $\langle F(t)\rangle=0$ and the
fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT):
$\langle F(t)F(t^{\prime})\rangle=\langle P^{2}\rangle_{eq}\Pi(t-t^{\prime}).$
(2)
The usual manner to study the diffusive dynamics is to investigate the mean
square displacement of the particles, given by
$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\langle x^{2}(t)\rangle\propto t^{\alpha}.$ (3)
The exponent $\alpha$ classifies the type of diffusion: for $\alpha=1$, we
have normal diffusion; for $0<\alpha<1$, subdiffusion; and $\alpha>1$,
superdiffusion. To obtain average values, it is important to define the
correlation function for the dynamical operator $P$ as
$C_{P}(t)=\langle P(t)P(0)\rangle,$ (4)
where the brackets $\left\langle\right\rangle$ denote an ensemble average. One
can also define the normalized correlation function
$R(t)=C_{P}(t)/C_{P}(0),$ (5)
which obeys the equation
$\frac{dR(t)}{dt}=-\int_{0}^{t}\Pi(t-t^{\prime})R(t^{\prime})dt^{\prime}.$ (6)
Its Laplace transform yields
$\tilde{R}(z)=\frac{1}{z+\tilde{\Pi}(z)}.$ (7)
Recently, an important achievement in the dynamics of diffusion has been
obtained by Morgado _et al._ Morgado02 . They have shown that if
$\lim_{z\rightarrow 0}\tilde{\Pi}(z)\approx cz^{\nu},$ (8)
where $c$ is a positive nondimensional constant, then
$\alpha=1+\nu.$ (9)
Consequently, the behavior of the memory $\tilde{\Pi}(z)$ for small $z$
determines the long range behavior of the diffusion, Eq. (3). This result has
found many applications: the study of molecular motors Bao03 ; Bao06 ,
anomalous diffusion Costa03 ; Dorea06 ; Vainstein06 ; Lapas07 , and the
dynamics of dipolar chains Toussaint04 are a few examples.
In a subsequent work, Costa _et al._ Costa03 have shown that the average
value of the momentum is
$\langle P^{2}(t)\rangle=\langle P^{2}\rangle_{eq}+R^{2}(t)[\langle
P^{2}(0)\rangle-\langle P^{2}\rangle_{eq}].$ (10)
In this equation the average value will be the equilibrium value if
$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}R(t)=0,$ (11)
i. e., irreversibility is a necessary and sufficient condition for ergodicity
to hold in diffusion. For systems which violate the condition given in Eq.
(11), there will be no ergodicity. Using the final value theorem and Eq. (7)
we obtain
$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}R(t)=\lim_{z\rightarrow
0}z\tilde{R}(z)=\lim_{z\rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{1+cz^{\alpha-2}}.$ (12)
This relation shows that for most of the diffusive regimes, $0<\alpha<2$, the
equilibrium condition, Eq. (11), holds. However, for ballistic diffusion,
$\alpha=2$, it is not fulfilled
$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}R(t)=\lim_{z\rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{1+c}\neq
0\text{.}$ (13)
This means that ballistic diffusion violates ergodicity and the fluctuation
dissipation theorem Costa03 . In other words, if the ballistic system is not
initially equilibrated, then it will never reach equilibrium and the final
result of any measurement will depend on the initial conditions. In this
situation the EH will not be valid. For $\alpha>2$, no memory of the initial
condition is lost ($R(t\rightarrow\infty)=1$) and the process is not
diffusive, being an activated process for which the GLE does not work Costa03
. The results of this letter apply to all kinds of diffusion, $0<\alpha<2$,
described by a GLE independent of the memory range. This gives origin to new
studies in ballistic diffusion Bao03 ; Bao06 ; Lapas07 .
For any initial distribution of values $P(0)$, with $\langle
F(t)P(0)\rangle=0$, it is possible to obtain the temporal evolution of the
moments of $P$,
$\langle P(t)\rangle=\langle P(0)\rangle R(t),$ (14)
Again, after an infinite time, we expect that $\langle
P(t\rightarrow\infty)\rangle=0$. However, for ballistic diffusion, this is not
the case, as can be seen from Eq. (13). The astonishing result here is the
existence of a residual current such as in superfluids.
3\. Nonexponential behavior. - From the above results, it is quite clear that
the correlation for ballistic diffusion will not decay exponentially to
equilibrium. Besides the ballistic case, any anomalous regime will present
nonexponential decay. Even for normal diffusion, a large number of relaxations
may be nonexponential Morgado02 . There are a large number of phenomena where
the systems do not relax immediately to equilibrium. Those phenomena, usually
associated with non-aging, have nonexponential relaxation and are most
commonly described by power laws or stretched exponentials. The study of
anomalous relaxation has produced quite interesting results Kauzmann48 ;
Parisi97 ; Ricci00 ; Metzler00 ; Metzler04 ; Holek01 ; Rubi03 ; Hentschel07 .
For a system described by a GLE of the form Eq. (1), the evolution relies on
the noise that drives the particles. For a harmonic noise Morgado02
$F(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2k_{B}T}}\int\sqrt{\rho(\omega)}\cos(\omega
t+\phi(\omega))d\omega,$ (15)
where $\rho$ is the noise spectral density, $k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant,
and $\phi$ is a set of random phases in the range $0\leq\phi\leq 2\pi$. A
systematic study carried on by Vainstein _et al._ Vainstein06 has shown that
the spectral density plays a fundamental role in the description of stochastic
processes as we shall see. First, the memory function $\Pi(t)$ can be easily
obtained by the use of the FDT, Eq. (2), as
$\Pi(t)=\int\rho(\omega)\cos(\omega t)d\omega,$ (16)
in such a way that the average cancels the random terms and obviously the
memory is a deterministic even function. The Laplace transform of the memory
$\tilde{\Pi}(z)$ is an odd function in $z$; therefore, $\tilde{R}(z)$ given in
Eq. (7) is also an odd function in $z$. This implies that by inverting the
Laplace transform, $R(t)$ is an even function of $t$
$R(-t)=R(t).$ (17)
Second, the condition given by Eq. (8) to determine the exponent $\alpha$, Eq
(9), for a spectral density of the form
$\lim_{\omega\rightarrow 0}{\rho}(\omega)\approx\omega^{\beta},$ (18)
becomes
$\nu=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\beta,&\mbox{ $\beta<1$};\\\ \\\ 1,&\mbox{
$\beta\geq 1$}.\end{array}\right.$ (19)
This shows that a noise spectral density in the form of a power law can
produce only diffusive motion in the region $0\leq\alpha\leq 2$. Diffusive
motion beyond ballistic is not allowed, what can be observed by using the
Laplace transform.
To study relaxation we need to know $R(t)$, which can be calculated
analytically in restricted cases, being obtained numerically most of the
times. A recent study shows that exponential decay, power laws or even Mittag-
Leffler functions are particular cases of a more general function Vainstein06
which approximates the decay. Indeed, considering time reversal symmetry
Oliveira81 and the discussion above (see Eq. (17)), the correlation function
must be even and cannot be any of those forms. We shall expose here the
conditions under which it is possible to obtain an approximately exponential
decay, what happens in certain circumstances for normal diffusion. In this
case,
$\gamma=\lim_{z\rightarrow 0}\tilde{\Pi}(z)=\frac{\pi}{2}\rho(0).$ (20)
Consequently, the friction in the usual Langevin equation is nothing more than
the noise spectral density for the lower modes. For an arbitrary memory, the
system has a rich behavior; even for normal diffusion it is possible to show
the existence of at least three time ranges Vainstein06 . A normal diffusion
can be obtained using a spectral density of the form Morgado02
$\rho(\omega)=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\frac{2\gamma}{\pi},&\mbox{
$\omega<\omega_{s}$};\\\ \\\ 0,&\mbox{
$\omega>\omega_{s}$}.\end{array}\right.$ (21)
For a broad band noise spectral density, $\gamma/\omega_{s}<1$, and long times
$t>\gamma^{-1}$ it is possible to decouple Eq. (6) to obtain an exponential
decay of the form $R(t)=\exp{(-\gamma t)}$, which will bring the system to
equilibrium, that is, $R(t\rightarrow\infty)\rightarrow 0$.
Most of the experimental situations where anomalous relaxation is present
arise in complex, nonlinear or far from equilibrium structures in which
detailed balance does not hold. Good examples can be found in supercooled
liquids Kauzmann48 and in glasses Parisi97 ; Ricci00 . Those systems,
however, apparently do not have any easy analytical solution. On the another
hand, diffusion can present closed solution for the main expectation values,
and arises as a simple laboratory for the discussion of those properties.
4\. Nonlinear dynamics I: Chain Dynamics - As mentioned before Toussaint04 ,
chain dynamics is a quite interesting subject where the application of those
ideas may lead to important results. There is a particular problem that has
attracted our attention: the breaking process of a chain of $N$ monomers of
mass $M$ subject to a strain $S$. The equation of motion for monomer $j$,
$j=1,2,..N$, is Oliveira94 ; Oliveira98b
$M\frac{d^{2}X_{j}}{dt^{2}}=G_{j}-G_{j+1}-M\gamma\frac{dX_{j}}{dt}+F(t),$ (22)
where the forces
$G_{j}=-\frac{\partial U(a+S+y)}{\partial y}|_{X_{j}-X_{j-1}}$ (23)
are derived from the interparticle potential $U$. In this situation, it is
simpler to treat the random force $F(t)$ as delta correlated, i.e.,
$\Pi(t)=2\gamma\delta(t)$. We then define an effective potential and consider
the system as a one body Kramers problem. However, simulations show that the
breaking rate is around a hundred times smaller than the usual Kramers rate
Kramers40 . Several approaches were used in order to overcome the problem; one
of them was to consider that the collective motion of the chain generates a
harmonic noise, which is correlated and has an associated memory. Those were
to be added to Eq. (22) in order to consider a non-Markovian analysis
Oliveira95 . This improves the results, but does not solve the problem. This
is an important issue, because the simulation really describes a very
important experiment. Polymers used as an additive in a turbulent flow have
breaking rates which are up to $10^{-6}$ smaller than those computed using the
simple Kramers theory; the simulation Maroja01 , on the other hand, is in
perfect agreement with the experiments.
5\. Nonlinear dynamics II: Synchronization - Nonlinear dynamics plus noise is
an explosive mixture with a large number of unexpected results. The study of
the evolution of maps subject to a common noise shows different examples of
synchronization Fahy92 ; Longa96 . Besides that, the study of Langevin
trajectories shows very nice patterns both for systems without memory Ciesla01
and with memory Morgado07 . Synchronization of many different phenomena arises
continuously in the literature Acebron05 .
6\. Final remarks. - Diffusion, one of the simplest phenomena in physics, is a
starting point for the study of simple and complex fluids. Many theorems in
statistical physics and even proper applications of its formalism, such as a
“simple linear response theory”, rely on the ergodic hypothesis and its
validation. Again, diffusion shows up as a simple way to address the problem.
In this work we have discussed various regimes of anomalous diffusion, which
are ergodic in the range of exponents $0<\alpha<2$, where $\alpha$ defines the
asymptotic behavior of the diffusion, Eq. (3). For $\alpha=2$, we have the
special ballistic case, for which ergodicity is not valid, as we have seen. In
recent years, molecular motors have been receiving a lot of attention Bao03 ;
Bao06 because of their large potential for pure and applied science. In this
subject, a discussion such as the one presented in this paper may be very
useful. Moreover, there are many situations that present violation of the EH,
particularly in glassy systems Parisi97 ; Ricci00 , and others were the EH
holds. For example, dynamical simulations and equilibrium statistical
mechanics were recently used to treat glass transition calculations
Hentschel07 . The agreement found between the two approaches is a strong
indication of the validity of the EH. This is a quite surprising result for
such a complex system. Disordered systems are still a large universe in which
to explore the basic assumptions of statistical mechanics.
###### Acknowledgements.
This work was supported by Coordenação de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES),
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolmento Científico (CNPq), Financiadora de Estudos
e Projetos (FINEP) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Distrito Federal
(FAPDF).
## References
* [1] R. Brown, Phil. Mag., 4 161 (1828); Ann. Phys. Chem. B, 14 294 (1828).
* [2] A. Einstein, Investigations on the theory of the Brownian Movement, (Dover, New York) 1956.
* [3] M. von Smoluchowski, Ann. Phys., 21 756 (1906).
* [4] P. Langevin, Comptes Rendus, 146 530 (1908).
* [5] H. A. Kramers, Physica, 7 284 (1940).
* [6] P. Hänggi, P. Talkner and M. Borkovec, Rev. Mod. Phys., 62 251 (1990).
* [7] F. A. Oliveira, Physica A, 257 128 (1998).
* [8] M. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98 190601 (2007).
* [9] A. I. Khinchin, Mathematical Foundations of Statistical Mechanics (Dover, New York) 1949.
* [10] L. Boltzmann, On the Development of the Methods of Theoretical Physics in Recent Times, in Theoretical Physics and Philosophical Problems: Selected Writings (Kluwer Academic Publishers) 1974.
* [11] M. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett., 87 250601 (2001).
* [12] R. Kubo, Rep. Prog. Phys., 29 255 (1966). R. Kubo, M. Toda and N. Hashitsume, Statistical Physics II (Springer, Berlin) 1991.
* [13] I. V. L. Costa, R. Morgado, M. V. B. T. Lima, and F. A. Oliveira, Europhys. Lett., 63 173 (2003).
* [14] H. Mori, Prog. Theor. Phys., 423 33 (1965).
* [15] R. Zwanzig, Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics, (Oxford University Press, New York) 2001.
* [16] F. A. Oliveira, Solid State Commun., 40 859 (1981).
* [17] R. D Astumian, and P. Hänggi, Physics Today, 55 33 (2002).
* [18] R. Morgado, F. A. Oliveira, G. G. Batrouni and A. Hansen, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89 100601 (2002).
* [19] O. M. Bulashenko and J. M. Rubí, Phys. Rev. B, 66 045310 (2002).
* [20] J. D. Bao and Y. Z. Zhuo, Phys. Rev. Lett., 91 138104 (2003).
* [21] A. A. Budini and M. O. Caceres, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 37 5959 (2004); Phys. Rev. E, 70 046104 (2004).
* [22] C. C. Y. Dorea and A. V. Medino, J. Stat. Phys., 123 685 (2006).
* [23] J. D. Bao, Y. Z. Zhuo, F. A. Oliveira and P. Hänggi, Phys. Rev. E, 74 061111 (2006).
* [24] L. C. Lapas, I. V. L. Costa, M. H. Vainstein and F. A. Oliveira, Europhys. Lett., 77 37004 (2007).
* [25] M. H. Vainstein, I. V. L. Costa, R. Morgado and F. A. Oliveira, Europhys. Lett., 73 726 (2003).
* [26] R. Toussaint, G. Helgesen and E. G. Flekkøy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 108304 (2004).
* [27] W. Kauzmann, Chem. Rev. 43 219 (1948).
* [28] G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 3660 (1997).
* [29] F. Ricci-Tersenghi, D. A. Stariolo, and J. J. Arenzon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 4473 (2000).
* [30] R. Metzler and R. Klafter, Phys. Rep., 339 1 (2000).
* [31] R. Metzler and R. Klafter, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 37 161 (2004).
* [32] I. Santamaria-Holek, D. Reguera and J. M. Rubí, Phys. Rev. E , 63 051106 (2001).
* [33] A. Pérez-Madrid, D. Reguera, J. M. Rubí, Physica A, 329 357 (2003).
* [34] H. G. E. Hentschel, V. Ilyin, N. Makedonska, I. Procaccia, N. Schupper, Phys. Rev. E , 75 050404 (2007).
* [35] F. A. Oliveira and P. L. Taylor, J. Chem. Phys. 101 10118 (1994).
* [36] F. A. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. B 57 10576 (1998).
* [37] F. A. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. B 52 1009 (1995).
* [38] A. Maroja, F. A. Oliveira, M. Ciesla and L. Longa, Phys. Rev. E 63 061801 (2001).
* [39] S. Fahy, D. R. Hamann, Phys. Rev. Lett. , 69 761 (1992).
* [40] L. Longa, E. M. F. Curado and F. A. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. E , 54 R2201 (1996).
* [41] M. Ciesla, S. P. Dias, L. Longa and F. A. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. E , 63 065202 (2001).
* [42] R. Morgado, M. Ciesla, L. Longa and F. A. Oliveira, Europhys. Lett. , 79 10002 (2007).
* [43] J. A. Acebron,L. L. Bonilla, C. J. P. Vicente, F. Ritort and R. Spliger, Rev. Mod. Phys. , 77 137 (2005).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-02T17:30:23 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.614996 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Mendeli H. Vainstein, Luciano C. Lapas, and Fernando A. Oliveira",
"submitter": "Luciano Lapas Calheiros",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0270"
} |
0805.0313 | # On accelerated Universe expansion
L. V. Verozub leonid.v.verozub@univer.kharkov.ua Kharkov National University
###### Abstract
It is shown that observed peculiarities of the Universe expansion are an
inevitable consequence of the gravitational force properties following from
gauge-invariant gravitation equations considered in detail in an author’s
paper in Annalen der Physik, v.17, 28 (2008).
###### pacs:
04.50+h; 98.80.-k
††preprint: APS/123-QED
Numerous data testifying that the most distant galaxies move away from us with
acceleration where obtained for the last 8 years riess . This fact poses
serious problems both for fundamental physics and astrophysics weinberg . In
the present paper it is shown that the available observational data are an
inevitable consequence of properties of the gravitational force implying from
gauge-invariant gravitation equations Verozub08a . These equations were tested
successfully by binary pulsar $PSR~{}1913+16$ verkoch00 .
In Minkowski’s space-time the radial component of the gravitational force of a
point mass $M$ affecting the free- falling particle of mass $m$ is $m\ddot{r}$
where the acceleration $\ddot{r}=d^{2}r/dt^{2}$ must be found from the
gravitation equations in use. According to Verozub08a the force is given by
$F=-m\left[c^{2}C^{\prime}/2A+(A^{\prime}/2A-2C^{\prime}/2C)\dot{r}^{2}\right],$
(1)
where
$A=f^{\prime 2}/C,\ C=1-r_{\mathrm{g}}/f,\
f=(r_{\mathrm{g}}^{3}+r^{3})^{1/3},\,f^{\prime}=df/dt.$ (2)
In this equation the dot denotes the derivative with respect to $t$,
$r_{\mathrm{g}}=2GM/c^{2}$, $G$ is the gravitational constant, $c$ is the
speed of light at infinity, the prime denotes the derivative with respect to
$r$.
For particles at rest ($\dot{r}=0$ )
$F=-\frac{GmM}{r^{2}}\left[1-\frac{r_{\mathrm{g}}}{(r^{3}+r_{\mathrm{g}}^{3})^{1/3}}\right]$
(3)
Fig. 1 shows the force $F$ affecting a particle at rest and a particle free
falling from infinity as the function of the distance
$\overline{r}=r/r_{\mathrm{g}}$ from the centre.
Figure 1: The gravitational force (arbitrary units) affecting a free-falling
particle (the curve 1) and a particle at rest (the curve 2) near an attractive
point mass $M$.
It follows from Fig. 1 that the gravitational force affecting free-falling
particles changes its sign at $r\approx 2r_{\mathrm{g}}$ . Although we have
never yet observed particles motion at distances of the order of $r_{g}$ we
can verify this result for very distant objects in the Universe, at large
cosmological redshifts, because it is well-known that the radius of the
observed region of the Universe is of the order of its Schwarzschild radius.
A magnitude which is related with observations in the expanding Universe is
the relative velocity of distant star objects with respect to an observer. The
radial velocity $v=\dot{R}=dR/dt$ of particles on the surface of a
selfgravitating expanding homogeneous sphere of a radius $R$ can be obtained
from equations of the motion of a test particle Verozub08a :
$v=c\frac{Cf^{2}}{R^{2}}\sqrt{1-\frac{C}{\overline{E}^{2}}},$ (4)
where $C$ are the functions of the distance $R$, $r_{g}=(8/3)\pi c^{-2}G\rho
R^{3}$ is Schwarzshild’s radius of homogeneous matter inside of the sphere and
$\rho$ is the matter density. The parameter $\overline{E}$ is the constant
total energy of a particle divided by $mc^{2}$.
Fig. 2 shows the radial acceleration $\ddot{R}=v^{\prime}\dot{v}$ of a
particle on the surface of the sphere of the radius $R$ in flat space-time
Figure 2: The acceleration of particles on the surface of an sphere of the
radius $R$ for three value of the parameter $\overline{E}$. The matter density
is equal to $10^{-29}{g}\,{cm}^{-3}$.
Two conclusions can be made from this figure.
1\. At some distance from the observer the relative acceleration changes its
sign. If the $R<2\cdot 10^{27}{cm}$, the radial acceleration of particles is
negative. If $R>2\cdot 10^{27}{cm}$, the acceleration is positive. Hence, for
sufficiently large distances the gravitational force affecting particles is
repulsive and gives rise to a relative radial acceleration of particles with
respect to any observer.
2\. The gravitational force, affecting the particles, tends to zero when $R$
tends to infinity. (The same fact takes place as regards the force acting on
particles in the case of static matter). The reason of the fact is that at a
sufficiently large distance $R$ from the observer the Schwarzschild radius of
the matter inside of the sphere of the radius $R$ become of the same order as
its radius. Approximately at $R\sim 2\,r_{g}$ the gravitational force begin to
decrease. The ratio $R/r_{g}\rightarrow\infty$ tends to zero when $R$ tends to
infinity, and under the circumstances the gravitational force in the theory
under consideration tends to zero.
The above ball can be consedered as a part of the flat accelerating Universe
because like the case of Einstein’s equations a spherically-symmetric matter
layer does not create gravitational field inside itself Verozub08a .
Furthermore, to calculate the velocity of a particle at the distance $R$ from
the observer there is no necessity to demand a global spherical symmetry of
matter outside of the sphere due to the above second properties of the
gravitational force, because the gravitational influence of very distant
matter is neglected small. Therefore a relative velocity of particles at the
distance $R$ from the observer is determined by gravitational field of the
matter inside of the sphere of the radius $R$.
Proceeding from this equation we will find Hubble’s diagram, following mainly
the method being used in zeldovich . Let $\nu_{0}$. be a local frequency in
the proper reference frame of a moving light source at the distance $R$ from
an observer, $\nu_{l}$ be this frequency in a local inertial frame, and $\nu$
be the frequency as measured by the observer in the sphere centre. The
redshift $z=(\nu_{0}-\nu)/\nu$ is caused by both Doppler effect and
gravitational field. The Doppler effect is a consequence of a difference
between the local frequency of the source in inertial and comoving reference
frame, and it is given by landau
$\nu_{l}=\nu_{0}\,[1-\sqrt{(1-v/c)(1+v/c)}]$ (5)
The gravitational redshift is caused by the matter inside of the sphere of the
radius $R$. It is a consequence of the energy conservation for photon.
According to equations of the motion of a test particle Verozub08a the rest
energy of a particle in gravitation field is given by
$E=mc^{2}\sqrt{C}.$ (6)
Therefore, the difference in two local level $E_{1}$ and $E_{2}$ of an atom
energy in the field is $\Delta E=(E_{2}-E_{1})\sqrt{C}$, so that the local
frequency $\nu_{0}$ at the distance $R$ from an observer are related with the
observed frequency $\nu$ by equality
$\nu=\nu_{l}\sqrt{C},$ (7)
where we take into account that for the observer location $\sqrt{C}=1$. It
follows from (7) and (5) that the relationship between frequency $\nu$ as
measured by the observer and the proper frequency $\nu_{0}$ of the moving
source in the gravitational field takes the form
$\frac{\nu}{\nu_{0}}=\sqrt{C\,\frac{1-v/c}{1+v/c}}$ (8)
Equation (8) yields the quantity $z$ as a function of $R$.
By solving this equation numerically we obtain the dependence $R=R(z)$ of the
measured distance $R$ as a function of the redshift. Therefore the distance
modulus weinberg2 to a star object is given by
$\mu=5\,log_{10}[R(z)\,(z+1)]-5$ (9)
where $R(1+z)$ is a bolometric distance (in $pc$) to the object.
If (4) is a correct equation for the radial relative velocity of distant star
objects in the expansive Universe, it must to lead to the Hubble law at small
distances R. Under this condition the Schwarzschild radius $r_{g}=(8/3)\pi
G\rho R^{3}$ of the matter inside of the sphere is very small compared with
$R$. For this reason $f\approx r$, and $C=1-r_{g}/r$. Therefore, at
$\overline{E}=1$, we obtain from (4) that
$v=HR,$ (10)
where
$H=\sqrt{(8/3)\pi G\rho}.$ (11)
If $\overline{E}\neq 1$ equation (4) does not lead to the Hubble law, since
$v$ does not tend to zero when $R\rightarrow 0$. For this reason we set
$\overline{E}=1$ and look for the value of the density at which a good
accordance with observation data can be obtained.
The fig. (3) show the Hubble diagram based on eq. (9) compared with
observations data riess .
Figure 3: The distance modulus $\mu$ vs. the redshift $z$ for the density
$\rho=4.5\cdot 10^{-30}g\,cm^{-3}$. Small squares denote the observation data
according to Riess et al.
It follows from this figure that the model under consideration are in a good
accordance with observation data.
For the value of the density $\rho=4.5\cdot 10^{-30}g\,cm^{-3}$ we obtain from
(11) that
$H=1.59\cdot 10^{-18}c^{-1}=49\,km\,c^{-1}\,Mpc.$ (12)
Fig. 4 shows the dependence of the radial velocity $v$ on the redshift. It
follows from this figure that at $z>1$ the Universe expands with an
acceleration. At $R\rightarrow\infty$ the velocity and acceleration tend to
zero.
Figure 4: The radial velocity vs. redshift $z$ for the density $\rho=4.5\cdot
10^{-30}g\,cm^{-3}$
## References
* (1) A. Riess et al., ApJ 607, 665 (2004)
* (2) S. Weinberg, E-print astro-ph/0005265 (2000)
* (3) L.V̇erozub, Ann. Phys. (Berlin), 17, 28 (2008)
* (4) L. Verozub & A. Kochetov, Grav. and Cosm., 6, 246 (2000)
* (5) Ia. Zel’dovich, & I. Novikov, Relativistic Astrophysics, v. 2: The Structure and Evolution of the Universe (University of Chicago Press, 1971)
* (6) L. Landau & E. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Field (Addison - Wesley, Massachusetts, 1971)
* (7) S. Weinberg, S. 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology, (J. Wiley & Son Inc., 1972))
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-02T20:52:07 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.620105 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Leonid V. Verozub",
"submitter": "Leonid Verozub V",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0313"
} |
0805.0353 | # Equation of state for $\beta$-stable hot nuclear matter
Ch.C. Moustakidis and C.P. Panos
Department of Theoretical Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
###### Abstract
We provide an equation of state for hot nuclear matter in $\beta$-equilibrium
by applying a momentum-dependent effective interaction. We focus on the study
of the equation of state of high-density and high-temperature nuclear matter,
containing leptons (electrons and muons) under the chemical equilibrium
condition in which neutrinos have left the system. The conditions of charge
neutrality and equilibrium under $\beta$-decay process lead first to the
evaluation of proton and lepton fractions and afterwards of internal energy,
free energy, pressure and in total to the equation of state of hot nuclear
matter. Thermal effects on the properties and equation of state of nuclear
matter are assesed and analyzed in the framework of the proposed effective
interaction model. Special attention is dedicated to the study of the
contribution of the components of $\beta$-stable nuclear matter to the entropy
per particle, a quantity of great interest for the study of structure and
collapse of supernova.
PACS number(s): 21.65.+f, 21.30.Fe, 24.10.Pa, 26.60.+c, 26.50.+x
Keywards: Hot Nuclear Matter, Effective Interaction, Equation of State,
Nuclear Symmetry Energy, Proton Fraction, Neutron Star.
## 1 Introduction
The equation of state (EOS) of hot nuclear matter determines the structure
inside a supernova [1] and a hot neutron star [2, 3, 4] and affects the state
of matter, such as its chemical composition. In addition, the equation of
state plays important roles for the study of the supernova explosion, as well
as on determining the evolution of a neutron star at the birth stage. The
profiles of a neutron star as the density, temperature and proton fraction
during the cooling, which affect the reaction rate of neutrino process inside
the star, are determined through the equation of state.
There exist many calculations for hot nuclear matter with applications to the
properties of hot neutron stars and supernova [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40]. G. Baym et al. provided an EOS of
neutron matter [5] and Bethe et al. [6] an EOS for the gravitational collapse
of stars. Friedman and Pandharipande [7] performed variational calculations of
the equation of state of hot and cold, nuclear and neutron matter. Lattimer
and Swesty carried out calculations of the EOS for stellar collapse, using the
compressible liquid-drop model for nuclei [8]. M. Prakash et al. [2]
investigated the structure of neutron stars shortly after their birth, by
applying various nuclear models. Takatsuka et al. [9, 10] have performed
detailed calculations for supernova matter, within the framework of finite
temperature Hartree-Fock approach, with effective nucleon-nucleon interaction.
Recently Das et al. [11] have calculated the EOS of dense supernova matter
within the finite temperature Brueckner Goldstone approach with effective two-
body Sussex interaction.
The present work is based on the previous work of Prakash et al. [2]. More
specifically, in order to study the properties and the EOS of hot nuclear
matter, we apply a momentum-dependent effective interaction model (MDIM),
which is able to reproduce the results of more microscopic calculations of
dense matter at zero temperature and which can be extended to finite
temperature [2, 39, 40].
The aim of this work is to apply a momentum-dependent interaction model for
the study of hot nuclear matter EOS under $\beta$-equilibrium. The present
model has the additional property, compared to the previous ones, that the
temperature affects not only the kinetic part of the energy density, but also
influences the interaction part of the energy density as well. In that way, we
are able to study simultaneously thermal effects not only on the kinetic part
of the symmetry energy and symmetry free energy, but also on the interaction
part of the above quantities. This is important in the sense that the density
dependent behavior of the symmetry energy and symmetry free energy influence
strongly the values of the proton fraction and as a consequence the
composition of hot $\beta$-stable nuclear matter, under consideration.
Using the above method , we will show that the thermal energy (and also the
related quantities) depend sensitively on the momentum dependence of the
nuclear interaction. We concentrate our study on the properties of hot nuclear
matter in the density range $n_{0}<n<6n_{0}$ (where $n_{0}=0.16$ fm-3 is the
saturation density) and temperature range $0<T<30$ MeV, taking into account
that nuclear matter consists of neutrons, protons, electrons and muons with
their relative concentrations determined from the conditions of charge
neutrality and equilibrium under $\beta$-decay process in the absence of
neutrino trapping.
The article is organized as follows. In Sec. II the model and relative
formulas are discussed and analyzed. Results are reported and discussed in
Sec. III, whereas the summary of the work is given in Sec. IV.
## 2 The model
We start by outlining the momentum dependent interaction model, then we define
the thermodynamic quantities of nuclear matter and finally we analyze the
$\beta$-equilibrium conditions, the contribution on pressure and energy of
leptons and the total equation of state of nuclear matter.
### 2.1 Momentum dependent interaction model
The schematic potential model, employed here, is designed to reproduce the
results of the microscopic calculations of both nuclear and neutron-rich
matter at zero temperature and can be extended to finite temperature [2]. The
energy density of the asymmetric nuclear matter (ANM) is given by the relation
$\epsilon(n_{n},n_{p},T)=\epsilon_{kin}^{n}(n_{n},T)+\epsilon_{kin}^{p}(n_{p},T)+V_{int}(n_{n},n_{p},T),$
(1)
where $n_{n}$ ($n_{p}$) is the neutron (proton) density and the total baryon
density is $n=n_{n}+n_{p}$. The contributions of the kinetic parts are
$\epsilon_{kin}^{n}(n_{n},T)+\epsilon_{kin}^{p}(n_{p},T)=2\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}}{2m}\left(f_{n}(n_{n},k,T)+f_{p}(n_{p},k,T)\right),$
(2)
where $f_{\tau}$, (for $\tau=n,p$) is the Fermi-Dirac distribution function
with the form
$f_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T)=\left[1+\exp\left(\frac{e_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T)-\mu_{\tau}(n_{\tau},T)}{T}\right)\right]^{-1}.$
(3)
The nucleon density $n_{\tau}$ is evaluated from the following integral
$n_{\tau}=2\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}f_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T)=2\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[1+\exp\left(\frac{e_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T)-\mu_{\tau}(n_{\tau},T)}{T}\right)\right]^{-1}.$
(4)
In Eq. (3), $e_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T)$ is the single particle energy (SPE) and
$\mu_{\tau}(n_{\tau},T)$ stands for the chemical potential of each species.
The SPE has the form
$e_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T)=\frac{\hbar^{2}k^{2}}{2m}+U_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T),$ (5)
where the single particle potential $U_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T)$ is obtained by
the functional derivative of the interaction part of the energy density with
respect to the distribution function $f_{\tau}$. Including the effect of
finite-range forces between nucleons, to avoid acausal behavior at high
densities, the potential contribution is parameterized as follows [2]
$\displaystyle V_{int}(n_{n},n_{p},T)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{3}An_{0}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{0})I^{2}\right]u^{2}+\frac{\frac{2}{3}Bn_{0}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]u^{\sigma+1}}{1+\frac{2}{3}B^{\prime}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]u^{\sigma-1}}$
(6) $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle u\sum_{i=1,2}\left[C_{i}\left({\cal
J}_{n}+{\cal J}_{p}\right)+\frac{(C_{i}-8Z_{i})}{5}I\left({\cal J}_{n}-{\cal
J}_{p}\right)\right],$
where
${\cal J}_{\tau}=\
2\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}g(k,\Lambda_{i})f_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T).$ (7)
In Eq. (6), $I$ is the asymmetry parameter ($I=(n_{n}-n_{p})/n$) and
$u=n/n_{0}$, with $n_{0}$ denoting the equilibrium symmetric nuclear matter
density, $n_{0}=0.16$ fm-3. The asymmetry parameter $I$ is related to the
proton fraction $Y_{p}$ by the equation $I=(1-2Y_{p})$. The parameters $A$,
$B$, $\sigma$, $C_{1}$, $C_{2}$ and $B^{\prime}$, which appear in the
description of symmetric nuclear matter, are determined in order that
$E(n=n_{0})-mc^{2}=-16$ MeV, $n_{0}=0.16$ fm-3, and the incompressibility to
be $K=240$ MeV. The additional parameters $x_{0}$, $x_{3}$, $Z_{1}$, and
$Z_{2}$, which are used to determine the properties of asymmetric nuclear
matter, are treated as parameters constrained by empirical knowledge [2]. The
parameterizations used in the present model have only a modest microscopic
foundation. Nonetheless, they have the merit of being able to closely
approximate more physically motivated calculations as presented in Fig. 1.
More precisely, in Fig. 1 we compare the energy per baryon (for symmetric
nuclear matter (Fig. 1a) and pure neutron matter (Fig. 1b)) calculated by the
present schematic model (MDIM), with those of existent, state of the art
calculations by Wiringa et al. [41] and Pandharipande et al. [42].
The first two terms of the right-hand side of Eq. (6) arise from local contact
nuclear interaction which lead to power density contributions as in the
standard Skyrme equation of state. The first one concerns attractive
interaction while the second one is repulsive, and both are assumed to be
temperature independent. The third term describes the effects of finite range
interactions according to the chosen function $g(k,\Lambda_{i})$, and is the
temperature dependent part of the interaction. This interaction is attractive
and important at low momentum, but it weakens and disappears at very high
momentum. The function $g(k,\Lambda_{i})$, suitably chosen to simulate finite
range effects, has the following form [2]
$g(k,\Lambda)=\left[1+\left(\frac{k}{\Lambda_{i}}\right)^{2}\right]^{-1},$ (8)
where the finite range parameters are $\Lambda_{1}=1.5k_{F}^{0}$ and
$\Lambda_{2}=3k_{F}^{0}$ and $k_{F}^{0}$ is the Fermi momentum at the
saturation point $n_{0}$.
The main origin of the momentum dependence in Brueckner theory is the
nonlocality of the exchange interaction. Following the discussion of Bertsch
et al. [43] a single-particle potential $U(n)$ which depends only on the
baryon density is oversimplified. What is more, it is well known that nuclear
interaction has strong exchange effects which give rise to a momentum
dependence in the single-particle potential and as a consequence has an effect
on the energy density functional. The question here is how best to
parameterize the momentum dependence in modelling the potential $U(n,k)$. A
promising approach might be to adopt the relativistic mean field model, where
$U(n,k)=U_{\nu}n+\frac{U_{s}n}{\sqrt{1+k^{2}/m^{2}}}$. The above potential
exhibits a strong momentum dependence for small $k$ which diminishes to zero
at high momentum. In order to perform extensive studies in heavy ion collision
studies, Gale et al. [44] have proposed the following parametrization for the
momentum part of the single-particle
$U(n,k)\sim C\frac{n}{n_{0}}\frac{1}{1+({\bf k}-\langle{\bf
k}^{\prime}\rangle)^{2}/\Lambda^{2}}.$
This has a proper fall-off at high $k$ and Galilean invariance is assured by
measuring $k$ with respect to the average of the particles in the
neighborhood, $\langle{\bf k}^{\prime}\rangle$. For static nuclear matter we
have $\langle{\bf k}^{\prime}\rangle=0$.
The present model, which is a generalization of that proposed by Gale et al.
[44], has been successfully applied in heavy ion collisions and astrophysical
studies over the years [2, 3, 4, 27, 28, 33, 45, 46].
In order to clarify the relative contribution of the three terms of the
potential energy density mentioned above, we plot them as a function of the
baryon density in Fig. 2a. In this figure we have that
$\displaystyle V_{A}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{3}An_{0}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{0})I^{2}\right]u^{2},$
$\displaystyle V_{B}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{\frac{2}{3}Bn_{0}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]u^{\sigma+1}}{1+\frac{2}{3}B^{\prime}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]u^{\sigma-1}},$
(9) $\displaystyle V_{C}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
u\sum_{i=1,2}\left[C_{i}\left({\cal J}_{n}^{i}+{\cal
J}_{p}^{i}\right)+\frac{(C_{i}-8Z_{i})}{5}I\left({\cal J}^{i}_{n}-{\cal
J}_{p}^{i}\right)\right].$
As mentioned above, the first term $V_{A}$ corresponds to an attractive
interaction, whereas the second one $V_{B}$ corresponds to repulsive
interaction and dominates for high values of $n$ ($n>0.6$ fm-3). Both of these
terms are temperature independent. The third term $V_{C}$ (is plotted for
$T=0$) contains the momentum dependent part of the interaction, corresponds to
attractive interaction, and its main contribution is to compete with the
repulsive interaction of $V_{B}$ for high values of $n$ and as a consequence
avoid acausal behavior of the EOS at high densities. The term $V_{C}$ consists
of two finite range terms, one corresponding to a long-range attraction and
the other to a short-range repulsion.
Thermal effects on the momentum dependent term $V_{C}$ are displayed in Fig.
2b. The contribution of $V_{C}$ is plotted for various values of $T$. It is
therefore concluded that thermal effects are more pronounced for high values
of $T$ ($T>10$ MeV), leading to a less attractive contribution. More
precisely, we find that for small values of $n$ (i.e. $n=0.15$ fm-3 ) $V_{C}$
increases (compared to the cold case $T=0$) $3\%-20\%$ for $T=10-30$. For
higher values of $n$ the increase is even less.
An additional test for the present model is to compare the single particle
potential $U_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T)$ (or $U_{\tau}(n,I,k,T)$) originated from
the present version of the momentum dependent interaction with other
calculations. The single particle potential $U_{\tau}(n,I,k,T)$ (protons or
neutrons), obtained from the functional derivative of the interaction part of
the energy density (Eq. (6)) with respect to the distribution function
$f_{\tau}$, has the general form [40]
$U_{\tau}(n,I,k,T)=U_{\tau}^{A}(n,I)+U_{\tau}^{B}(n,I)+U_{\tau}^{MD}(n,I,k,T).$
(10)
It is of interest to see that the single particle potentials are separated
into two parts. The first one, $U_{\tau}^{A}(n,I)+U_{\tau}^{B}(n,I)$ is a
function only of the baryon density $n$ and the isospin asymmetry parameter
$I$. The second one, $U_{\tau}^{MD}(n,I,k,T)$ has an additional dependence on
$T$ and $k$. Actually, $U_{\tau}^{MD}(n,I,k,T)$ is mainly responsible for the
trend of the effective mass and also the effective mass splitting.
Additionally, it is connected with the effect of the temperature on the
interacting part of the energy density [40].
The single-particle potential in symmetric nuclear matter has been calculated
microscopically for several Hamiltonians by Wiringa [47]. These Hamiltonians
include nucleon-nucleon potentials fit to scattering data and three nucleon
potentials fit to binding energies of few-body nuclei and saturation
properties of nuclear matter. The potential was parameterized using the ansatz
$U(n,k)=\alpha(n)+\frac{\beta(n)}{1+(\frac{k}{\Lambda(n)})^{2}},$ (11)
where the density dependent parameters $\alpha(n)$, $\beta(n)$ and
$\Lambda(n)$, for three types Hamiltonians, are listed in Table I of Ref.
[47].
Furthermore, the single-particle potential has been derived by Li et al. [48].
The derivation is based upon the Bonn meson-exchange model for the nucleon-
nucleon interaction and the Dirac-Brueckner approach for nuclear matter. The
potential, named DBHF, has been parameterized as following
$U(n,k)=\alpha n+\beta n^{\gamma}+\delta\ln^{2}(\epsilon(\hbar
ck)^{2}+1)n^{\sigma}.$ (12)
The parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\delta$, $\epsilon$ and $\sigma$
are listed in Table I of Ref. [48].
A comparison with the results of UV14+TNI, UV14+UVII, AV14+UVII and DBHF
interactions show that (see Fig. 3) $U(n,k)$ (for $T=0$) obtained from the
present model is very reasonable for at least up to the value $k=3$ fm-1. The
agreement is not so good for high values of $k$, especially compared with the
DBHF interaction, but as has been pointed out by Li et al. [48], the
parametrization in Eq. 12 is bad for large $k$ since it continues to grow with
increasing $k$, while the exact potential becomes independent of $k$ for large
momenta. In conclusion, the present results show that the momentum dependent
interaction model, which has been applied in the present work, provides a
reliable representation of $U(n,k)$ for a wide range of density and momentum.
The energy density of asymmetric nuclear matter at density $n$ and temperature
$T$, in a good approximation, is expressed as
$\epsilon(n,T,I)=\epsilon(n,T,I=0)+\epsilon_{sym}(n,T,I),$ (13)
where
$\epsilon_{sym}(n,T,I)=nI^{2}E_{sym}^{tot}(n,T)=nI^{2}\left(E_{sym}^{kin}(n,T)+E_{sym}^{int}(n,T)\right).$
(14)
In Eq. (14) the nuclear symmetry energy $E_{sym}^{tot}(n,T)$ is separated in
two parts corresponding to the kinetic contribution $E_{sym}^{kin}(n,T)$ and
the interaction one $E_{sym}^{int}(n,T)$.
From Eqs. (13) and (14) and setting $I=1$, we find that the nuclear symmetry
energy $E_{sym}^{tot}(n,T)$ is given by
$E_{sym}^{tot}(n,T)=\frac{1}{n}\left(\epsilon(n,T,I=1)-\epsilon(n,T,I=0)\right).$
(15)
Thus, from Eq. (15) and by a suitable choice of the parameters $x_{0}$,
$x_{3}$, $Z_{1}$ and $Z_{2}$, we can obtain various forms for the density
dependence of the symmetry energy $E_{sym}^{tot}(n,T)$.
It is well known that the need to explore different forms for
$E_{sym}^{tot}(n,T)$ stems from the uncertain behavior at high density [2].
The high-density behavior of symmetry energy is the least known property of
dense matter [49, 50, 51], with different nuclear models giving contradictory
predictions. Thus, in relativistic mean field (RMF) models, the symmetry
energy increases strongly with the density of nuclear matter [52], while in
many realistic potential models of nuclear matter in the variational approach
[7, 53], the symmetry energy saturates and then bends over at higher
densities.
Recently, the density dependence of the symmetry energy in the equation of
state of isospin asymmetric nuclear matter has been studied using isoscaling
of the fragment yields and the antisymmetrized molecular dynamic calculation
[54]. It was observed that the experimental data at low densities are
consistent with the form of symmetry energy, $E_{sym}(u)\approx 31.6u^{0.69}$,
in close agreement with those predicted by the results of variational many-
body calculations. In Ref. [54] it was suggested also that the heavy ion
studies favor a dependence of the form $E_{sym}(u)\approx 31.6u^{\gamma}$,
where $\gamma=0.6-1.05$. This constrains the form of the density dependence of
the symmetry energy at higher densities, ruling out an extremely ”stiff” and
”soft” dependence [54].
Additionally, Chen et al. [55] also showed, using the isospin dependent
Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck transport model calculations, that a stiff density
dependence of the symmetry energy parameterized as, $E_{sym}(u)\approx
31.6u^{1.05}$ explains well the isospin diffusion data [56] from NSCL-MSU
(National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory at Michigan State University).
In this paper, since we are interested mainly in the study of thermal effects
on the nuclear symmetry energy, we choose a specific form for it, enabling us
to reproduce accurately the results of many other theoretical studies [57,
58]. In Ref. [57] the authors carried out a systematic analysis of the nuclear
symmetry energy in the formalism of the relativistic Dirac-Brueckner-Hartree-
Fock approach, using the Bonn one-boson-exchange potential. In a very recent
work [58], the authors applied a similar method as in Ref. [57] for the
microscopic predictions of the equation of state in asymmetric nuclear matter.
In that case $E_{sym}(u)$ is obtained employing the simple parametrization
$E_{sym}(u)=Cu^{\gamma}$ with $\gamma=0.7-1.0$ and $C\approx 32$ MeV. The
authors conclude that a value of $\gamma$ close to $0.8$ gives a reasonable
description of their predictions, although the use of different functions in
different density regions may be best for an optimal fit [58]. The results of
Refs. [57, 58] are well reproduced by parameterizing the nuclear symmetry
energy according to the formula
$E_{sym}^{tot}(n,T=0)=\underbrace{13u^{2/3}}_{Kinetic}+\underbrace{17F(u)}_{Interaction}.$
(16)
For the function $F(u)$, which parametrizes the interaction part of the
symmetry energy, we apply the following form
$F(u)=u.$ (17)
The parameters $x_{0}$, $x_{3}$, $Z_{1}$ and $Z_{2}$ are chosen so that Eq.
(15), for $T=0$, reproduces the results of Eq. (16) for the function $F(u)=u$.
In one of our previous paper [59], the potential part of the symmetry energy
has been parameterized in the generalized form, $F(u)=u^{c}$, and the obtained
nuclear equations of state are applied to the systematic study of the global
properties of a neutron star (masses, radii and composition). We obtained a
linear relation between the parameter $c$ and the radius and the maximum mass
of the neutron star [59]. Additionally, we found that a linear relation
between the radius and the derivative of the symmetry energy near the
saturation density $n_{0}$ holds [59].
It is worthwhile to point out that the above parametrization of the
interacting part of the nuclear symmetry energy is used extensively for the
study of neutron star properties [2, 60], as well as for the study of the
collisions of neutron-rich heavy ions at intermediate energies [61, 62]. For a
very recent review of the applications of the proposed momentum dependent
effective interaction model and its specific parameterizations, see Ref. [4]
(and references therein).
### 2.2 Thermodynamic description of hot nuclear matter
In order to study the properties of nuclear matter at finite temperature, we
need to introduce the Helmholtz free energy $F$. The differential of the total
free energy $F_{tot}$ (the total free energy of baryons contained in volume
$V$) and total internal energy $E_{tot}$ (the total internal energy of baryons
contained in volume $V$) are given by [63, 64]
${\rm d}F_{tot}=-S_{tot}{\rm d}T-P{\rm d}V+\sum_{i}\mu_{i}{\rm d}N_{i}$ (18)
${\rm d}E_{tot}=T{\rm d}S_{tot}-P{\rm d}V+\sum_{i}\mu_{i}{\rm d}N_{i}$ (19)
where $S_{tot}$ is the total entropy of the baryons, while $\mu_{i}$ and
$N_{i}$ are the chemical potential and the number of particles of each species
respectively.
It is easy to prove that the free energy per particle $F$ is written as [63,
64]
$F(n,T,I)=E(n,T,I)-TS(n,I,T).$ (20)
In Eq. (20), $E$ is the internal energy per particle, $E=\epsilon/n$, and $S$
is the entropy per particle, $S=s/n$. From Eq. (20) is also concluded that for
$T=0$, the free energy $F$ and the internal energy $E$ coincide.
The entropy density $s$ has the same functional form as that of a non
interacting gas system, given by the equation
$s_{\tau}(n,I,T)=-2\int\frac{d^{3}k}{(2\pi)^{3}}\left[f_{\tau}\ln
f_{\tau}+(1-f_{\tau})\ln(1-f_{\tau})\right].$ (21)
The total internal energy $E_{tot}$ is useful for studying isentropic
processes. In that description of a thermodynamic system, the pressure and the
chemical potential are defined as follows [63, 64]
$P=-\left(\frac{\partial E_{tot}}{\partial
V}\right)_{S,N_{i}}=n^{2}\left(\frac{\partial\epsilon/n}{\partial
n}\right)_{S,N_{i}},\qquad\qquad\qquad\mu_{i}=\left(\frac{\partial
E_{tot}}{\partial N_{i}}\right)_{S,V,N_{j\neq
i}}=\left(\frac{\partial\epsilon}{\partial n_{i}}\right)_{S,V,n_{j\neq i}}.$
(22)
Now we are going to study the properties and the EOS of nuclear matter by
considering an isothermal process. In that, the pressure and the chemical
potential are connected with the derivative of the total free energy
$F_{tot}$. More specifically, they are defined as follows
$P=-\left(\frac{\partial F_{tot}}{\partial
V}\right)_{T,N_{i}}=n^{2}\left(\frac{\partial f/n}{\partial
n}\right)_{T,N_{i}},\qquad\qquad\mu_{i}=\left(\frac{\partial F_{tot}}{\partial
N_{i}}\right)_{T,V,N_{j\neq i}}=\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial
n_{i}}\right)_{T,V,n_{j\neq i}},\qquad\qquad$ (23)
where $f$ is the free energy density.
The pressure $P$ can be calculated also from equations [63, 64]
$VP=TS_{tot}-E_{tot}+\sum_{i}\mu_{i}N_{i},\qquad{\rm or}\qquad\qquad
P=Ts-\epsilon+\sum_{i}\mu_{i}n_{i}.$ (24)
It is also possible to calculate the entropy per particle $S(n,T)$ by
differentiating the free energy density $f$ with respect to the temperature
$S(n,T)=-\left(\frac{\partial f/n}{\partial T}\right)_{V,N_{i}}.$ (25)
The comparison of the two entropies, that is from Eqs. (21) and (25), provides
a test of the approximation used in the present work.
It is easy to show by applying Eq. (23) that (see for a proof [60] as well as
[32])
$\displaystyle\mu_{n}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle F+u\left(\frac{\partial
F}{\partial u}\right)_{Y_{p},T}-Y_{p}\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial
Y_{p}}\right)_{n,T},$ $\displaystyle\mu_{p}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\mu_{n}+\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial Y_{p}}\right)_{n,T},$
$\displaystyle\hat{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\mu_{n}-\mu_{p}=-\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial
Y_{p}}\right)_{n,T}.$ (26)
We can define the symmetry free energy per particle $F_{sym}(n,T)$ by the
following parabolic approximation (see also [32, 33])
$F(n,T,I)=F(n,T,I=0)+I^{2}F_{sym}(n,T)=F(n,T,I=0)+(1-2Y_{p})^{2}F_{sym}(n,T),$
(27)
where
$F_{sym}(n,T)=F(n,T,I=1)-F(n,T,I=0).$ (28)
It is worthwhile to notice that the above approximation is not valid from the
beginning, but one needs to check the validity of the parabolic law in the
present model before using it. As we see later, that law is well satisfied as
well as the parabolic law holding for the energy.
Now, by applying Eq. (27) in Eq. (26), we obtain the key relation
$\hat{\mu}=\mu_{n}-\mu_{p}=4(1-2Y_{p})F_{sym}(n,T).$ (29)
The above equation is similar to that obtained for cold nuclear matter by
replacing $E_{sym}(n)$ with $F_{sym}(n,T)$.
### 2.3 $\beta$-equilibrium, leptons contribution and equation of state
Stable high density nuclear matter must be in chemical equilibrium for all
types of reactions, including the weak interactions, while $\beta$ decay and
electron capture take place simultaneously
$n\longrightarrow p+e^{-}+\bar{\nu}_{e},\qquad\qquad p+e^{-}\longrightarrow
n+\nu_{e}.$ (30)
Both types of reactions change the electron per nucleon fraction, $Y_{e}$ and
thus affect the equation of state. Here, we assume that neutrinos generated in
those reactions have left the system. The absence of neutrino-trapping has a
dramatic effect on the equation of state and mainly induces a significant
change on the values of the proton fraction $Y_{p}$ [9, 10]. The absence of
neutrinos implies that
$\hat{\mu}=\mu_{n}-\mu_{p}=\mu_{e}.$ (31)
When the energy of electrons is large enough (i.e. greater than the muon
mass), it is energetically favorable for the electrons to convert to muons
$e^{-}\longrightarrow\mu^{-}+\bar{\nu}_{\mu}+\nu_{e}.$ (32)
Denoting the muon chemical potential by $\mu_{\mu}$, the chemical equilibrium
established by the above process and its inverse is given by
$\mu_{e}=\mu_{\mu}.$
Taking into account that the threshold for muons occurs for
$\mu_{\mu}=m_{\mu}c^{2}\simeq 105.7$ MeV, one may expect muons to appear
roughly at nuclear density $n=0.16$ fm-3.
Thus, in total, we consider that nuclear matter contains neutrons, protons,
electrons, and muons. They are in a $\beta$-equilibrium, where the following
relations hold
$\mu_{n}=\mu_{p}+\mu_{e},\qquad\qquad\mu_{e}=\mu_{\mu}.$ (33)
Furthermore, they obey the charge neutrality condition i.e.
$n_{p}=n_{e}+n_{\mu}.$ (34)
The leptons (electrons and muons) density is given by the expression
$n_{l}=\frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int\frac{{\rm d}{\bf
k}}{1+\exp\left[\frac{\sqrt{\hbar^{2}k^{2}c^{2}+m_{l}^{2}c^{4}}-\mu_{l}}{T}\right]}.$
(35)
One can solve self-consistently Eqs. (29),(33),(34) and (35) in order to
calculate the proton fraction $Y_{p}$, the lepton fractions $Y_{e}$ and
$Y_{\mu}$, as well as the electron chemical potential $\mu_{e}$ as a function
of the baryon density $n$, for various values of the temperature $T$.
The next step is to calculate the energy and pressure of leptons given by the
following formulae
$\epsilon_{l}(n_{l},T)=\frac{2}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int\frac{\sqrt{\hbar^{2}k^{2}c^{2}+m_{l}^{2}c^{4}}\
{\rm d}{\bf
k}}{1+\exp\left[\frac{\sqrt{\hbar^{2}k^{2}c^{2}+m_{l}^{2}c^{4}}-\mu_{l}}{T}\right]},$
(36) $P_{l}(n_{l},T)=\frac{1}{3}\frac{2(\hbar
c)^{2}}{(2\pi)^{3}}\int\frac{1}{\sqrt{\hbar^{2}k^{2}c^{2}+m_{l}^{2}c^{4}}}\frac{\
k^{2}\ {\rm d}{\bf
k}}{1+\exp\left[\frac{\sqrt{\hbar^{2}k^{2}c^{2}+m_{l}^{2}c^{4}}-\mu_{l}}{T}\right]}.$
(37)
The chemical potentials of electrons and muons are equal and according to Eqs.
(29) and (33) are
$\mu_{e}=\mu_{\mu}=\mu_{p}-\mu_{n}=4\left(1-2Y_{p}(n,T)\right)F_{sym}(n,T)=4I(n,T)F_{sym}(n,T).$
(38)
The equation of state of hot nuclear matter in $\beta$-equilibrium
(considering that it consists of neutrons, protons, electrons and muons) can
be obtained by calculating the total energy density $\epsilon_{tot}$ as well
as the total pressure $P_{tot}$. The total energy density is given by
$\epsilon_{tot}(n,T,I)=\epsilon_{b}(n,T,I)+\sum_{l=e,\mu}\epsilon_{l}(n,T,I),$
(39)
where $\epsilon_{b}(n,T,I)$ and $\epsilon_{l}(n,T,I)$ are the contributions of
baryons and leptons respectively. The total pressure is
$P_{tot}(n,T,I)=P_{b}(n,T,I)+\sum_{l=e,\mu}P_{l}(n,T,I),$ (40)
where $P_{b}(n,T,I)$ is the contribution of the baryons (see Eq. (24)) i.e.
$P_{b}(n,T,I)=T\sum_{\tau=p,n}s_{\tau}(n,T,I)+\sum_{\tau=n,p}n_{\tau}\mu_{\tau}(n,T,I)-\epsilon_{b}(n,T,I),$
(41)
while $P_{l}(n,T,I)$ is the contribution of the leptons (see Eq. (37)). From
Eqs. (39) and (40) we can construct the isothermal curves for energy and
pressure and finally derive the isothermal behavior of the equation of state
of hot nuclear matter under $\beta$-equilibrium.
## 3 Results and Discussion
The schematic potential model, which has been applied in the present work, has
been designed to reproduce the results of the more microscopic calculations of
both nuclear and neutron-rich matter up to high values of baryon density (see
Fig. 1). The behavior of the high density EOS is of great significance to the
determination of hot protoneutron stars and cold neutron stars structure. The
model has the additional advantage that with the appropriate parametrization,
is able to reproduce different forms of the density dependence of the nuclear
symmetry energy.
In view of the above discussion we calculate the equation of state of hot
asymmetric nuclear matter by applying a momentum dependent effective
interaction model describing the baryons interaction. We consider that nuclear
matter contains neutrons, protons, electrons and muons under
$\beta$-equilibrium and charge neutrality. The key quantities in our
calculations are the proton fraction $Y_{p}$ and also the asymmetry free
energy defined in Eq. (28).
In order to check the validity of the parabolic approximation (27), we plot in
Fig. 4 the difference $F(n,T,I=1)-F(n,T,I=0)$ as a function of
$(1-2Y_{p})^{2}$ at temperature $T=10$ and $T=30$ MeV for three baryon
densities, i.e., $n=0.2$ fm-3, $n=0.3$ fm-3, and $n=0.4$ fm-3. It is seen that
in a good approximation an almost linear relation holds between
$F(n,T,I=1)-F(n,T,I=0)$ and $(1-2Y_{p})^{2}$. A similar behavior of
$F_{sym}(n,T)$ is found by Xu et al. [33], applying an isospin and momentum
dependent interaction model.
It is worth to present the calculation recipe of our work. The outline of our
approach is the following: For a fixed baryon density $n$, temperature $T$,
and asymmetry parameter $I$, Eq. (4) may be solved iteratively in order to
calculate the quantity
$\eta_{\tau}(n_{\tau},T)=\frac{\mu_{\tau}(n_{\tau},T)-\tilde{U}_{\tau}(n_{\tau},T)}{T},$
(42)
where
$\tilde{U}_{\tau}(n_{\tau},T)=U_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T)-\tilde{U}_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k).$
(43)
Knowledge of $\eta_{\tau}(n,T)$ allows the evaluation of
$\tilde{U}_{\tau}(n_{\tau},T)$, which then may be employed to infer the
chemical potential from
$\mu_{\tau}(n_{\tau},T)=T\eta_{\tau}(n_{\tau},T)+\tilde{U}(n_{\tau},T),$ (44)
required as an input for the calculation of the Fermi-Dirac distribution
function $f_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T)$. The knowledge of $f_{\tau}(n_{\tau},k,T)$
permits the calculation of the bulk quantities of asymmetric nuclear matter.
$F_{sym}(n,T)$, for various values of the temperature $T$, was derived with a
least-squares fit to the numerical values according to Eq. (28) and has the
form
$\displaystyle F_{sym}(u;T=0)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 13u^{2/3}+17u$
$\displaystyle F_{sym}(u;T=5)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
3.653+28.018u-1.512u^{2}+0.185u^{3}-0.001u^{4},$ $\displaystyle
F_{sym}(u;T=10)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
5.995+26.157u-0.827u^{2}+0.068u^{3}-0.002u^{4},$ $\displaystyle
F_{sym}(u;T=20)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
13.200+21.267u+0.800u^{2}-0.193u^{3}+0.014u^{4},$ $\displaystyle
F_{sym}(u;T=30)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
21.087+17.626u+1.645u^{2}-0.289u^{3}+0.018u^{4}.$ (45)
where the case with $T=0$, is included as well. In that case $F_{sym}$
coincides with $E_{sym}$.
In Fig. 5 we present the behavior of the free energy, corresponding to hot
$\beta$-stable nuclear matter, as a function of the baryon density $n$, for
various values of the temperature $T$. It is obvious that the thermal effects
are more pronounced for low values of the density $n$.
In Fig. 6 we plot the calculated free energy for symmetric nuclear matter and
pure neutron matter of the proposed momentum dependent interaction model in
comparison with the values of the free energy calculated by Friedman and
Pandharipande (FP model) [7]. In the FP model the equation of state of hot and
cold nuclear and neutron matter has been calculated in the framework of a
variational calculation, where a realistic nuclear interaction containing two-
and three-nucleon body nucleon-nucleon interaction has been used. In the case
of symmetric nuclear matter the results of the two models are very similar up
to values $n=0.4-0.5$ fm-3 depending on the values of $T$. The above agreement
is expected, in the sense that a part of the parameters of the model applied
in the present work are determined from constraints provided by the empirical
properties of symmetric nuclear matter at the equilibrium density $n_{0}=0.16$
fm-3.
However, there is an obvious disagreement in the case of pure nuclear matter,
where in the two models the free energy exhibits a different trend, especially
for higher values of $n$. The above disagreement will be explained below.
In Fig. 7 we display the internal energy per particle $E(n,T)=\epsilon(n,T)/n$
given by Eq. (1) for various values of temperature. Thermal effects, as
expected, are more pronounced for low values of the baryon density $n$ and
less important for high values of $n$.
In Fig. 8 we display the internal energy of symmetric nuclear matter and pure
neutron matter, for $T=0$, calculated by the MDIM and FP models. In accordance
with the case of the free energy, there is a very good agreement in symmetric
nuclear matter, but an obvious disagreement is exhibited in pure neutron
matter. The explanation of the agreement in the first case is the same as in
the case of the free energy. The disagreement is due to the completely
different behavior of the two models of the nuclear symmetry energy, presented
in Fig. 9. In our model the parameters $x_{0}$, $x_{3}$, $Z_{1}$ and $Z_{2}$
chosen so that Eq. (15), for $T=0$, reproduce the results of Eq. (16) for the
function $F(u)=u$. Consequently, $E_{sym}(n)$ shows an increasing trend shown
in Fig. 9. In contrast, in the FP model, $E_{sym}(n)$ is a slightly increasing
function of $n$ for low $n$ and then a decreasing function of $n$ for $n>0.5$
fm-3.
In addition, we plot the nuclear symmetry energy extracted from experimental
results and presented in Ref. [54], where $E_{sym}(u)$ is parameterized
according to the relation $E_{sym}(u)\approx 31.6u^{0.69}$ as well as
experimental results extracted from Ref. [55], where $E_{sym}(u)$ is given by
$E_{sym}(u)\approx 31.6u^{1.05}$. The important point to be noted is that both
cases clearly favor a stiff density dependence of the symmetry energy at
higher densities, ruling out the very stiff and very soft predictions. These
results can thus be employed to constrain the form of the density dependence
of the symmetry energy at supranormal densities relevant for neutron star
studies [54]. In the same figure the theoretical predictions of Ref. [58] are
presented, where $E_{sym}(u)$ is parameterized by $E_{sym}(u)\approx
32u^{0.8}$.
The results of Ref. [54] are in a good agrement with the present model up to
$n=0.3$ fm-3 while the theoretical predictions of Ref. [58] are very close to
the present model up to very high values of the baryon density $n$.
However, our motivation, here, is not to perform a systematic comparison of
various models, but we would like just to present the similarities and the
deviations existing between the models. The deviations, concerning the
symmetry energy behavior of the two models (MDIM and FP model) are well
reflected on the behavior of the free energy and internal energy of pure
neutron matter as shown in Figs. 6 and 8.
In Fig. 10 we plot the thermal energy per particle
$E_{thermal}(n,T)=E(n,T)-E(n,T=0),$
of $\beta$-stable matter as a function of the baryon density $n$ for various
values of temperature $T$. The most striking feature of $E_{thermal}(n,T)$ is
that for small values of $T$, the thermal contribution to the internal energy
is almost independent of the density $n$. For high values of $T$ the situation
is different and $E_{thermal}(n,T)$, for fixed values of $T$, is a decreasing
function of the density $n$.
$E_{thermal}(n,T)$ can be decomposed to separate contributions of the kinetic
and potential energies as follows:
$E_{thermal}(n,T)=E_{thermal}^{kin}(n,T)+E_{thermal}^{pot}(n,T).$
We find that for small values of the baryon density (i.e. $n=0.2$ fm-3) the
contribution, to $E_{thermal}(n,T)$ of the potential energy
$E_{thermal}^{pot}(n,T)$ is $20\%-10\%$ for $T=5-30$ MeV. For medium values of
$n$ (i.e. $n=0.4$ fm-3) is $43\%-20\%$ for $T=5-30$ MeV and for higher values
(i.e. $n=0.6$ fm-3) is $70\%-30\%$ for $T=5-30$ MeV. Hence, it is concluded
that the potential part of the energy (as a result of the momentum dependence
of the interaction) contributes significantly to the thermal energy, mainly
for small values of $T$ (for fixed values of $n$) and for large values of $n$
(for fixed values of $T$).
At this point, it is worthwhile to compare the results for the pressure
obtained by applying Eqs. (24) and (23). Thus, in Fig. 11 we plot $P$ of
asymmetric nuclear matter for $Y_{p}=0.1$ and $0.3$ at $T=10$ and $30$ MeV.
The full lines give the results calculated from Eq. (24), while the squares
give results obtained by differentiating $F(n,T)$ (Eq. (23)). The two
calculations for the pressure are in excellent agreement. This agreement
provides a test of the calculations performed in the present model.
It is of interest also to study the effect of the temperature on the baryon
pressure defined by equation (24). A related quantity is the thermal pressure
$P_{thermal}(n,T)$ defined as:
$P_{thermal}(n,T)=P(n,T)-P(n,T=0).$
$P_{thermal}(n,T)$ as a function of $n$, for various values of $T$ is seen in
Fig. 12. $P_{thermal}(n,T)$, in all of the cases, is an increasing function of
the baryon density.
The proton fraction affects the reaction rate of neutrino process inside that
star. If a neutron star has a large proton fraction, the cooling rate may
drastically change through the high neutrino emissivity due to the direct Urca
process. This process can occur if the proton fraction in the matter of a cold
neutron star exceeds the critical value of $0.11$-$0.15$ and would lead to the
rapid cooling of the neutron star. Thus, it is important to calculate the
proton fraction as a function of the baryon density and investigate the
temperature effects on that.
Fig. 13 displays the fractions of protons, electrons and muons as functions of
the density, for various values of $T$. The proton fraction is an increasing
function of $T$ and this effect is more pronounced for $T>10$ MeV. The proton
fraction $Y_{p}$ was derived also with a least-squares fit to the numerical
results obtained from our calculations, leading to the following relations
(for $n>0.15$ fm-3).
$\displaystyle Y_{p}(n;T=0)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-0.050+0.633n-0.521n^{2}+0.184n^{3},$ $\displaystyle
Y_{p}(n;T=5)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-0.046+0.625n-0.514n^{2}+0.179n^{3},$ $\displaystyle
Y_{p}(n;T=10)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-0.032+0.570n-0.436n^{2}+0.139n^{3},$ (46) $\displaystyle
Y_{p}(n;T=20)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
0.021+0.378n-0.163n^{2}+0.004n^{3},$ $\displaystyle Y_{p}(n;T=30)$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
0.109-0.062n+0.908n^{2}-1.270n^{3}+0.580n^{4}.$
In Fig. 14 we plot the Fermi distribution function $f_{p,n}(n,T)$ both for
neutrons and protons for various values of $T$. We observe that the
diffuseness of $f_{p}(n,T)$ is larger than that of $f_{n}(n,T)$. We give an
explanation (see also [9]): the ratio of $T$ to the Fermi kinetic energy
$\epsilon_{Fi}$ is a measure of the thermal effect. Thus by comparing the two
ratios we have (see also Appendix)
$\left(\frac{(T/\epsilon_{Fp})}{(T/\epsilon_{Fn})}\right)={k_{F}^{n}}^{2}/{k_{F}^{p}}^{2}=Y_{n}^{3/2}/Y_{p}^{3/2}.$
But, due to $Y_{n}>Y_{p}$, we conclude that we expect the diffuseness to be
larger for the proton distribution than for the neutron one, depending of
course on the specific value of the ratio $Y_{p}/Y_{n}$. As we will see later,
this fact influences the values of the contributions of protons and neutrons
to the total entropy per particle. The entropy, according to relation (21), is
an increasing function of the diffuseness. Thus, the contribution of each
species on the total value of the entropy depends strongly on the diffuseness
of the corresponding Fermi distribution function.
We can provide a second test, concerning the accuracy of the present
calculations, by comparing the entropy per baryon calculated by applying Eqs.
(21) and (25). Thus, in Fig. 15 we plot $S$ of asymmetric nuclear matter with
$Y_{p}=0.2$ at $T=10,20,30$ MeV. The full lines give the entropy calculated
from Eq. (21), while the squares give results obtained by differentiating
$F(n,T)$ with respect to $T$ (Eq. (25)). It is obvious that there is again a
very good agreement of the results, especially for low values of $T$ and high
values of $n$.
In Fig. 16 we plot the contribution of the proton $S_{p}$, the neutron $S_{n}$
and the total entropy per baryon $S$. It is obvious that there is a strong
effect of $T$ on the values of the entropies mainly for low values of the
density. The main part of the contribution comes from neutrons, whereas the
contribution of protons is three times less. It is worthwhile to notice that,
in spite of $Y_{p}\sim(1/20-3/10)Y_{n}$, the approximate relation
$S_{p}\sim(1/4-3/7)S_{n}$ holds. This feature is understood by the previous
discussion that $f_{p}(n,T)$ is diffused more broadly than $f_{n}(n,T)$, so
the larger the diffuseness, the larger is the entropy contribution (see also
[9]).
In Fig. 17 we plot the contribution of the electronic $S_{e}$, the muonic
$S_{\mu}$ and the total (leptonic) $S_{l}$ to the entropy per baryon. The
contribution to the entropy, of $S_{e}$ depends slightly on the density, for
fixed values of $T$. Our present results are very close to those found by Onsi
et al. [19], where they employed the analytical approximate formula for the
electron entropy density $s_{e}$
$s_{e}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\mu_{e}^{2}}{(\hbar c)^{3}}T,\qquad\qquad\mu_{e}=\hbar
c(3\pi^{2}Y_{e}n)^{1/3}.$ (47)
According to the above formula, the contribution of electrons to the entropy
per baryon has the form
$S_{e}=s_{e}/n\sim\left(\frac{Y_{e}^{2}}{n}\right)^{1/3}T.$ (48)
The quantity $\left(\frac{Y_{e}^{2}}{n}\right)^{1/3}$ is a function slightly
dependent on the density $n$, so that for a fixed value of $T$ the
contribution $S_{e}$ is almost constant. The muonic contribution to the
entropy, for fixed $T$, increases slightly as a function of the density.
In Fig. 18 we present the EOS of the $\beta$-stable hot nuclear matter by
taking into account and analyzing the contribution to the total pressure of
each component. The main contribution to the total pressure originates from
the baryons, while the contribution of the leptons is about a few percent
compared to $P_{b}$. It is worthwhile to notice that thermal effects are not
important for the calculation of $P_{e}$, but only for $P_{\mu}$, especially
for small values of $n$ ($n<0.4$ fm-3). We found that thermal effects produce
a slightly stiffer equation of state with respect to the case of cold nuclear
matter. The above EOS can be applied to the evaluation of the bulk properties
of hot neutron stars (mass and radius).
The study of hot nuclear matter in the absence of neutrino trapping is the
first step to study the properties of hot neutron stars and supernova matter.
Next, one can study the more realistic case of neutrino-trapped matter in
$\beta$-equilibrium. In this case, the $\beta$-equilibrium conditions in
matter are altered from the case in which neutrinos have left the system and
thus the composition of matter is affected. The proton fraction increases
dramatically and influences significantly the properties of nuclear matter.
Such a work is in progress.
## 4 Summary
The evaluation of the equation of state of hot nuclear matter is an important
problem in nuclear physics and astrophysics. EOS is the basis ingredient for
the study of the supernova explosion as well as on determining the properties
of hot neutron stars. The motivation of the present work is to apply a
momentum-dependent interaction model for the study of the hot nuclear matter
EOS under $\beta$-equilibrium in order to be able to study simultaneously
thermal effects, not only on the kinetic part of the symmetry energy and
symmetry free energy, but also on the interaction part of the above quantities
as well. We calculate the proton fraction, as well as the lepton fractions, by
applying the constraints for chemical equilibrium and charge neutrality. The
free energy, the internal energy and also the pressure are calculated as
functions of baryon density and for various values of temperature. We also
concentrate on the evaluation of thermal effects on the internal energy and
baryon pressure. Special attention is dedicated to the study of the
contribution of the components of $\beta$-stable nuclear matter on the entropy
per particle, a quantity of great interest in the study of structure and
collapse of supernova. We present and analyze the contribution of each
component. Finally, we present the EOS of $\beta$-stable hot nuclear matter,
by taking into account and analyzing the contributions to the total pressure
of each component. The above EOS can be applied to the evaluation of the gross
properties of hot neutron stars i.e. mass and radius, (work in progress).
## Acknowledgments
One of the authors (Ch.C.M) would like to thank Professor Tatsuyauki Takatsuka
for valuable comments and correspondence.
## Appendix
The energy density of baryons (Eq. (1)), at $T=0$, is given by
$\displaystyle\epsilon(n,I,T=0)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{3}{10}E_{F}^{0}n_{0}u^{5/3}\left[(1+I)^{5/3}+(1-I)^{5/3}\right]+\frac{1}{3}An_{0}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{0})I^{2}\right]u^{2}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{\frac{2}{3}Bn_{0}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]u^{\sigma+1}}{1+\frac{2}{3}B^{\prime}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]u^{\sigma-1}}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}n_{0}u\sum_{i=1,2}\left[C_{i}+\frac{C_{i}-8Z_{i}}{5}I\right]\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{3}\left(\frac{\left((1+I)u\right)^{1/3}}{\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}}-\tan^{-1}\frac{\left((1+I)u\right)^{1/3}}{\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}}\right)$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}n_{0}u\sum_{i=1,2}\left[C_{i}-\frac{C_{i}-8Z_{i}}{5}I\right]\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{3}\left(\frac{\left((1-I)u\right)^{1/3}}{\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}}-\tan^{-1}\frac{\left((1-I)u\right)^{1/3}}{\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}}\right).$
The pressure of the baryons, at $T=0$, defined as
$P=n^{2}\frac{d(\epsilon/n)}{dn},$
is given by
$\displaystyle P(n,I,T=0)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{5}n_{0}E_{F}^{0}u^{5/3}\left[(1+I)^{5/3}+(1-I)^{5/3}\right]+\frac{1}{3}n_{0}u^{2}A\left[\frac{3}{2}-\left(\frac{1}{2}+x_{0}\right)I^{2}\right]$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle\frac{2}{3}B\sigma
n_{0}u^{\sigma+1}\frac{\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]\left(1+\frac{2}{3\sigma}B^{\prime}u^{\sigma-1}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]\right)}{\left(1+\frac{2}{3}B^{\prime}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]u^{\sigma-1}\right)^{2}}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{n_{0}u^{2}}{2}\sum_{i=1,2}\left[C_{i}+\frac{C_{i}-8Z_{i}}{5}I\right]\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}\frac{(1+I)^{1/3}}{u^{2/3}}\left(1-\frac{1}{1+\frac{(1+I)^{2/3}u^{2/3}}{\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}}}\right)$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{n_{0}u^{2}}{2}\sum_{i=1,2}\left[C_{i}-\frac{C_{i}-8Z_{i}}{5}I\right]\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}\frac{(1-I)^{1/3}}{u^{2/3}}\left(1-\frac{1}{1+\frac{(1-I)^{2/3}u^{2/3}}{\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}}}\right).$
In Eq. (Appendix) $E_{F}^{0}$ is the Fermi energy of symmetric nuclear matter
corresponding to equilibrium density $n_{0}$ and is given by
$E_{F}^{0}=\frac{\left(\hbar k_{F}^{0}\right)^{2}}{2m},\qquad
k_{F}^{0}=\left(3\pi^{2}\frac{n_{0}}{2}\right)^{1/3}.$ (51)
The Fermi momenta of protons and neutrons are
$k_{F}^{p}=\left(3\pi^{2}xn\right)^{1/3}=\left(3\pi^{2}\frac{1-I}{2}n\right)^{1/3},$
$k_{F}^{n}=\left(3\pi^{2}(1-x)n\right)^{1/3}=\left(3\pi^{2}\frac{1+I}{2}n\right)^{1/3}.$
The chemical potentials of protons and neutrons, at $T=0$, are given by
$\displaystyle\mu_{n}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle E+u\left(\frac{\partial
E}{\partial u}\right)_{Y_{p}}-Y_{p}\left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial
Y_{p}}\right)_{n},$ $\displaystyle\mu_{p}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\mu_{n}+\left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial Y_{p}}\right)_{n},$
(52) $\displaystyle\hat{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\mu_{n}-\mu_{p}=-\left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial
Y_{p}}\right)_{n},$
where
$\displaystyle\left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial u}\right)_{Y_{p}}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{5}E_{F}^{0}u^{-1/3}\left[(1+I)^{5/3}+(1-I)^{5/3}\right]+\frac{1}{3}A\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{0})I^{2}\right]$
(53) $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{\frac{2}{3}Bu^{\sigma-1}\sigma\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]\left(1+\frac{2}{3\sigma}B^{\prime}u^{\sigma-1}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]\right)}{\left(1+\frac{2}{3}B^{\prime}u^{\sigma-1}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]\right)^{2}}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1,2}\left[C_{i}+\frac{C_{i}-8Z_{i}}{5}I\right]\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}\frac{(1+I)^{1/3}}{u^{2/3}}\left(1-\frac{1}{1+\frac{(1+I)^{2/3}u^{2/3}}{\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}}}\right)$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1,2}\left[C_{i}-\frac{C_{i}-8Z_{i}}{5}I\right]\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}\frac{(1-I)^{1/3}}{u^{2/3}}\left(1-\frac{1}{1+\frac{(1-I)^{2/3}u^{2/3}}{\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}}}\right),$
$\displaystyle\left(\frac{\partial E}{\partial Y_{p}}\right)_{n}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}E_{F}^{0}u^{2/3}\left[(1+I)^{2/3}-(1-I)^{2/3}\right]-\frac{1}{3}Au(\frac{1}{2}+x_{0})I$
(54) $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{\frac{2}{3}Bu^{\sigma}(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I}{\left(1+\frac{2}{3}B^{\prime}u^{\sigma-1}\left[\frac{3}{2}-(\frac{1}{2}+x_{3})I^{2}\right]\right)^{2}}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}\sum_{i=1,2}\left[\frac{C_{i}-8Z_{i}}{5}I\right]\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{3}\left(\frac{\left((1+I)u\right)^{1/3}}{\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}}-\tan^{-1}\frac{\left((1+I)u\right)^{1/3}}{\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}}\right)$
$\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}\sum_{i=1,2}\left[\frac{C_{i}-8Z_{i}}{5}I\right]\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{3}\left(\frac{\left((1-I)u\right)^{1/3}}{\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}}-\tan^{-1}\frac{\left((1-I)u\right)^{1/3}}{\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}}\right)$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1,2}\left[C_{i}+\frac{C_{i}-8Z_{i}}{5}I\right]\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}\frac{u^{1/3}}{(1+I)^{2/3}}\left(1-\frac{1}{1+\frac{(1+I)^{2/3}u^{2/3}}{\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}}}\right)$
$\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1,2}\left[C_{i}-\frac{C_{i}-8Z_{i}}{5}I\right]\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}\frac{u^{1/3}}{(1-I)^{2/3}}\left(1-\frac{1}{1+\frac{(1-I)^{2/3}u^{2/3}}{\left(\frac{\Lambda_{i}}{k_{F}^{0}}\right)^{2}}}\right).$
## References
* [1] H.A. Bethe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 801 (1990); H.A. Bethe, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 38, 1 (1988).
* [2] Madappa Prakash, I. Bombaci, Manju Prakash, P.J. Ellis, J.M. Lattimer, R. Knorren, Phys. Rep. 280, 1 (1997).
* [3] B.A. Li, and W. Udo Schröder, Isospin Physics in Heavy-Ion Collisions at Intermediate Energies (New York: Nova Science) (2001).
* [4] B.A. Li, L.W. Chen, and C.M. Ko, Phys. Rep. 464, 113 (2008).
* [5] G. Baym, H.A. Bethe, and C.J. Pethick, Nucl. Phys. A 175, 225 (1971).
* [6] H.A. Bethe, G.E. Brown, J. Applegate, and J.M. Lattimer, Nucl. Phys. A 324, 487 (1979).
* [7] B. Friedman and V.R. Pandharipande, Nucl. Phys. A 361, 502 (1981).
* [8] J.M. Lattimer and F.D. Swesty, Nucl. Phys. A 535, 331 (1991).
* [9] T. Takatsuka, S. Nishizaki, and J. Hiura, Progr. of Theor. Phys. 92, 779 (1994).
* [10] T. Takatsuka, Progr. of Theor. Phys. 95, 901 (1996).
* [11] C. Das, R. Sahu, and A. Mishra, Phys. Rev. C 75, 015807 (2007).
* [12] Bernard ter Haar and R. Malfliet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1237 (1986).
* [13] I. Bombaci, Madappa Prakash, Manju Prakash, P.J Ellis, J.M. Lattimer, and G.E. Brown, Nucl. Phys. A 583, 623 (1995).
* [14] W.A. Küpper, G. Wegmann, and E.R. Hilf, Ann. of Phys. 88, 454 (1974).
* [15] J.M. Lattimer and D.G. Ravenhall, Astr. Jour. 223, 314 (1978).
* [16] M.F. El Eid and W. Hillebrandt, Astron. Astrophy. Suppl. Ser. 42, 215 (1980).
* [17] P. Lamb, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. 188, 565 (1979).
* [18] H.M. Antia, B. Banerjee, and S.M. Chitre, Astr. Sp. Scien. 69, 471 (1980).
* [19] M. Onsi, H. Przysiezniak, and J.M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C 50, 460 (1994).
* [20] K. Sumiyoshi and H. Toki, Astr. Jour. 422, 700 (1994).
* [21] J.M. Lattimer, C.J. Pethick, D.G. Ravenhall, and D.Q. Lamb, Nucl. Phys. A 432, 646 (1985).
* [22] H. Kanzawa, K. Oyamatsu, K. Sumiyoshi, and M. Takano, Nucl. Phys. A 791, 232 (2007).
* [23] M. Modarres, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 23, 923 (1997); M. Modarres, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 21, 351 (1995); M. Modarres, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 19, 1349 (1993).
* [24] R. Manka, I. Bednarek, and G. Przybyla, Phys. Rev. C 62, 015802 (2000).
* [25] W. Zuo, Z.H. Li, A. Li, G.C. Lu, Phys. Rev. C 69, 064001 (2003).
* [26] L.W. Chen, F.S. Zhang, Z.H. Lu, W.F. Li, Z.Y. Zhu, H.R. Ma, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 27, 1799 (2001).
* [27] V.K. Mishra, G. Fai, L.P. Csernai, E. Osnes, Phys. Rev. C 47, 1519 (1993).
* [28] L.P. Csernai, G. Fai, C. Gale, E. Osnes, Phys. Rev. C 46, 736 (1992).
* [29] S.J. Lee, A.Z. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. C 63, 044605 (2001); A.Z. Mekjian, S.J. Lee, L. Zamick, Phys. Rev. C 72, 044305 (2005); A.Z. Mekjian, S.J. Lee, L. Zamick, Phys. Lett. B 621, 239 (2005); S.J. Lee, A.Z. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. C 77, 054612 (2008).
* [30] H. Müller and B.D. Serot, Phys. Rev. C 52, 2072 (1995).
* [31] M. Baldo and Ferreira, Phys. Rev. C 59, 682 (1999).
* [32] G.F. Burgio, M. Baldo, O.E. Nicotra, and H.J. Schulze, Astrophys. Space Sci. 308, 387 (2007); O.E. Nicotra, M. Baldo, G.F. Burgio, and H.J. Schulze, Astron. and Astroph. 451, 213 (2006).
* [33] J. Xu, L.W. Chen, B.A. Li, H.R. Ma, Phys. Rev. C 75, 014607 (2007).
* [34] P. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 61, 054904 (2000).
* [35] P.K. Jena, and L.P. Singh, Phys. Rev. C 70, 045803 (2004).
* [36] J.N. De, N. Rudra, S. Pal, and S.K. Samaddar, Phys. Rev. C 53, 780 (1996); T. Sil, B.K. Agrawal, J.N. De, and S.K. Samaddar, Phys. Rev. C 63, 054604 (2001); S.K. Samaddar, J.N. De, X. Viñas, and M. Centelles, Phys. Rev. C 76, 041602 (R) (2007).
* [37] L. Tolos, B. Frieman, and A. Schwenk, Nucl. Phys. A 806, 105 (2008).
* [38] M. Abd-Alla, H.S. Ragab, and M.Y.M. Hassan, Acta Phys. Pol. B 24, 1519 (1993).
* [39] Ch.C. Moustakidis, Phys. Rev. C 76, 025805 (2007).
* [40] Ch.C. Moustakidis, Phys. Rev. C 78, 054323 (2008).
* [41] R.B. Wiringa, V. Fiks, and A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. C 38, 1010 (1988).
* [42] A. Akmal, V.R. Pandharipande, and D.G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1804 (1998).
* [43] G.F. Bertsch and S. Das Gupta, Phys. Rep. 160, 189 (1988).
* [44] C. Gale, G.F. Bertsch, and S. Das Gupta, Phys. Rev. C 35, 1666 (1987).
* [45] M. Prakash, T.T.S. Kuo, and S. Das Gupta, Phys. Rev. C 37, 2253 (1988); G.M. Welke, M. Prakash, T.T.S. Kuo, S. Das Gupta, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 38, 2101 (1988);C. Gale, G.M. Welke, M. Prakash, S.J. Lee, and S. Das Gupta, Phys. Rev. C 41, 1545 (1990);
* [46] B.A. Li, C.B. Das, S. Das Gupta, and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C 69, 011603(R) (2004); C.B. Das, S. Das Gupta, C. Gale, and B.A. Li, Phys. Rev. C 67, 034611 (2003); L.W. Chen, C.M. Ko, and B.A. Li, Phys. Rev. C 69, 054606 (2004); B.A. Li, C.B. Das, S. Das Gupta, and C. Gale, Nucl. Phys. A 735, 563 (2004); B.A. Li, L.W. Chen, G.C. Yong, and W. Zuo, Phys. Lett. B 634, 378 (2006); B.A. Li and A.W. Steiner, Phys. Lett. B 642, 436 (2006).
* [47] R.B. Wiringa, Phys. Rev. C 38, 2707 (1988).
* [48] G.Q. Li and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. C 48, 2967 (1993).
* [49] M. Kutschera, Phys. Lett. B 340, 1 (1994); M. Kutschera, Z. Phys. A 348, 263 (1994); M. Kutschera, Acta Phys. Pol. B 29, 25 (1998); S. Kubis, M. Kutschera, Nucl. Phys. A 720, 189 (2003).
* [50] B.A. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 192701 (2002).
* [51] C. Fuchs and H.H. Wolter, Eur. Phys. J. A 30, 5 (2006).
* [52] N.K. Glendenning, Compact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, and General Relativity, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997.
* [53] R.B. Wiringa, V. Fiks, and A. Fabrocini, Phys. Rev. C 38, 1010 (1988).
* [54] D.V. Shetty, S.J. Yennello, G.A Souliotis, Phys. Rev. C 75, 34602 (2007); D.V. Shetty, S.J. Yennello, G.A Souliotis, Phys. Rev. C 76, 024606 (2007).
* [55] L.W. Chen, C.M. Ko, B.A. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 032701 (2005).
* [56] M.B. Tsang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 062701 (2004).
* [57] C.H. Lee, T.T.S. Kuo, G.Q. Li, and G.E. Brown, Phys. Rev. C 57, 3488 (1998).
* [58] F. Sammarruca and P. Liu, arXiV: 0806.1936 [nucl-th](2008).
* [59] V.P. Psonis, Ch.C. Moustakidis, and S.E. Massen, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22, 1233 (2007).
* [60] M. Prakash, The Equation of State and Neutron Stars lectures delivered at the Winter School held in Puri India (1994).
* [61] B.A. Li, C.M. Kuo, Z.Z. Ren, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1644 (1997).
* [62] V. Baran, M. Colonna, V. Greco, and M. Di Toro, Phys. Rep. 410, 335 (2005).
* [63] D.L. Goodstein, States of Matter (Dover, New York, 1985).
* [64] A.L. Fetter and J.D. Walecka, Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems (Dover Publications, Mineola, New York, 2003).
Figure 1: Energy per baryon of symmetric (a) and pure neutron matter (b) of
the present model (MDIM) in comparison with those originated from realistic
calculations. More details for the models UV14+TNI, UV14+UVII and AV14+UVII in
Ref. [41] and for the models A18+UIX and A18+du+UIX∗ in Ref. [42].
Figure 2: a) The contribution of the various terms $V_{A}$, $V_{B}$, $V_{C}$
and the total potential energy density $V_{int}$ as a function of the baryon
density b) The momentum dependent term $V_{C}$ as a function of the baryon
density at temperature $T=0$, $T=10$ and $T=30$ MeV.
Figure 3: A comparison of the single-particle potential of symmetric nuclear
matter from the present model (MDIM) with the microscopic calculations of
Wirigna [47] and Li et al. [48], for densities $n=0.1$ fm-3, $n=0.3$ fm-3 and
$n=0.5$ fm-3.
Figure 4: The difference $F(n,T,Y_{p})-F(n,T,Y_{p}=1/2)$ as a function of
$(1-2Y_{p})^{2}$ at temperatures a) $T=10$ and b) $T=30$ MeV, for three baryon
densities. Figure 5: The Helmholtz free energy $F(n,T,I)$ of $\beta$-stable
matter versus the baryon density $n$, for various values of $T$ (in MeV).
Figure 6: (a) The free energy of symmetric nuclear matter (for $T=5$ MeV and
$T=20$ MeV) and (b) for pure neutron matter (for $T=3$ MeV and $T=20$ MeV) of
the proposed model (MDIM) in comparison with the free energy calculated by
Friedman and Pandharipande model (FP) [7]. Figure 7: The internal energy
$E(n,T)$ of $\beta$-stable matter as a function of the baryon density $n$ for
various values of $T$. Figure 8: The internal energy (for $T=0$ MeV) for
symmetric nuclear matter (SNM) and pure neutron matter (PNM) calculated with
the MDIM in comparison with the FP model. Figure 9: The nuclear symmetry
energy calculated with the MDIM in comparison with the FP model as well as the
results of Refs. [54], [58] and [55]. Figure 10: The thermal energy
$E_{thermal}(n,T)=E(n,T)-E(n,T=0)$ of $\beta$-stable matter versus the baryon
density $n$, for various values of $T$.
Figure 11: The pressure $P$ of asymmetric nuclear matter for $Y_{p}=0.1$ and
$0.3$ at a) $T=10$ and b) $30$ MeV. The full lines give the results calculated
from Eq. (24), while the squares represent results obtained by differentiating
$F(n,T)$ (Eq. (23)). Figure 12: The thermal pressure
$P_{thermal}(n,T)=P(n,T)-P(n,T=0)$ of $\beta$-stable matter versus the baryon
density $n$, for various values of $T$. Figure 13: The fractions of protons
$Y_{p}$ electrons $Y_{e}$ and muons $Y_{\mu}$ of $\beta$-stable matter as
functions of the baryon density $n$, for various values of $T$.
Figure 14: The Fermi-Dirac distribution function $f_{\tau}(n,T)$ for protons
and neutrons ($\tau=p,n$ respectively), for $n=0.2$ fm-3, $n=0.4$ fm-3 and
$n=0.6$ fm-3 and various values of $T$. Figure 15: The entropy per particle
$S$ of asymmetric nuclear matter with $Y_{p}=0.2$ at $T=10,20,30$ MeV. The
full lines give the entropy calculated from Eq. (21), while the squares give
results obtained by differentiating $F(n,T)$ (Eq. (25)). Figure 16:
Contributions to the total entropy per particle of protons ($S_{p}$) (up
triangles) neutrons ($S_{n}$) (upside down triangles) and the total entropy
($S_{b}$) (squares). Figure 17: Contributions to the total entropy per
particle of electrons ($S_{e}$) (up triangles) muons ($S_{\mu}$) (upside down
triangles) and the total $S_{l}$ (squares). Figure 18: The pressures of
baryons $P_{b}$ leptons $P_{l}$ (electrons+muons) and the total pressure $P$
versus the baryon density, $n$ for various values of $T$.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-03T10:31:09 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.624850 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Ch.C. Moustakidis and C.P. Panos",
"submitter": "Charalampos Moustakidis",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0353"
} |
0805.0454 | Corresponding author:]kchang@red.semi.ac.cn
# Tuning of energy levels and optical properties of graphene quantum dots
Z. Z. Zhang Kai Chang [ SKLSM, Institute of Semiconductors, Chinese Academy
of Sciences, P. O. Box 912, Beijing 100083, China F. M. Peeters Departement
Fysica, Universiteit Antwerpen, Groenenborgerlaan 171, B-2020 Antwerpen,
Belgium
###### Abstract
We investigate theoretically the magnetic levels and optical properties of
zigzag- and armchair-edged hexagonal graphene quantum dots (GQDs) utilizing
the tight-binding method. A new bound edge state at zero energy appears for
the zigzag GQDs in the absence of a magnetic field. The magnetic levels of
GQDs exhibit a Hofstadter-butterfly spectrum and approach the Landau levels of
two-dimensional graphene as the magnetic field increases. The optical
properties are tuned by the size, the type of the edge, and the external
magnetic field.
###### pacs:
73.22.-f, 78.67.-n, 75.75.+a, 81.07.Nb
Graphene is a single atomic layer consisting of a two-dimensional honeycomb
lattice of carbon atoms. This novel system has attracted intense attention
because of new fundamental physics and promising applications in
nanoelectronics Novoselov ; Novoselov2 . It exhibits high crystal quality, an
exotic Dirac-type spectrum, and ballistic transport properties on a submicron
scale. Graphene samples are usually fabricated by micromechnical cleavage of
graphite and have excellent mechanical properties that make it possible to
sustain huge electric currents. The lateral confinement of Dirac fermions in
graphene is still an enigmatic and extremely challenging task due to the well-
known Klein paradox. The Klein paradox makes it impossible to localize the
carriers in a confined region utilizing an electrostatic gate. The confinement
of Dirac fermions at a nanometer scale is one of the central goals of
graphene-based electronics and has attracted increasing interestEfetov ; Egger
; HChen ; Peeters ; Trauzettel ; Antidot . Recently it was demonstrated
experimentally that graphene can be cut in the desired shape and sizeNovoselov
; Novoselov2 . Recent progresses in fabricating and characterizing stable
graphene nanostructures provides the opportunity to explore the various
remarkable opticalFalko ; Carbotte ; Reichl and transport propertiesKim of
these structures.
In this work, we investigate theoretically the electronic structure and
optical properties of zigzag- and armchair-edged hexagonal graphene quantum
dots (GQDs) (see Fig. 1) utilizing the nearest-neighbor tight-binding model.
The dangling bonds at the edges are passivated by hydrogen atoms. The model
has been successfully used for fullerene molecules, carbon naotubes, and other
carbon-related materials Nakada ; Waka ; Saito ; Ezawa . The Hamiltonian of
GQDs can be written as
$H=\sum\limits_{i}\varepsilon_{i}c_{i}^{{\dagger}}c_{i}+\sum\limits_{\left\langle
i,j\right\rangle}t_{i,j}c_{i}^{{\dagger}}c_{j}$, where $\varepsilon_{i}$ is
the site energy, $t_{ij}$ is the transfer energy between the nearest-neighbor
sites, and $c_{i}^{{\dagger}}$ ($c_{i}$) is the creation (annihilation)
operator of the $\pi$ electron at the site $i$. When considering a magnetic
field $B$ applied perpendicularly to the plane of a GQD, the transfer integral
$t_{ij}$ becomes $t_{ij}=te^{i2\pi\phi_{i,j}},$ where
$\phi_{ij}=\frac{e}{h}\int_{r_{i}}^{r_{j}}d\mathbf{l}\cdot\mathbf{A}$ is the
Peierls phase. $\mathbf{A}=\left(0,Bx,0\right)$ is the vector potential
corresponding to the magnetic field B along the z axis, which is perpendicular
to the graphene plane. In our calculation, we take $\Phi_{0}=h/e$ as the unit
of the magnetic flux and $\Phi=\sqrt{3}Ba_{0}^{2}/2$ as the magnetic flux
through a plaquette, where $a_{0}=2.46\mathring{A}$ is the lattice constant of
graphite. The difference between the values of $\varepsilon_{i}$ and $t_{ij}$
for the atoms at the edge and the center is neglected. The relevant parameters
used in our calculation are $\varepsilon=0$, $t=-3.033$Saito . The eigenvalues
and eigenstates can be obtained from the secular equation
$\det\left|\varepsilon-H\right|=0$, where $H_{ii}=0,H_{\left\langle
i,j\right\rangle}=te^{i2\pi\phi_{i,j}}$.
Figure 1: (Color online) Electronic density distributions of the highest
valence level (HVL) and lowest conduction level (LCL) in the absence of
magnetic field. Panels (a) and (b): HVL and LCL for the $N_{z}=2$ zigzag-edged
graphene quantum dot (ZGQD). Panels (c) and (d) : the same with $N_{z}=12$.
Panels (e) and (f): the same with armchair-edged graphene quantum dot (AGQD).
Figs. 1 show electronic density distributions of the zigzag and armchair-edged
graphene quantum dots (ZGQD and AGQD, respectively), in the absence of a
magnetic field. The size of a dot is characterized by N, the number of
hexagonal units along an edge. Figure 1(a) and 1(b) show the probability
distributions of the highest valence level (HVL) and lowest conduction level
(LCL) for the ZGQD with small size ($N=2$). The probability distributions of
the HVL and LCL correspond to the bonding and anti-bonding states that are
localized at the corner of the hexagonal GQD. In contrast to conventional
semiconductor quantum dots where the ground state is localized at the center
of dot, the ground states for the conduction and valence bands, i.e., HVL and
LCL, localize at the middle of each edge in the ZGQD(see Fig. 1(c) and (d)) as
the size of the ZGQD increases. This feature can be understood as follows: the
Dirac fermion in a ZGQD behaves like a confined photon in a cavity, and the
lowest mode is the whispering gallery mode, which also localizes at the
boundary of the cavity. The difference between the bonding and anti-bonding
states becomes smaller as the size of the ZGQD increases. The difference
between the edge states of a ZGQD and a graphene nanoribbon is that the edge
state of the ZGQD localizes at the middle of the edge of GQD, in contrast to
the homogeneously distributed edge state of a zigzag graphene nanoribbonWaka ;
Brey or a zigzag triangular GQDYamamoto . This occurs because the
contribution of each carbon atom at the edge of a ZGQD to the edge state is
different, while it is the same for a zigzag nanoribbon or a zigzag triangular
GQD. The density distributions of the LCL and HVL in an AGQD (see Figs. 1(e)
and (f)) extend more completely over the whole GQD region and are very
different from that in a ZGQD. This difference is indeed caused by the
different topological geometry of the boundary of the graphene nanostructures.
Figure 2: (Color online) Density of states of ZGQD (a) and AGQD (b). We use a
Gaussian function $f(E)=e^{-(E-E_{0})^{2}/\Gamma^{2}}$ with a broadening
factor $\Gamma=0.05$ eV to smooth the discontinuous energy spectra. (c) The
gap of ZGQD and AGQD as a function of the size, and the function of the fit
line is $a/N$ with $a=4.9$ eV.
Figs. 2(a) and (b) show the density of states (DOS) of ZGQDs and AGQDs,
respectively, with different sizes in the absence of a magnetic field. The
total number of the carbon atoms in ZGQD and AGQD are $6N_{z}^{2}$ and
$6(3N_{a}^{2}-3N_{a}+1)$, respectively. From the figures, we find that there
is no edge state in a small ZGQD, and the edge state appears when the size of
ZGQD increases according to the states at zero energy. Meanwhile, there is
never an edge state for the AGQD. To demonstrate how the edge state appears,
we plot the energy gap, i.e., the energy difference between the lowest
conduction band level (LCL) and the highest valence band level (HVL), as a
function of the size ($N$) of the GQD in Fig. 2(c). The energy gap decreases
as the size of the GQD increases. Interestingly, the energy gap of the zigzag
(armchair) GQD decays to zero quickly(slowly) as the size of the GQD
increases. When the size of the AGQD approaches infinity, the gap decreases to
zero, i.e., we recover the two-dimensional graphene case. The calculated
energy gap for the AGQD falls off as $1/N$ $\propto 1/L$ (see the solid line
in Fig. 2(c)), where $L$ is the length of each edge of the hexagonal GQD. This
dependence of the band gap on the size of GQD is very different from that of a
conventional semiconductor QD, which behaves as $1/L^{2}$.
Figs. 3(a) and 4(a) depict the magnetic field dependence of the energy
spectrum of a ZGQD and AGQD exhibiting a clear Hofstadter butterfly
characteristic, which is fractal and exhibits self-similarityHosfstadter ;
Waka ; Aoki ; Nemec . As the magnetic flux increases, the magnetic levels in
the GQD, i.e., the so-called Fock-Darwin levels, approach the Landau levels
(see the red lines in Figs. 3(b) and 4(b)) in graphene
$E_{n}=sgn\left(n\right)(\sqrt{3}ta_{0}/2l_{B})\sqrt{2\left|n\right|}$, where
$l_{B}=\sqrt{\hbar/eB}$ is the cyclotron radius, $n$ is an integer, and $sgn$
is the sign function.
Figure 3: (Color online) (a) The spectrum of the $N_{z}=12$ ZGQD in a
magnetic field. We use a Gauss function with a broadening factor of 0.1 eV to
smooth discontinuous energy spectra. (b) and (c) the magnetic energy level fan
near the Dirac point, i.e., the zero energy point. The red lines in (b)
correspond to the Landau level of two-dimensional graphene. (d) the DOS at the
Dirac point as a function of the inverse flux $\Phi/\Phi_{0}$, where we use a
Gauss function with a small broadening factor of 0.01 meV. Figure 4: (Color
online) The same as Fig.3, but for the $N_{a}=9$ AGQD
Figs. 3(c) and 4(c) show in detail how the magnetic levels of ZGQD and AGQD
approach the zero-th Landau level at small magnetic flux. As magnetic flux
increases, more energy levels approach the zero-th Landau level in pairs. The
degeneracy of the energy level at zero energy will reach its maximum value
$2N$ for $\Phi/\Phi_{0}=1/2N$. When the magnetic flux increases further, the
degeneracy of the energy level at zero energy is lifted fast. This feature can
also be seen in Fig. 3(d), which plots the DOS at the Dirac point. This figure
indicates that the degeneracy, i.e., the number of energy levels at the zero
energy, _approximately_ decreases inverse linearly with the magnetic flux
$\Phi/\Phi_{0}$. These figures clearly demonstrate that the energy spectrum of
the GQD possesses electron-hole symmetry when we neglect the second-nearest-
neighbor interaction. The DOS and the magnetic level fan of the AGQD are
similar to that of the ZGQD except at small magnetic flux. Comparing Fig. 3(c)
to Fig. 4(c), the magnetic levels in the AGQD are distinct from those in the
ZGQD at small magnetic flux, because the ZGQD shows the edge state and AGQD
does not for the levels near the Dirac point in absense of magnetic field.
Therefore, the magnetic levels exhibit distinct behavior as the magnetic flux
increases. The DOS of the AGQD (see Fig. 4(d)) also shows a step-like feature
as the magnetic flux at the Dirac point increases.
Fig. 5 describes the density distributions of the LCL and HVL in the ZGQD and
AGQD at small magnetic flux $\Phi/\Phi_{0}=0.01$. Interestingly, the density
distributions of the LCL and HVL penetrate into the center of the GQD for the
ZGQDs, which is very different from the AGQD case where both the electron and
hole are dominantly localized in the center of the GQD. The density
distributions for the ZGQD and AGQD show $C_{6v}$ symmetry. This
characteristic is caused by the magnetic confinement when the magnetic length
$l_{B}$ becomes comparable with the size of the GQD. In addition to those
differences, the LCL and HVL of the zigzag GQD show opposite symmetry order
with respect to that of the armchair GQD, i.e., the LCL (HVL) and HVL(LCL) of
the ZGQD (AGQD) belong to the $E_{1}$($E_{2}$) and $E_{2}$($E_{1}$)
representations at zero magnetic field (see Fig. 6).
Figure 5: (Color online) (a) and (b) show the density distributions of the
HVL and LCL for the $N_{z}=12$ ZGQD in the presence of the magnetic flex
$\Phi/\Phi_{0}=0.01$, respectively. (c) and (d) the same as (a) and (b), but
now for $N_{a}=9$ AGQD.
The optical properties of GQDs are promising for potential applications in
optic-electronic devices based on graphene. Therefore, we calculate the
absorption spectra of GQD $\alpha(\hslash\omega)=\frac{\pi
e^{2}}{m_{0}^{2}\varepsilon_{0}cn\omega
V}\sum\limits_{c,v}|\vec{\varepsilon}\cdot
P_{cv}|^{2}\times\delta\left(E_{c}-E_{v}-\hbar\omega\right),$ where $n$ is the
refractive index, $c$ the speed of light in vacuum, $\varepsilon_{0}$ the
permittivity of vacuum, $m_{0}$ the free-electron mass, and
$\vec{\varepsilon}$ is the polarization vector of the incident light along the
$x$ direction. The coupling between the $sp_{2}$ states and the $p_{z}$ state
is neglected since we are only interested in the optical properties of the GQD
near the Dirac point, i.e., at the low energy regime. The momentum
matrixPedersen is $\left\langle
n\right|\mathbf{p}\left|m\right\rangle=im_{0}/\hbar\sum\limits_{\mathbf{r}}\sum\limits_{\mathbf{r}^{\prime}}c_{\mathbf{r}}^{\ast}c_{\mathbf{r}^{\prime}}\left(\mathbf{r}^{\prime}-\mathbf{r}\right)\left\langle
p_{z},\mathbf{r}\right|H\left|p_{z},\mathbf{r}^{\prime}\right\rangle$. The
momentum operator $p_{x}(p_{y})$ has $E_{2}$ symmetry and its direct product
with all the irreducible representations of the C6v group can be found in
Table 1. We divide the levels of the GQD into two different families:
$A_{1},A_{3},E_{1}\in\Omega_{1}$ and $A_{2},A_{4},E_{2}\in\Omega_{2}$. The
symmetry requires that only transitions between the valence band levels and
the conduction band levels belonging to the different families $\Omega_{1}$
and $\Omega_{2}$ are allowed. Notice that the initial or final states of the
transition should belong to the $E_{1}$ or $E_{2}$ representations.
Table 1: Direct products of the $E_{2}$ representation for momentum operator $p_{x}(p_{y})$ with all the irreducible representations of the $C_{6}v$ group. The results are presented as direct sums of all possible irreducible representations of the $C_{6}v$ group. The notations of symmetries are adopted from Ref. Group, Direct product | Direct sum
---|---
$E_{2}$$\otimes$$A_{1}$ | $E_{2}$
$E_{2}$$\otimes$$A_{2}$ | $E_{1}$
$E_{2}$$\otimes$$A_{3}$ | $E_{2}$
$E_{2}$$\otimes$$A_{4}$ | $E_{1}$
$E_{2}$$\otimes$$E_{1}$ | $A_{2}$$\oplus$$A_{4}$$\oplus$$E_{2}$
$E_{2}$$\otimes$$E_{2}$ | $A_{1}$$\oplus$$A_{3}$$\oplus$$E_{1}$
In Fig. 6(a) and (d), we label the level structure of a $N_{z}=12$ and
$N_{a}=9$ GQD near the Dirac point as $C_{1}-C_{n}$ for conduction bands with
ascending order and $V_{1}-V_{n}$ for valence bands with descending order,
respectively. The conduction band levels $C_{i}$ and valence band levels
$V_{i}$ belong to the distinct families $\Omega_{1}$ and $\Omega_{2}$,
respectively. For example, if $C_{i}$ belongs to the family $\Omega_{1}$,
i.e., $A_{1}$, $A_{3}$ or $E_{1}$, $V_{i}$ must belong to the family
$\Omega_{2}$, i.e., $A_{2},$ $A_{4}$ or $E_{2}$, or vice versa. For zigzag
GQDs with even $N_{z}$, the conduction band levels, from bottom to top,
exhibit different symmetries, i.e., $E_{2}$, $A_{3}$, $E_{1}$, $A_{2}$
$\cdots$, the corresponding valence band levels show $E_{1}$, $A_{4}$,
$E_{2}$, $A_{1}$ $\cdots$. For zigzag GQDs with odd $N_{z}$, the conduction
band levels display the opposite (same) symmetries $E_{1}$, $A_{4}$, $E_{2}$,
$A_{1}$, $\cdots$ to the conduction (valence) band levels of zigzag GQDs with
even $N_{z}$. For armchair GQDs, the lowest conduction band level always shows
the symmetries $E_{1}$, $A_{4}$, $A_{2}$, $E_{2}$, $\cdots$ from bottom to top
and this order is independent of the size ($N_{a}$) of the armchair GQD.
Figure 6: (Color online) (a) and (d) are the level diagram for $N_{z}=12$
ZGQD and $N_{a}=9$ AGQD without the magnetic field, where different symmetries
are represented by different colors and lines: black solid, black dashed, red
solid, red dashed, green solid, and green dashed lines for the $E_{1}$,
$E_{2}$, $A_{1}$, $A_{2}$, $A_{3}$, and $A_{4}$ irreducible representations of
the $C_{6v}$ symmetry, respectively. (b) and (c) the JDOS and the optical
absorption spectrum $\alpha$ for $N_{z}=12$ ZGQD. We used a Gauss function
with different broadening factors: 0.02 and 0.005 eV for the black and red
line. (e) and (f) are the same as (b) and (c), but for $N_{a}=9$ AGQD.
For $N_{z}=12$ ZGQD, the lowest optical-absorption peak (peak A) corresponds
to the transition between the lowest conduction band level $C_{1}$ with
$E_{2}$ symmetry and the highest valence band level $V_{1}$ with $E_{1}$
symmetry. The second and third lowest transitions correspond to the transition
between the level $C_{2}\left(C_{3}\right)$ with $A_{3}\left(E_{1}\right)$
symmetry and the level $V_{3}\left(V_{2}\right)$ with
$E_{2}\left(A_{4}\right)$ symmetry and the level $C_{1}\left(C_{4}\right)$ and
$V_{4}\left(V_{1}\right)$, respectively. But the strengths of these three
transitions are very small, therefore these transitions are not clearly seen
in the contour spectrum in Fig. 7 at $\Phi/\Phi_{0}=0$. The strong absorption
peak (peak D) appears at $E=0.26$ eV, corresponding to the transition between
the level $C_{3}$ with $E_{1}$ symmetry and the level $V_{3}$ with $E_{2}$
symmetry. This strong absorption arises from the large moment matrix
$\left\langle n\right|\mathbf{p}\left|m\right\rangle$ between these states.
Figure 7: (Color online) The contour plot of the magneto-optical spectra of
zigzag (a) and armchair (b) GQD, respectively.
For $N_{a}=9$ AGQD, the lowest peak (peak A) is similar to that in the zigzag
GQD, corresponding to the transition between $C_{1}$ and $V_{1}$. But the
second peak (peak B) is different from those of the zigzag GQD. This peak
corresponds to the transition between the level $C_{2}\left(C_{4}\right)$ with
$A_{4}\left(E_{2}\right)$ symmetry and the level $V_{4}\left(V_{2}\right)$
with $E_{1}\left(A_{3}\right)$ symmetry. The third strong peak (peak C)
indicates the transition between the level $C_{4}$ with $E_{2}$ symmetry and
the level $V_{4}$ with $E_{1}$ symmetry. Strong absorption takes place when
the initial ($V_{i}$) and final states ($C_{i}$) have either $E_{1}$ symmetry
or $E_{2}$ symmetry. As the size of the GQD increases, the absorption peaks
shift to long wavelength for both ZGQD and AGQD. The absorption peaks of the
ZGQD shift to the long wavelength faster than those of the AGQD. The relative
strength between the peak D and A increases as the size of the GQD increases
for ZGQDs. But for AGQDs, the relative strength between the peak C and A is
almost independent of the size.
Next, we discuss the effect of a magnetic field on the optical spectrum of a
GQD. Here, we only focus on the small magnetic flux case (see Fig. 7). The
spectra of two distinct GQDs, zigzag and armchair GQD, exhibit quite different
behavior due to their different level structures and the oscillator strengths
determined by the boundary, especially for the LCL and HVL which localize at
the edge of ZGQD. The spectra of two distinct GQDs show that the strengths of
the transitions vary as the magnetic field increases. In particular, the
strong absorption lines exhibit $\sqrt{B}$ asymptotic behavior corresponding
to the transitions between the conduction and valence band Landau levels at
high magnetic field. We also find anti-crossings in the spectra, since the
magnetic field induces the mixing of the levels belonging to the different
families.
In summary, we investigated theoretically the magnetic levels and the optical
spectrum in GQDs. In contrast to conventional semiconductor QDs, the LCL and
HVL exhibit an edge-state feature, i.e., a non-zero probability of being at
the edge of the sample, and the density distribution depends sensitively on
the type of boundary of GQDs and the magnetic field strength. The magnetic
levels of GQD display a Hoftstadter butterfly characteristic, and approach the
Landau levels of two-dimensional graphene as the magnetic field increases. The
magneto-optical spectrum of a graphene quantum dot in the interesting energy
range (0-3 eV) is promising for carbon-based electronics applications. The
position and strength of the absorption peaks can be tuned by the size of the
GQD, the type of the edge of the GQD, and the external magnetic field.
###### Acknowledgements.
This work is supported by the NSF of China Grant No. 60525405 and the Flander-
China bilateral programme.
## References
* (1) K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva and A. A. Firsov, Science 306, 666 (2004); H. Hiura, Appl. Surf. Sci. 222, 374 (2004); Y. Zhang, J. W. Tan, H. L. Stormer and P. Kim, Nature (London) 438, 201 (2005); A. K. Geim, and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Materials 6, 183 (2007).
* (2) K. S. Novoselov, Nature (London) 438, 197 (2005).
* (3) P. G. Silvestrov and K. B. Efetov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 016802 (2007).
* (4) A. DeMartino, L. Dell’Anna, and R. Egger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 066802 (2007).
* (5) H. Y. Chen, V. Apalkov, and T. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 186803 (2007).
* (6) J. M. Pereira, Jr., P. Vasilopoulos, and F. M. Peeters, Nano. Lett. 7, 946 (2007).
* (7) B. Trauzettel, D. V. Bulaev, D. Loss, and G. Burkard, Nature Phys. 3, 192 (2007).
* (8) T. G. Pedersen, C. Flindt, J. Pedersen, N. A. Mortensen, A.-P. Jauho, and K. Pedersen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 136804 (2008).
* (9) M. O. Goerbig, J. N. Fuchs, K. Kechedzhi, and V. I. Fal’ko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 087402 (2007).
* (10) V. P. Gusynin, S. G. Sharapov, and J. P. Carbotte, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 157402 (2007).
* (11) H. Hsu and L. E. Reichl, Phys. Rev. B 76, 045418 (2007).
* (12) B. Ozyilmaz, P. Jarillo-Herrero, D. Efetov, D. A. Abanin, L. S. Levitov, and P. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 166804 (2007).
* (13) K. Nakada, M. Fujita, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev. B 54, 17954 (1996).
* (14) K. Wakabayashi, M. Fujita, H. Ajiki, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. B 59, 8271 (1999).
* (15) R. Saito, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, Physical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes (Imperial College Press, London, 1998).
* (16) M. Ezawa, Phys. Rev. B 73, 045432 (2006).
* (17) L. Brey and H. A. Fertig, Phys. Rev. B 73, 235411 (2006).
* (18) T. Yamamoto, T. Noguchi, and K. Watanabe, Phys. Rev. B 74, 121409(R) (2006).
* (19) T. G. Pedersen, K. Pedersen, and T. B. Kriestensen, Phys. Rev. B 63, 201101(R) (2001).
* (20) D. R. Hofstadter, Phys. Rev. B 14, 2239 (1976); R. Rammal, J. Phys. (Paris) 46, 1345 (1985).
* (21) Y. Hatsugai, T. Fukui, and H. Aoki, Phys. Rev. B 74, 205414 (2006).
* (22) N. Nemec and G. Cuniberti, Phys. Rev. B 75, 201404 (2007).
* (23) G. L. Bir and G. E. Pikus, Symmetry and Strain Induced Effects in Semiconductors (Wiley, New York, 1974); G. F. Koster, J. O. Dimmock, R. G. Wheeler, and H. Slatz, Properties of the Thirty-Two Point Groups (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1966).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-05T02:52:25 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.631796 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Z. Z. Zhang, Kai Chang, and F. M. Peeters",
"submitter": "Kai Chang",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0454"
} |
0805.0456 | # Electroproduction of electron-positron pair in a medium
V. N. Baier and V. M. Katkov
Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics,
Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
###### Abstract
The process of electron-positron pair creation by a high-energy electron in a
medium is analyzed. The spectral distribution over energies of created
particles is calculated for the direct and cascade mechanisms of the process.
The Coulomb corrections are included. The new formulation of the equivalent
photons method is developed which takes into account the influence of multiple
scattering. It is shown the effects of multiple scattering can be quite
effectively studied in the process under consideration.
## 1 Introduction
A high-energy electron passing through a medium produces the electron-positron
pair side by side with the radiation. The electroproduction process possesses
many important peculiarities which will be discussed below.
Generally speaking one has to consider two mechanisms of the process, The
first one is the direct(one-step) electroproduction of pair via the virtual
intermediate photon. The second one is the cascade(two-step) process when the
electron emits the real photon at collision with one nucleus which converts
into the pair on another nucleus. The interrelation of two mechanisms depends
on the target thickness $l$ since the probability of the direct process is
proportional to $l$ while the probability of the cascade process is
proportional to $l^{2}/2$. These contributions have comparable values when the
ratio $l/L_{rad}~{}(L_{rad}$ is the radiation length) is of the order of a few
percent.
For the direct process the differential, over the energies of produced
particles $\varepsilon_{+},\varepsilon_{-}$, probability was found by Kelner
[1] in the lowest over $Z\alpha$ ($Z$ is the charge of a nucleus,
$\alpha$=1/137) order of the perturbation theory (for the derivation see also
Sec.26 in [2]). For the direct process there are two types of diagrams: one-
photon diagram when the pair is created by one virtual photon emitted from the
electron at collision with a nucleus, and two-photon diagrams when the pair is
created by two virtual photons connected with the initial electron and a
nucleus. In the present paper the Coulomb corrections are included in the
probability contributions of both types of diagrams.
In the soft part of created particles spectrum
($\varepsilon_{-},\varepsilon_{+}\ll\varepsilon,~{}\varepsilon$ is the energy
of the initial electron) one can neglect the one-photon contribution and the
two-photon contribution can be obtained using the equivalent photons method
within the logarithmic accuracy (see Appendix B in [3]). At low enough
energies $\varepsilon_{-},\varepsilon_{+}$ the multiple scattering of the
initial electron results in distortion of the spectral distribution of the
equivalent photons which can lead to a modification of the process
probability. It is shown the effect of multiple scattering can be quite
effectively studied in electroproduction process. Just as in the radiation
process the effect can be observed in the soft part of spectrum.
In Sec.2 the probabilities of the direct process are presented. The new
formulation of the equivalent photons method is given which includes the
influence of multiple scattering. This method permits to find the alteration
in the soft part of spectral distribution of created particles. In Sec.3 the
probabilities of the cascade process taking into account the multiple
scattering are considered. The probabilities, differential over one of created
particle energy, are analyzed in Sec.4
## 2 Direct electroproduction probability with Coulomb corrections
The Coulomb corrections to the direct electroproduction probability can be
found using the method outlined in the review [4] (see also Appendix A in
[5]). The probability for the one-photon diagrams contribution with the
Coulomb corrections taken into account in the case of complete screening has
the form (the system $\hbar=c=1$ is used)
$\displaystyle\frac{dw_{1}}{dzdy}=\frac{\alpha l}{\pi
L}\frac{1-y}{y^{2}}\Bigg{\\{}\left(A_{1}\ln(1+\xi)+B_{1}+C_{1}\frac{\xi}{1+\xi}\right)\left(1+\frac{\ln(1+\frac{1}{\xi})}{2L_{0}}\right)$
$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2L_{0}}\Bigg{[}A_{1}{\rm
Li}_{2}\left(\frac{\xi}{1+\xi}\right)+B_{1}\frac{\ln(1+\xi)}{\xi}+C_{1}\frac{2}{3}\frac{\xi}{1+\xi}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{2}{9}\left(\left(1-\beta\left(1+\frac{1}{\xi}\right)\right)\ln(1+\xi)+\beta\right)\Bigg{]}\Bigg{\\}},$
(1)
where $m$ is the electron mass, ${\rm
Li}_{2}(x)=-\int_{0}^{x}\frac{\ln(1-t)}{t}dt$ is the Euler dilogarithm,
$\displaystyle
z=\frac{\varepsilon_{+}}{\varepsilon},~{}y=\frac{\omega}{\varepsilon},~{}\omega=\varepsilon_{+}+\varepsilon_{-},\quad\frac{1}{L}=\frac{4Z^{2}\alpha^{3}n_{a}L_{0}}{m^{2}},\quad
L=\L_{rad}\left(1+\frac{1}{18L_{0}}\right),$ $\displaystyle
L_{0}=\ln(183Z^{-1/3})-f(Z\alpha),\quad
f(x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{x^{2}}{n(n^{2}+x^{2})},$ $\displaystyle
A_{1}=\xi\left(\frac{1}{2\beta}-1\right)-\frac{4}{3}\beta\left(1+\frac{1}{\xi}\right)-\frac{2}{3},\quad
B_{1}=\frac{4}{3}\beta+\xi,\quad$ $\displaystyle
C_{1}=\frac{4}{3}\beta+\frac{1}{3}\left(1+\xi\left(1-\frac{1}{2\beta}\right)\right),\quad\beta=\frac{z(y-z)}{y^{2}},\quad\xi=\frac{z(y-z)}{1-y},$
(2)
where $n_{a}$ is the number density of atoms in the medium, $f(Z\alpha)$ is
the Coulomb correction. It should be noted that in Eq.(1) at $\xi\ll 1$ a
mutual compensation occurs in the braces and the expression in the braces
becomes proportional to $\xi$.
The probability for the two-photon diagrams contribution with the Coulomb
corrections taken into account in the case of complete screening has the form
$\displaystyle\frac{dw_{2}}{dzdy}=\frac{\alpha l}{\pi
L}\frac{1-y}{y^{2}}\Bigg{\\{}\left(A_{2}\ln(1+\frac{1}{\xi})+B_{2}+C_{2}\frac{1}{1+\xi}\right)\left(1+\frac{\ln(1+\xi)}{2L_{0}}\right)$
$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2L_{0}}\Bigg{[}A_{2}{\rm
Li}_{2}\left(\frac{1}{1+\xi}\right)+B_{2}\xi\ln(1+\frac{1}{\xi})+\frac{2}{3}\frac{C_{2}}{1+\xi}$
$\displaystyle-\frac{2}{9}\left(\left(\beta+\xi\left(1+\beta\right)\right)\ln\left(1+\frac{1}{\xi}\right)-\beta\right)\Bigg{]}\Bigg{\\}},$
(3)
where
$\displaystyle
A_{2}=1-\frac{4}{3}\beta+\xi\left(\frac{1}{2\beta}+\frac{2}{3}(1-2\beta)\right),\quad
B_{2}=\frac{4}{3}\beta-1,\quad$ $\displaystyle
C_{2}=\frac{1}{3}\left(4\beta-1-\xi\left(1+\frac{1}{2\beta}\right)\right).$
(4)
The probabilities Eqs.(1), (3) are calculated within the power accuracy
(neglected terms $\propto m/\varepsilon_{+},m/\varepsilon_{-}$).
In the soft part ($y\sim z\ll 1$) of spectral distribution $w_{2}$ one can
include the influence of multiple scattering on the initial electron, the
result is
$\frac{dw_{2}^{m}}{dzdy}=\frac{\alpha l}{\pi
L}\frac{1-y}{y^{2}}\left[\Phi_{2}+\frac{\pi^{2}}{12L_{0}}\left(1-\frac{4}{3}\beta\right)+\frac{1}{3}(4\beta-1)\left(1+\frac{1}{3L_{0}}\right)\right],$
(5)
where
$\displaystyle\Phi_{2}=P(y,z)\left(\ln\frac{1}{\xi}-1-\ln(1+\nu_{1})\right).\quad
P(y,z)=1-\frac{4}{3}\beta\left(1+\frac{1}{12L_{0}}\right),$
$\displaystyle\nu_{1}=\frac{\varepsilon(1-y)}{\varepsilon_{e}y},\quad\frac{m^{2}}{\varepsilon_{e}}=\frac{16\pi
Z^{2}\alpha^{2}n_{a}L_{0}}{m^{2}}=\frac{4\pi}{\alpha L},$ (6)
Here the function $\Phi_{2}$ describes the pair creation probability in the
equivalent photons method. Appearance of the term $\ln(1+\nu_{1})$ in the
function $\Phi_{2}$ is connected with expansion of the characteristic
equivalent photon emission angles $\vartheta_{c}$ due to the multiple
scattering of the initial electron. Let us consider this item in detail. The
density of equivalent photon can be presented as (see Eq.(B.7) in [3])
$n(y,z)=\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\frac{1-y}{y}\left[\left(1+\frac{y^{2}}{2(1-y)}\right)\ln\frac{Q^{2}(y,z)}{q_{c}^{2}}-1\right],$
(7)
where $Q^{2}=m^{2}\omega^{2}/(\varepsilon_{+}\varepsilon_{-})$ is the squared
minimal momentum transfer which is necessary for the photon with the energy
$\omega$ to create the pair with the energies
$\varepsilon_{+},\varepsilon_{-}$. In absence of multiple scattering
$q_{c}^{2}$ is defined by the kinematics of the virtual photon emission from
the initial electron
$q_{c}^{2}=q_{min}^{2}=\frac{m^{2}}{\varepsilon^{2}}\frac{\omega^{2}}{1-y},\quad\frac{Q^{2}}{q_{min}^{2}}=\frac{\varepsilon^{2}(1-y)}{\varepsilon_{+}\varepsilon_{-}}=\frac{1-y}{z(y-z)}=\frac{1}{\xi}.$
(8)
Taking into account the multiple scattering one has
$\varepsilon^{2}\vartheta_{c}^{2}/m^{2}=1+\nu_{1}$ (see e.g. Eqs.(2.10),
(2.25), (2.26) in [4]). So the equivalent photon spectrum at $y\sim z\ll 1$
can be written as
$q_{c}^{2}=\frac{\omega^{2}\vartheta_{c}^{2}}{1-y},\quad
n(y,z)dy=\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\frac{1-y}{y}\left[\ln\frac{1}{\xi}-1-\ln(1+\nu_{1})\right]dy.$
(9)
The differential probability of the pair creation by a photon in the case of
complete screening has the form
$\frac{dw_{p}}{dz}=\frac{l}{L}\frac{P(y,z)}{y},$ (10)
and we find that the term $\propto\Phi_{2}$ in Eq.(5) corresponds to the
equivalent photon method. The contribution of the multiple scattering is
included in Eq.(6) within the logarithmic accuracy. Let us note that for heavy
elements the value $\varepsilon_{e}$ is of the order of a few TeV (e.g.
$\varepsilon_{e}$=2.73 TeV for tungsten, $\varepsilon_{e}$=2.27 TeV for
iridium), so for the electron energy of a few hundreds GeV, $\nu_{1}\sim 1$ at
$y\sim 1/10$.
## 3 Cascade electroproduction probability
It is known that the multiple scattering distorted the radiation spectrum when
$\nu_{1}\geq 1$ or the photon energy
$\omega\leq\omega_{c}=\varepsilon^{2}/(\varepsilon+\varepsilon_{e})$ (this is
the Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal(LPM) effect), while for the pair creation
process the LPM effect distorted the spectrum of created pair only when
$\omega\geq\omega_{e}=4\varepsilon_{e}$ (see [4]). So for available electron
energies one have to take into account the multiple scattering in the cascade
electroproduction process for the radiation part only. Than the spectral
distribution of cascade process taking into account the multiple scattering of
the initial electron has the form
$\displaystyle\frac{dw_{c}}{dzdy}=\left(\frac{\alpha
m^{2}l}{4\pi\varepsilon_{e}}\right)^{2}\frac{\varepsilon_{e}P(y,z)}{\varepsilon
y(1-y)}{\rm Im}\Bigg{\\{}y^{2}\left[\ln
p-\psi\left(p+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]$
$\displaystyle+\left[2(1-y)+y^{2}\right]\left[\psi(p)-\ln
p+\frac{1}{2p}\right]\Bigg{\\}},$ (11)
where $p=\sqrt{i}/(2\nu_{1})$, $\psi(x)$ is the logarithmic derivative of the
gamma function (see Eq.(2.17) in [4]), the value $\nu_{1}$ is defined in
Eq.(6). In the term describing radiation (Im $\\{\\}$) the term $\propto
1/L_{0}$ is neglected. The contribution of this term doesn’t exceed a few per
cent under considered conditions. This term is given by Eq.(2.33) in [5]) and
can be included in the relevant case. In the case when the multiple scattering
of the initial electron may be neglected ($\omega\gg\omega_{c},~{}\nu_{1}\ll
1,~{}|p|\gg 1$) the spectral distribution of cascade process is
$\frac{dw_{c}^{QED}}{dzdy}=\frac{l^{2}}{L^{2}}\frac{P(y,z)}{2y^{2}}\left[y^{2}+\frac{4}{3}(1-y)\left(1+\frac{1}{12L_{0}}\right)\right].$
(12)
Here the terms $\propto 1/L_{0}$, neglected in Eq.(11), are taken into
account.
In the cascade process side by side with radiation inside of a target one has
to take into account the boundary radiation. Using Eq.(3.12) in [4] (with
regard for the factor 1/2 since photons emitted at fly out of a target can’t
create the pair) and assuming that $(\omega_{0}/(my))^{2}\ll 1+\nu_{1}$, where
$\omega_{0}$ is the plasma frequency (in any medium $\omega_{0}/m\leq
10^{-4}$) one has
$\frac{dw_{b}}{dzdy}=\frac{\alpha^{2}m^{2}l}{4\pi^{2}\varepsilon_{e}}\frac{1-y}{y^{2}}P(y,z)\ln(1+\nu_{1})$
(13)
Putting together this probability and the probability Eq.(5) we have that the
terms with $\ln(1+\nu_{1})$ are canceled. So the sum of contributions of the
equivalent and boundary photons doesn’t depend on multiple scattering.
At photon energy $\omega$ decreasing starting with $\omega=\omega_{c}$
($\nu_{1}=1$) the influence of multiple scattering on the radiation process
becomes significant. At this energy the estimation of the interrelation of the
different contributions is
$\frac{dw_{2}^{m}+dw_{b}}{dw_{c}}=\frac{dw_{2}}{dw_{c}}\sim\frac{2L_{rad}}{l}\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\ln\left(\frac{\varepsilon_{e}}{\varepsilon}\right)$
(14)
With further decreasing of photon energy the relative contribution of the
cascade process is dropping both because of the logarithmic growth of the
probability $dw_{2}$ and because of the suppression of the real photon
emission probability due to the multiple scattering of projectile (the LPM
effect). In this interval of photon energies (but for $\omega\gg m$) in the
case when the value $l$ is low enough the thickness of the target can become
less than the photon (virtual or real) formation length
$l_{f}=\frac{2}{\omega\vartheta_{c}^{2}}=\frac{2\varepsilon^{2}}{m^{2}\omega(1+\nu_{1})},\quad\frac{l}{l_{f}}\simeq\frac{l}{L_{rad}}\frac{2\pi(1+\nu_{1})}{\alpha\nu_{1}^{2}}.$
(15)
In this limiting case the contribution of real photons into the process
probability vanishes and only the contribution of virtual photons remains.
These photons build up outside a target where there is no influence of the
multiple scattering.
It should be noted that with photon energy decreasing the formation length of
pair creation by a photon inside target is also decreasing
($l_{p}=2\omega/m^{2}$) and we can be out of the complete screening limit.
However in this energy interval ($y\leq 10^{-3}$) the equivalent photons
method is applicable within the quite satisfactory accuracy and the cross
section of the photo-process is known for arbitrary screening (see [6, 2]).
## 4 Partially integrated electroproduction probability
The probability of electroproduction differential over one of created particle
energy only is of evident interest. It can be obtained by integration of the
found probabilities over $y~{}(z\leq y\leq 1)$. For $z\ll 1$ the main
contribution into the integral gives the region $y\sim z\ll 1$ (with the
exception of the contribution of one-photon diagrams which can be neglected in
this energy region). For the ratio $r=dw_{1}/dw_{2}$ one has $r=0.011$ at
$z=0.1$, $r=0.042$ at $z=0.2$ and $r=0.24$ at $z=0.5$. Using Eq.(6) at
$\nu_{1}=0$ and conserving the main term of decomposition over $z$ one obtains
for the summary contribution of the equivalent and boundary photons
$\displaystyle\frac{dw_{b}}{dz}+\frac{dw_{2}^{m}}{dz}=\frac{dw_{2}}{dz}=\frac{2\alpha}{\pi
z}w_{p}\left(\ln\frac{1}{z}-\frac{1}{2}+\delta\right),$ $\displaystyle
w_{p}=\frac{28}{9}\frac{Z^{2}\alpha^{3}}{m^{2}}ln_{a}\left(L_{0}-\frac{1}{42}\right)\simeq\frac{7l}{9L_{rad}},\quad\delta=\frac{\pi^{2}}{24L_{0}}-\frac{1}{14}\left(1+\frac{1}{3L_{0}}\right).$
(16)
Here $w_{p}$ is the probability of pair creation by a photon in the target
with thickness $l$ in the case of complete screening presented within power
(relativistic) accuracy,neglected terms are $\sim m/\varepsilon_{+}$. The
quantity $\delta$ is the correction to the equivalent photons method. This
correction is small numerically: e.g. for heavy elements ($L_{0}\simeq
3.5,~{}\delta\simeq 1/25$), for Ge $L_{0}\simeq 4,~{}\delta\simeq 1/40$.
For the cascade process contribution in the region $z\ll 1,~{}\nu_{1}(z)\ll 1$
one gets
$\frac{dw_{c}}{dz}=\frac{2l}{3Lz}\left(1+\frac{1}{12L_{0}}\right)w_{p}\simeq\frac{14}{27z}\left(\frac{l}{L_{rad}}\right)^{2}.$
(17)
The spectral distributions of created positrons reflect the spectral
distribution of photons (up to common factor $w_{p}$ in Eq.(16) and $w_{p}/2$
in Eq.(17)).
When the parameter $\nu_{1}$ is large the asymptotic regime for the radiation
probability (see Eqs.(2.31),(2.32) of [4]) is realized at very high value of
$\nu_{1}$. Because of this one has to use Eq.(11) directly. Conserving the
main terms over $1/y$ we find
$\frac{dw_{c}}{dz}\simeq\left(\frac{l}{L_{rad}}\right)^{2}\frac{2\varepsilon_{e}}{\varepsilon}\int_{z}^{1}\left(1-\frac{4z(y-z)}{3y^{2}}\right){\rm
Im}\left(\psi(x)-\ln x+\frac{1}{2x}\right)\frac{dy}{y},$ (18)
where $x=x(y)=\sqrt{i\varepsilon_{e}y/(4\varepsilon)}$.
Since the spectral distribution has the general factor $1/z$ its
characteristic properties at variation of $z$ over a few order of magnitude
one can track analyzing the function $zdw/dz$. For the same reason in Figs 2
and 3 in the region under consideration ($z\leq 0.2$) the dependence of this
combination on the positron energy
$\varepsilon_{+}(z=\varepsilon_{+}/\varepsilon)$ is shown. The probabilities
Eqs.(3), (11) were used in calculation.
In the Fig.1 the spectral density $dw/dz$ for thin targets is shown. The
difference between curves 1 and 2 is due to the influence of multiple
scattering. Since the targets are quite thin, the difference is still small
especially for $l=170\mu m$. The integral
$n_{12}=\int_{z_{1}}^{z_{2}}(dw/dz)~{}dz$ gives the number of positron per one
initial electron in the energy interval $\varepsilon z_{1}-\varepsilon z_{2}$.
For thickness $l=400~{}\mu m$ one has $n_{12}\simeq 9\cdot 10^{-4}$ for the
positron energies interval 0.5-5 GeV. The targets of mentioned thicknesses
were used in the experiment NA63 carried out recently at SPS at CERN (for
proposal see [7]).
The Fig.2 is another look on the process which permits to trace details of the
pair creation mechanism. The curves 2,5 in the right part increase first
tending to the asymptotic Eq.(17) and than decrease because of transition to
the regime of Eq.(18) at the characteristic energy
$z_{c}=y_{c}=\omega_{c}/\varepsilon=\varepsilon/\varepsilon_{e}=0.01$. The
curves 1,4 are described nearly completely by Eq.(16). The increase of
combination $zdw/dz$ is due to $\ln 1/z$. This contribution dominates in the
summary combination in the left part of the spectrum for $l=400~{}\mu m$ and
in the whole spectrum for $l=170~{}\mu m$ (curves 3,6). Because of this the
relative influence of multiple scattering on the electroproduction process is
falling.
The Fig.3 shows a different situation when the target is relatively thick.
Evidently here the influence of multiple scattering spreads to the more wide
positron energy interval (the region where the curve 2 decreases). The cascade
mechanism dominates for the positron energy higher than 10 GeV.
In the Fig.4 the difference between the curves 1 and 2 shows the influence of
multiple scattering. This difference can be characterized by ratio (see
Eqs.(3), (11), (12))
$\Delta=\frac{dw_{c}^{QED}-dw_{c}}{dw_{c}+dw_{2}}.$ (19)
In tungsten for the thickness $l=0.03~{}$cm one has at the initial electron
energy $\varepsilon=50~{}$GeV for the created positron energy
$\varepsilon_{+}=50$MeV ($z=0.001$) the value $\Delta\simeq$ 42%, and at the
initial electron energy $\varepsilon=300~{}$GeV for the created positron
energy $\varepsilon_{+}=100$ MeV the value $\Delta\simeq$ 100%.
## 5 Conclusion
The process of electron-positron pair production by a high-energy electron
traversing amorphous medium is investigated. It is shown that the soft part of
created particle spectrum may reduced due to the multiple scattering of the
initial electron. In the direct process (via the virtual intermediate photon)
the equivalent photon spectrum is changed under the influence of multiple
scattering. In the cascade process (via real intermediate photon) the multiple
scattering distorted the photon spectrum inside a target. Besides, the
contribution of the boundary photons appears. It is shown, within the
logarithmic accuracy, that the change of the equivalent photon spectrum is
canceled by the contribution of the boundary photons. As a result one has that
the influence of multiple scattering may be neglected in the very thin targets
($l\leq 1\%L_{rad}$), where the direct process dominates in the soft part of
photon spectrum. The different situation arises in a more thick target of
heavy elements ($l\sim$ a few % of $L_{rad}$). For the initial electron energy
in the range of hundreds GeV the multiple scattering substantially diminish
the spectrum of created positrons in the range from hundreds MeV to a few GeV.
This phenomenon can be used for further study of the influence of multiple
scattering on higher order QED processes.
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to the Russian Foundation for Basic Research
supported in part this research by Grant 06-02-16226.
## References
* [1] S. R. Kelner, Yadernaya Fizica, 5 (1967) 1092.
* [2] V. N. Baier, V. M. Katkov, V. S. Fadin, Radiation from Relativistic Electrons (in Russian) Atomizdat, Moscow, 1973.
* [3] V. N. Baier, V. S. Fadin, V.A.Khoze, E.A.Kuraev, Phys. Rep. 78 (1981) 293.
* [4] V. N. Baier, V. M. Katkov, Phys. Rep. 409 (2005) 261.
* [5] V. N. Baier, V. M. Katkov, Phys.Rev. D57 (1998) 3146.
* [6] H. Olsen, L. Maximon, Phys.Rev. 114 (1959) 887.
* [7] J. U. Andersen, K.Kirsebom, S. P. Moller et al, Electromagnetic Processes in Strong Cristalline Fields, CERN-SPSC-2005-030.
Figure captions
Fig.1
The summary spectral distribution $dw/dz=dw_{2}/dz+dw_{c}/dz$ of pair
electroproduction in amorphous germanium at the initial electron energy
$\varepsilon=180~{}$GeV. In the curves 1 and 3 (for two target thicknesses
$l=400~{}\mu m$ and $l=170~{}\mu m$ respectively) the multiple scattering is
taken into account (Eq.(11)), while in the curves 2 and 4 the multiple
scattering is neglected (Eq.(12)).
Fig.2
The combination $zdw/dz$ for the pair electroproduction probability in
amorphous Ge at the initial electron energy $\varepsilon=180~{}$GeV. The
dotted curves 1 and 4 are the contributions of two-photon diagrams Eq.(3), the
dashed curves 2 and 5 are the contributions of cascade process Eq.(11), the
solid curves 3 and 6 are the sum of two previous contributions for two
thicknesses $l=400~{}\mu m$ and $l=170~{}\mu m$ respectively. For convenience
the ordinate is multiplied by $10^{3}$.
Fig.3
The combination $zdw/dz$ for the pair electroproduction probability in
amorphous tungsten at the initial electron energy $\varepsilon=300~{}$GeV. The
dotted curve 1 is the contribution of two-photon diagrams Eq.(3), the dashed
curve 2 is the contribution of cascade process Eq.(3), the solid curve 3 is
the sum of two previous contributions for the target thicknesses $l=300~{}\mu
m~{}(8.6\%~{}L_{rad})$ For convenience the ordinate is multiplied by $10^{3}$.
Fig.4
The summary spectral distribution $dw/dz=dw_{2}/dz+dw_{c}/dz$ of the pair
electroproduction in amorphous tungsten of the thickness $l=300~{}\mu
m~{}(8.6\%L_{rad})$ at the initial electron energy $\varepsilon=50~{}$GeV. In
the curve 1 the multiple scattering is taken into account (Eq.(11)), while in
curve 2 the multiple scattering is neglected (Eq.(12)).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-05T03:23:21 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.635707 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "V. N. Baier and V. M. Katkov",
"submitter": "Baier",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0456"
} |
0805.0767 | # On the noncommutative fields method in the three-dimensional Yang-Mills
theory
J. R. Nascimento, A. Yu. Petrov, E. O. Silva Departamento de Física,
Universidade Federal da Paraíba
Caixa Postal 5008, 58051-970, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil
jroberto,petrov,edilberto@fisica.ufpb.br
###### Abstract
We apply the noncommutative fields method to the three-dimensional non-Abelian
gauge theory. We find that, first, implementing the noncommutativity between
the canonical momenta implies in generation of the non-Abelian Chern-Simons
term, second, if one introduces the noncommutativity between the field
operators, the higher derivative terms would arise.
The noncommutativity is treated now as a fundamental quantum property of the
space-time geometry. Beside of the known scheme of introducing the
noncommutativity via the Moyal product SW , an alternative one was recently
developed, that is, so-called noncommutative fields method, in which, instead
of the spacetime coordinates, fields themselves are noncommutative, thus, the
canonical commutation relations turn out to be deformed Gamb0 . This method
turned out to be a new method of generating the Lorentz-breaking correction
after it was shown that the known Lorentz-breaking term initially introduced
by Jackiw and Kostelecky JK naturally emerges within this formalism Gamb1 .
Further, the non-Abelian analog of this term was generated via the
noncommutative fields method Gamb2 , and in our paper ourgra , this method was
applied to generate the Lorentz symmetry breaking in the linearized gravity.
At the same time, the situation in three-dimensional space-time is different.
Indeed, we have shown in NPR that application of the noncommutative field
method to three-dimensional electrodynamics, instead of the Lorentz-breaking
terms generates a gauge invariant mass term, that is, the Chern-Simons term,
with the mass turns out to be proportional to the noncommutativity parameter
NPR . We would like to notice that unlike of common perturbative approach (see
f.e. Redlich ), the essence of the noncommutative fields method consists in
possibility to generate new terms without coupling to extra matter fields. The
very natural development of this study would consist in generalization of the
noncommutative fields method for the non-Abelian case, where it is natural to
expect that not only quadratic term but also the interaction term for the
gauge field will arise. Different aspects of the Chern-Simons term, both in
Abelian and non-Abelian cases, such as non-trivial topological nature of this
term DJT and quantization of the Chern-Simons coefficient quCS were studied.
In other worlds, it is natural to expect that in this case, the three-
dimensional non-Abelian Chern-Simons term
$\displaystyle L_{CS}=\frac{1}{2}m\epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}{\rm
tr}(A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}A_{\lambda}+\frac{2}{3}gA_{\mu}A_{\nu}A_{\lambda})$
(1)
will be generated. From the other side, we are planning to generalize the
noncommutative field method by introducing of a more general deformation of
the canonical algebra which in principle could imply in arising of the
Lorentz-breaking terms. These problems are considered in the paper.
Let us start our study of the three-dimensional Yang-Mills theory, whose
action is
$\displaystyle S=-\frac{1}{4}\int d^{3}x{\rm tr}F_{mn}F^{mn},$ (2)
with the $F_{mn}=F_{mn}^{a}T^{a}$ is a stress tensor constructed on the base
of the Lie-algebra valued gauge field $A_{m}(x)=A_{m}^{a}(x)T^{a}$ (with ${\rm
tr}(T^{a}T^{b})=\delta^{ab}$, and $[T^{a},T^{b}]=f^{abc}T^{c}$):
$\displaystyle
F_{mn}^{a}=\partial_{m}A_{n}^{a}-\partial_{n}A_{m}^{a}+gf^{abc}A^{b}_{m}A^{c}_{n},$
(3)
so, the Lagrangian, after splitting of the indices into time (zero) and space
ones (denoted by $i,j,k$) looks like
$\displaystyle L=-\frac{1}{4}\int
d^{3}xF_{mn}^{a}F^{mn\,a}=-\frac{1}{4}F^{a}_{ij}F^{a}_{ij}+\frac{1}{2}(\dot{A}^{a}_{i}-\partial_{i}A^{a}_{0}+gf^{abc}A^{b}_{i}A^{c}_{0})^{2}.$
(4)
Let the signature be $diag(-++)$. First, we carry out the canonical
quantization of the theory. The canonical momentum of the theory is
$\displaystyle p^{a}_{m}=\frac{\partial
L}{\partial\dot{A}^{a\,m}}=F^{a}_{0m}.$ (5)
It is clear that $p^{a}_{0}=0$, so, we find the primary constraint
$\Phi^{(1)a}=p^{a}_{0}$. The velocities can be expressed as
$\displaystyle\dot{A}^{a}_{i}=p_{i}^{a}-gf^{abc}A^{b}_{0}A^{c}_{i}+\partial_{i}A_{0}^{a}.$
(6)
Thus, the Hamiltonian is
$\displaystyle
H=p^{a}_{i}\dot{A}^{a}_{i}-L=\frac{1}{2}p^{a}_{i}p^{a}_{i}+\frac{1}{4}F^{a}_{ij}F^{a}_{ij}+p_{i}^{a}(-gf^{abc}A^{b}_{0}A^{c}_{i}+\partial_{i}A_{0}^{a}).$
(7)
The secondary constraint looks like
$\displaystyle\Phi^{(2)b}\equiv\Delta^{a}=\\{p^{a}_{0},H\\}=-\frac{\partial
H}{\partial
A_{0}^{a}}=-(\partial_{i}p_{i}^{a}+gf^{abc}A^{b}_{i}p_{i}^{c})\equiv-{\cal
D}^{ab}_{i}p^{b}_{i}.$ (8)
This constraint evidently generates the gauge transformations:
$\displaystyle\delta A_{i}^{a}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\\{A_{i}^{a},\int
d^{2}\vec{x}\xi^{b}(\vec{x})\Delta^{b}(\vec{x})\\}=\partial_{i}\xi^{a}(\vec{x})+gf^{abc}A^{b}_{i}(\vec{x})\xi^{c}(\vec{x})\,(\equiv{\cal
D}^{ac}_{i}\xi^{c}(\vec{x}));$ $\displaystyle\delta p_{i}^{a}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\\{p_{i}^{a},\int
d^{2}\vec{x}\xi^{b}(\vec{x})\Delta^{b}(\vec{x})\\}=-gf^{abc}\xi^{b}(\vec{x})p^{c}_{i}(\vec{x}),$
(9)
which evidently reproduces the known gauge transformation for the connection
and stress tensor. Here the ${\cal D}^{ac}$ is a gauge covariant derivative.
It is easy to check that the primary and secondary constraints mutually
commute, $\\{\Phi^{(1)a},\Phi^{(2)b}\\}=0$. Further, one can find that
$\\{\Phi^{(2)b},H\\}=0$, thus, no new constraints arise (see also Park ; Wo
for discussion of the canonical structure of the theories with the Chern-
Simons term).
The canonical quantization of the theory can be carried out in a standard way,
that is, we define the canonical variables $A^{a}_{i}$ and $p^{a}_{i}$ to be
operators with the commutation relation
$[A^{a}_{i}(\vec{x}),p^{b}_{j}(\vec{y})]=i\delta_{ij}\delta^{ab}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y})$,
with all other commutators of the canonical variables be zero.
Now, let us implement the noncommutative fields method. To do it, we deform
the canonical commutation relations to be
$\displaystyle[A^{a}_{i}(\vec{x}),p^{b}_{j}(\vec{y})]=i\delta_{ij}\delta^{ab}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y});$
$\displaystyle[p^{a}_{i}(\vec{x}),p^{b}_{j}(\vec{y})]=i\theta_{ij}\delta^{ab}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y});$
$\displaystyle[A^{a}_{i}(\vec{x}),A^{b}_{j}(\vec{y})]=0.$ (10)
Our aim is to deform the secondary constraint $\Delta^{b}$ in a manner
preserving the gauge transformations (On the noncommutative fields method in
the three-dimensional Yang-Mills theory). It is easy to see that this can be
achieved if we modify the secondary constraint as
$\displaystyle\tilde{\Delta}^{b}=-(\partial_{i}p_{i}^{b}+gf^{bcd}A^{c}_{i}p_{i}^{d})+\theta_{ij}(\partial_{i}A^{b}_{j}+\frac{1}{2}gf^{bcd}A^{c}_{i}A^{d}_{j}).$
(11)
This modification of the secondary constraint implies in the modification of
the Hamiltonian which acquires the form
$\displaystyle\tilde{H}=\frac{1}{2}p^{a}_{i}p^{a}_{i}+\frac{1}{4}F^{a}_{ij}F^{a}_{ij}+A_{0}^{b}\theta_{ij}(\partial_{i}A^{b}_{j}+\frac{1}{2}gf^{bcd}A^{c}_{i}A^{d}_{j}).$
(12)
Then, we can introduce the canonical momenta
$\displaystyle\pi_{i}^{a}=p_{i}^{a}-\frac{1}{2}\theta_{ij}A_{j}^{a},$ (13)
and they satisfy the commutation relation $[\pi_{i}^{a},\pi_{j}^{b}]=0$.
The new Lagrangian is
$\displaystyle\tilde{L}=\pi_{i}^{a}\dot{A}_{i}^{a}-\tilde{H}.$ (14)
Substituting the canonical momenta (13) and the modfified Hamiltonian (12) to
this expression, we find that the new Lagrangian can be written as
$\displaystyle\tilde{L}=L+\Delta L\equiv
L-\frac{1}{2}\theta_{ij}\dot{A}_{i}^{a}A_{j}^{a}-A_{0}^{b}\theta_{ij}(\partial_{i}A^{b}_{j}+\frac{1}{2}gf^{bcd}A^{c}_{i}A^{d}_{j}).$
(15)
As a result, we find
$\displaystyle\Delta
L=\theta_{ij}(-\frac{1}{2}\dot{A}_{i}^{a}A_{j}^{a}-A_{0}^{a}\partial_{i}A_{j}^{a}+\frac{1}{2}gf^{bcd}A_{0}^{b}A_{i}^{c}A^{d}_{j}).$
(16)
After an appropriate symmetrization, introducing
$\theta_{ij}=\epsilon_{0ij}\theta$, we find
$\displaystyle\Delta
L=\frac{1}{2}\theta\epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}(A_{\mu}^{a}\partial_{\nu}A_{\lambda}^{a}+\frac{1}{3}gf^{abc}A_{\mu}^{a}A_{\nu}^{b}A_{\lambda}^{c})=\frac{1}{2}\theta\epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}{\rm
tr}(A_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}A_{\lambda}+\frac{2}{3}gA_{\mu}A_{\nu}A_{\lambda}),$
(17)
which reproduces the structure of the well known non-Abelian Chern-Simons
term, with the mass is proportional to the noncommutativity parameter, just as
in NPR .
We can try to implement a more general deformation of the canonical algebra,
that is,
$\displaystyle[A^{a}_{i}(\vec{x}),p^{b}_{j}(\vec{y})]=i\delta_{ij}\delta^{ab}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y});$
$\displaystyle[p^{a}_{i}(\vec{x}),p^{b}_{j}(\vec{y})]=i\theta_{ij}\delta^{ab}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y});$
$\displaystyle[A^{a}_{i}(\vec{x}),A^{b}_{j}(\vec{y})]=i\tilde{\theta}_{ij}\delta^{ab}\delta(\vec{x}-\vec{y}).$
(18)
Let us impose again a requirement that the gauge transformations should have
the form (On the noncommutative fields method in the three-dimensional Yang-
Mills theory). First of all, since $\theta_{ij}$ and $\tilde{\theta}_{ij}$ are
constants, we suggest from the beginning that
$\theta_{ij}=\theta\epsilon_{ij}$,
$\tilde{\theta}_{ij}=\tilde{\theta}\epsilon_{ij}$.
To do it, let us suggest the following form of the modified secondary
constraint which is the most general expression of no higher than second order
in canonical variables:
$\displaystyle\Phi^{(2)b}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\partial_{i}p_{i}^{b}+k_{1}gf^{bcd}A^{c}_{i}p_{i}^{d}+k_{2}\epsilon_{ij}\partial_{i}A^{b}_{j}+k_{3}\epsilon_{ij}\partial_{i}p^{b}_{j}+k_{4}\epsilon_{ij}gf^{bcd}A^{c}_{i}p^{d}_{j}+$
(19) $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
k_{5}gf^{bcd}\epsilon_{ij}p^{c}_{i}p^{d}_{j}+k_{6}gf^{bcd}\epsilon_{ij}A^{c}_{i}A^{d}_{j}.$
Here the coefficients $k_{1}\ldots k_{6}$ depend on $\theta,\tilde{\theta}$.
The corresponding variations of the fields look like
$\displaystyle\delta A^{a}_{n}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\\{A^{a}_{n},\Phi^{(2)b}\\}\xi^{b}=\partial_{n}\xi^{a}-k_{1}gf^{abc}\xi^{b}(\tilde{\theta}\epsilon_{ni}p^{c}_{i}-A^{c}_{n})-k_{2}\tilde{\theta}\partial_{n}\xi^{a}+k_{3}\epsilon_{ni}\partial_{i}\xi^{a}+$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
k_{4}gf^{abc}\xi^{b}(\tilde{\theta}p^{c}_{n}-\epsilon_{ni}A^{c}_{i})-2k_{5}g\epsilon_{ni}f^{abc}\xi^{b}p^{c}_{i}+2k_{6}gf^{abc}\tilde{\theta}\xi^{b}A^{c}_{n};$
$\displaystyle\delta p^{a}_{n}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\\{p^{a}_{n},\Phi^{(2)b}\\}\xi^{b}=\theta\epsilon_{ni}\partial_{i}\xi^{a}+k_{1}gf^{abc}\xi^{b}p^{c}_{n}+k_{1}\theta
gf^{abc}\epsilon_{ni}\xi^{b}A^{c}_{i}-k_{2}\epsilon_{ni}\partial_{i}\xi^{a}-k_{3}\theta\partial_{n}\xi^{a}+$
(20) $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
k_{4}\epsilon_{ni}gf^{abc}\xi^{b}p^{c}_{i}+k_{4}\theta
gf^{abc}A^{c}_{n}\xi^{b}+2k_{5}gf^{abc}\theta\xi^{b}p^{c}_{n}-2k_{6}gf^{abc}\epsilon_{ni}\xi^{b}A^{c}_{i}.$
We want these transformations to reproduce (On the noncommutative fields
method in the three-dimensional Yang-Mills theory). For the variation of
$A^{a}_{n}$ this requirement yields $k_{3}=0,k_{4}=0$, so, we will not
consider these terms in the equation for $\delta p^{a}_{i}$. Also, we find
$\displaystyle
k_{2}\tilde{\theta}=0;\quad\,k_{1}+2k_{6}\tilde{\theta}=-1,\quad\,k_{1}\tilde{\theta}+2k_{5}=0.$
(21)
For the second equation, after substituting $k_{3}=k_{4}=0$, we get
$\displaystyle
k_{2}=\theta,\quad\,k_{1}+2k_{5}\theta=-1,\quad\,k_{1}\theta-2k_{6}=0.$ (22)
Comparing these equations, we find that the variations of the fields (On the
noncommutative fields method in the three-dimensional Yang-Mills theory)
reproduce the form of variations under the gauge transformations if and only
if $\theta\tilde{\theta}=0$. Hence, we must have either $\tilde{\theta}=0$,
which is exactly the case studied above, or $\theta=0$. Thus, we conclude that
we cannot impose noncommutativity both in field and momentum sectors in a
manner compatible with the gauge symmetry.
It remains only to finish the study in the case when $\theta=0$. In this case,
the modified constraint is
$\displaystyle\Phi^{(2)b}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\partial_{i}p_{i}^{b}-gf^{bcd}A^{c}_{i}p_{i}^{d}+\frac{\tilde{\theta}}{2}gf^{bcd}\epsilon_{ij}p^{c}_{i}p^{d}_{j},$
(23)
and the modified Hamiltonian is
$\displaystyle\tilde{H}=\frac{1}{2}p^{a}_{i}p^{a}_{i}+\frac{1}{4}F^{a}_{ij}F^{a}_{ij}+A_{0}^{b}[-\partial_{i}p_{i}^{b}-gf^{bcd}A^{c}_{i}p_{i}^{d}+\frac{\tilde{\theta}}{2}gf^{bcd}\epsilon_{ij}p^{c}_{i}p^{d}_{j}].$
(24)
Since commutation relations between momenta are not modified in this case, the
momenta $p^{a}_{i}$ continue to be canonical ones, whereas the coordinates –
do not more. The correct ”new” canonical coordinates, whose commutators are
equal to zero, are
$\displaystyle\tilde{A}^{a}_{i}=A^{a}_{i}-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\theta}\epsilon_{ij}p^{a}_{j},$
(25)
with the ”old” velocities are related with momenta as
$\displaystyle\dot{A}^{b}_{i}=\frac{\partial\tilde{H}}{\partial
p^{b}_{i}}=p^{b}_{i}+\partial_{i}A^{b}_{0}+gf^{abc}A^{a}_{0}A^{c}_{i}+g\tilde{\theta}f^{abc}A^{a}_{0}\epsilon_{ij}p^{c}_{j},$
(26)
which for $\tilde{\theta}=0$ evidently reduces to the common expression (6).
Unfortunately, this equation, whose equivalent form is
$\displaystyle
p^{c}_{j}(\delta^{bc}\delta_{ij}+g\tilde{\theta}f^{abc}A^{a}_{0}\epsilon_{ij})=\dot{A}^{b}_{i}-\partial_{i}A^{b}_{0}+gf^{bac}A^{a}_{0}A^{c}_{i}\quad\,(=F^{b}_{0i}),$
(27)
cannot be solved exactly, we can use only iterative approach (however, we
would like to point out that this problem does not arises in the Abelian case
where one finds $p^{b}_{i}=F^{b}_{0i}$). As a zeroth approximation (which,
however, is sufficient to find the corrections in the effective Lagrangian up
to the first order in $\tilde{\theta}$), we can use the $\tilde{\theta}=0$
expression for the canonical momentum $p^{a}_{i}$ (5), thus, the Lagrangian
$\tilde{L}=p^{a}_{i}\dot{\tilde{A}}^{a}_{i}-\tilde{H}$ acquires a correction
$\Delta L$ generated by modifications both of the Hamiltonian and
$\dot{A}^{a}_{i}$. This correction, being expressed in terms of the canonical
momenta, looks like:
$\displaystyle\Delta
L=-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\theta}\epsilon_{ij}p^{a}_{i}\dot{p}^{a}_{j}-\frac{1}{2}gf^{bcd}A^{b}_{0}\tilde{\theta}\epsilon_{ij}p^{c}_{i}p^{d}_{j}.$
(28)
This expresion is exact, without any approximations. After elimination of
momenta, where we must employ the approximate expressions for $p^{a}_{i}$ in
terms of velocities, we find that
$\displaystyle\Delta
L=-\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\theta}\epsilon_{ij}F^{a}_{0i}\dot{F}^{a}_{0j}-\frac{1}{2}gf^{bcd}A^{b}_{0}\tilde{\theta}\epsilon_{ij}F^{c}_{0i}F^{d}_{0j}+O(\tilde{\theta}^{2}).$
(29)
Thus, one can see that, as a result, the modified Lagrangian in the case of
noncommuting field operators involves higher derivatives (since $F^{a}_{0i}$
contain first temporal derivative). The similar conclusion, that is,
generation of higher derivatives in the case of noncommuting fields (which can
be treated as UV limit of the theory, see discussion of scales in the
noncommutative fields method in Gamb0 ), was obtained in Gamb . Also, we note
that, as this correction to the Lagrangian has quite ugly form, we can
conclude that in this case, unlike of the case of noncommuting momenta, we
meet an explicit Lorentz symmetry breaking.
Let us discuss the results. We studied the generalized version of the
noncommutative field method, in which, differently from the most popular
version Gamb1 ; Gamb2 ; ourgra not only the commutation relations between
canonical momenta are deformed but also the commutation relations between
canonical field coordinates. The most important conclusions are the following
ones. First, one cannot deform these two canonical commutation relations
simultaneously in a manner compatible with the gauge symmetry. This fact can
be treated as a need to choose between study of the low-energy behaviour
(which corresponds to deformation of commutation relation between canonical
momenta) and study of the high-energy behaviour (which corresponds to
deformation of commutation relation between canonical fields) with no
possibility to consider two limits at the same time. Second, in the low-energy
limit the complete, non-linearized Chern-Simons term is generated, which is a
natural non-Abelian generalization of the result obtained in NPR where the
quadratic Chern-Simons term was generated for the electrodynamics, with no
Lorentz symmetry breaking terms arises in this case, and both the mass term
and cubic interaction term with a correct coefficient are generated. However,
the new term arisen in the high-energy limit turns out to break the Lorentz
symmetry explicitly, and, moreover, it involves higher derivatives as it was
predicted in Gamb . The natural treating of this result is that the breaking
of the Lorentz symmetry at high energies can be related to the GZK effect and
many other studies predicting Lorentz symmetry breaking namely for high energy
scales (see f.e. Mag ).
Acknowledgments. The work by A. Yu. P. has been supported by CNPq-FAPESQ DCR
program, CNPq project No. 350400/2005-9.
## References
* (1) N. Seiberg, E. Witten, JHEP 09, 032 (1999), hep-th/9908142.
* (2) J. Carmona, J. Cortes, J. Gamboa and F. Mendez, Phys. Lett. B565, 222 (2003), hep-th/0207158; JHEP 03, 058 (2003), hep-th/0301248.
* (3) R. Jackiw, V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3572 (1999), hep-ph/9903158.
* (4) J. Gamboa, J. Lopez-Sarrion, Phys. Rev. D71, 067702 (2005), hep-th/0501034.
* (5) H. Falomir, J. Gamboa, J. Lopez-Sarrion, F. Mendez, A. J. da Silva, Phys. Lett. B632, 740 (2005), hep-th/0504032.
* (6) A. F. Ferrari, M. Gomes, J. R. Nascimento, E. Passos, A. Yu. Petrov, A. J. da Silva, Phys. Lett. B652, 174 (2007), hep-th/0609222.
* (7) J. R. Nascimento, A. Yu. Petrov, R. F. Ribeiro, Europhys. Lett. 77, 51001 (2007), hep-th/0601077.
* (8) A. N. Redlich, Phys. Rev. D29, 2366 (1984).
* (9) S. Deser, R. Jackiw, S. Templeton, Ann. Phys. 140, 372 (1982); Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 975 (1982).
* (10) A. P. Polychronakos, Phys. Lett. B241, 37 (1990); L.-S. Chen, G. Dunne, K. Haller, E. Lim-Lombridas, Phys. Lett. B348, 468 (1995).
* (11) M.-I. Park, Nucl. Phys. B544, 377 (1999), hep-th/9811033.
* (12) L. S. Grigorio, M. S. Guimaraes, S. Wotzasek, ”Induced deformation of the canonical structure and UV/IR duality in (1+1)D”, arXiv: 0802.1193; J. Gamboa, L. S. Grigorio, M. S. Guimaraes, F. Mendes, S. Wotzasek, ”Radiative processes as a condensation phenomenon and the physical meaning of deformed canonical structures”, arXiv: 0805.0626.
* (13) J. Gamboa, J. Lopez-Sarrion, A. Polychronakos, Phys. Lett. B634, 471 (2006), hep-ph/0510113.
* (14) J. Magueijo, L. Smolin, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 1725 (2003), gr-qc/0305055.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-06T18:05:25 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.645860 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "J. R. Nascimento, A. Yu. Petrov, E. O. Silva",
"submitter": "A. Yu. Petrov",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0767"
} |
0805.0777 | # A Precise Estimate of the Radius of the Exoplanet HD 149026b from _Spitzer_
Photometry
Philip Nutzman 11affiliation: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60
Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138 , David Charbonneau 11affiliation: Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138
22affiliation: Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellow , Joshua N. Winn 33affiliation:
Department of Physics, and Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space
Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA ,
Heather A. Knutson 11affiliation: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics,
60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138 , Jonathan J. Fortney 44affiliation:
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, UCO/Lick Observatory, University of
California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 , Matthew J. Holman 11affiliation: Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138 , Eric
Agol 55affiliation: Department of Astronomy, University of Washington, Box
351580, Seattle, WA 98195 pnutzman@cfa.harvard.edu
###### Abstract
We present _Spitzer_ 8 $\mu$m transit observations of the extrasolar planet HD
149026b. At this wavelength, transit light curves are weakly affected by
stellar limb-darkening, allowing for a simpler and more accurate determination
of planetary parameters. We measure a planet-star radius ratio of
$R_{p}/R_{\star}=0.05158\pm 0.00077$, and in combination with ground-based
data and independent constraints on the stellar mass and radius, we derive an
orbital inclination of
$i=85\mbox{$.\\!\\!^{\circ}$}4~{}^{+0\mbox{$.\\!\\!^{\circ}$}9}_{-0\mbox{$.\\!\\!^{\circ}$}8}$
and a planet radius of $R_{p}=0.755\pm 0.040~{}R_{J}$. These measurements
further support models in which the planet is greatly enriched in heavy
elements.
stars: planetary systems — techniques: photometric
## 1 Introduction
Much attention has been lavished on the transiting extrasolar planet HD
149026b (Sato et al., 2005) due to its potential to directly test models of
planet formation. The planet’s small observed radius for its mass imply that
an extraordinary fraction of its mass (roughly 2/3) is in the form of heavy
elements (Sato et al., 2005; Fortney et al., 2006; Burrows et al., 2007). The
discovery of a metal-laden planet orbiting a very metal-rich host star ([Fe/H]
$=0.36$; Sato et al. 2005) strongly suggests that core-accretion (e.g.,
Pollack et al. 1996) plays a role in forming giant planets. If, however, most
of the heavy elements reside in the planet’s core, then HD 149026b would
possess a core mass much greater than the expected critical core mass of
$10-20M_{\earth}$ (Mizuno, 1980; Pollack et al., 1996), and thus nonetheless
present a challenge to standard core-accretion theory.
The planet is noteworthy in another respect. Observations by the _Spitzer
Space Telescope_ (Harrington et al., 2007) have shown the planet to have a
day-side 8 $\mu$m brightness temperature well in excess of its predicted
blackbody temperature, when it is assumed that all incident radiation is
absorbed and subsequently re-emitted uniformly across the entire surface of
the planet. Fortney et al. (2008) posit that highly irradiated planets such as
HD 149026b, which they term “pM” class planets, will generally show bright
day-sides and large day/night temperature contrasts. They argue that the
incident stellar flux is prominently absorbed by gaseous TiO and VO high in
the atmospheres of pM planets where the radiative timescale is much shorter
than the advective timescale (see also Hubeny et al., 2003; Burrows et al.,
2008). This is in contrast to less irradiated “pL” planets where Ti and V are
expected to largely condense out of the atmosphere, permitting the stellar
flux to be absorbed deeper in the atmosphere where the two timescales are
comparable. Hence, it is only for the pL class that a heated parcel of gas is
able to be advected to the night side prior to cooling, resulting in similar
day/night temperatures.
HD 149026b is thus a valuable case study for modelers of planetary
atmospheres, structure, and formation. Unfortunately, the system is
observationally challenging: the transit depth (3 mmag in $V$) is a factor of
two shallower than any other presently known transiting planet, and more
importantly, there are few adequate comparison stars nearby on the sky. The
result is that the present fractional uncertainty in the key observable
parameter, the planetary radius $R_{p}$, is $7\%$ (Winn et al., 2008). This
uncertainty is one of the largest among the ensemble of transiting planets.
The state of uncertainty is unfortunate given that $R_{p}$ is the essential
constraint on models of the planet’s interior structure. Fortunately there is
further scope for improvement through high-precision photometry.
This study is inspired by the potential of infrared photometry with the
_Spitzer Space Telescope_ to reduce the uncertainty in $R_{p}$. While ground-
based photometry suffers from significant levels of systematic noise when
there are few good comparison stars, _Spitzer_ has demonstrated 0.1 mmag
photometry without any comparison stars (e.g. Knutson et al. 2007).
Additionally, because of the near absence of stellar-limb darkening in the
infrared, transit light curve modeling is simplified and gives results largely
independent of assumptions about limb-darkening coefficients. Previously, Sato
et al. (2005), Charbonneau et al. (2006), and Winn et al. (2008) (hereafter
W08) have presented ground-based photometry of HD 149026. In this paper, we
report _Spitzer_ 8 $\mu$m observations of the transit of HD 149026b, and
combine this with the previously published data in order to derive precise
constraints on the properties of HD 149026b. In §2 we describe the
observations and data reduction and in §3 we describe our analysis of the
_Spitzer_ light curve. In §4 we estimate the physical parameters of the HD
149026 system. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our
revised estimate of the planet radius for models of the interior structure of
HD 149026b.
## 2 Observations and Reduction
We observed the transit of HD 149026 on UT 2007 August 14, using the 8 micron
channel of the IRAC instrument (Fazio et al 2004) aboard the _Spitzer_ Space
Telescope (Werner et al., 2004). The system was observed at a 0.4 s cadence
using IRAC’s 32 by 32 pixel sub-array mode, in which frames of 64 images are
taken in rapid succession. Over the course of our observations, we obtained
1047 such frames, resulting in 67,008 total images. Our observational strategy
matches that of recent Spitzer observations of HD 189733 and GJ 436 (e.g.,
Knutson et al. 2007, Deming et al. 2007, Gillon et al. 2007); the telescope
positioning was held fixed to avoid time loss during telescope movements and
to minimize errors from an imperfect flat-field correction. In the IRAC 8
micron channel, there is a well-known rise in detector sensitivity during
observational sequences (see e.g., Harrington et al. 2007, Knutson et al.
2007), which is steepest at the beginning of observations and asymptotes
within several hours for highly illuminated ($>$ 250 MJy Sr-1) pixels. We
padded the beginning of our observational window so that the transit would
begin nearly 3 hours into observations, thus avoiding the steepest part of
this “ramp.”
In each image, we assessed the background flux by taking the median pixel
value from the corner regions of each 32 by 32 image. We performed aperture
photometry, settling on a 3.5 pixel aperture radius, for which the rms of the
time series is minimized. From the time stamp reported for each frame of 64
0.4 s exposures, we calculated the JD of the center of integration for each
image. We applied the heliocentric correction to the JD using the position of
_Spitzer_ obtained from the JPL Horizons Ephemeris System. In each series of
64 images there is a well-known effect, with the first 5-10 and $58^{th}$
images showing anomalously low star fluxes and background levels (see e.g.
Harrington 2007). Background subtraction generally corrects for this effect,
but we elected to drop the 1st image from each series of 64, because the
background levels in these images exhibit more dispersion than in the other
images. We trimmed the first 45 minutes of data, when the ramp is steepest. We
flagged images when the star centroid, calculated with a flux-weighted
average, was 4$\sigma$ away from the median centroid position. Such 4$\sigma$
centroid deviants were generally caused by cosmic rays or other contamination
in the photometric aperture. We further flagged images when the flux
measurement was 4$\sigma$ from a smoothed (binned) light curve, or the
background level was 4$\sigma$ from a binned time series of the background. We
flagged 317 images (0.5 $\%$ of the total) according to the last three
criteria.
## 3 _Spitzer_ Light Curve Analysis
One major benefit of observing transits at 8 $\mu$m is that stellar limb-
darkening has a small effect on the shape of the transit light curve. To
determine its extent, we consulted a theoretical limb-darkening model (Kurucz,
1979, 1994) for a $T_{\mathrm{eff}}=6250K$, $\log g=4.5$, [Fe/H] $=0.3$ star
at $\lambda=8~{}\mu$m. We fit this model111See
http://kurucz.harvard.edu/grids/ to the Claret (2000) four parameter nonlinear
limb-darkening law (see also Beaulieu et al. 2008 for a similar handling of
limb-darkening). Though the limb-darkening is indeed modest, we find that
incorporating it in our light curve modeling (described below) leads to non-
negligible changes in the best-fit parameters and a reduction in the best-fit
$\chi^{2}$ by more than 1. We modeled the light curve using the “small-planet”
transit routine of Mandel & Agol (2002) . The small planet approximation is
not usually suitable for analyzing high quality transit data, especially for
systems with large planet-star radius ratios ($R_{p}/R_{\star}\gtrsim 0.1$),
but here we find the approximation leads to insignificant changes in the best-
fit parameters (due to the very small planet-star radius ratio of HD 149026).
We assumed a circular orbit, which is expected from tidal dissipation and
supported by current radial velocity data (e.g., Sato et al. 2005). We
parametrized the light curve with 4 geometric parameters that are independent
of prior assumptions on the stellar properties: the planet-star radius ratio
$R_{p}/R_{\star}$, the stellar radius to orbital radius ratio $R_{\star}/a$,
the inclination $i$, and the time of mid-transit $T_{c}$. To correct for the
ramp and other possible detector effects, we adopted a correction factor
$f=(c_{0}+c_{1}\log(t-t_{0})+c_{2}\log^{2}(t-t_{0}))$, where $t_{0}$ was fixed
to a time a few minutes before the first observations. Note that in all of our
modeling below, we fit for the detector correction coefficients simultaneously
with the transit-related parameters, allowing us to take into account how
changes in the correction coefficients may impact the transit parameters.
We performed a least-squares fit to our unbinned data over the 7 parameter
space ($R_{p}/R_{\star}$, $R_{\star}/a$, $i$, $T_{c}$, $c_{0}$, $c_{1}$,
$c_{2}$), using an IDL implementation of the amoeba algorithm (e.g. see Press
et al. 1992). The data, corrected for the ramp and binned 100:1 are shown in
Figure 1, together with this best-fitting solution. To understand the level of
photometric noise and its properties, we examined the residuals from this best
fit. We determined a normalized rms residual of $8.3\times 10^{-3}$, only 15%
greater than the expected photon-noise. We found that the level of photometric
noise was constant over the duration of the observations, and furthermore that
the noise was essentially “white.” In the left panel of figure 2 we show that
the scatter in binned residuals decreases with bin size as $N^{-1/2}$ for bins
of up to 1000 images. In the right panel of Fig. 2, we display a power
spectrum estimate for the time-series of residuals. To compute this, we first
binned the residuals for each frame of 64 images. This step creates an evenly
spaced time-series of 940 residuals because IRAC, in sub-array mode, takes
exposures in sets of 64 images (once every 25.6 seconds). This binning also
avoids having to interpolate over gaps caused by flagged images. Though
binning removes the highest frequency information from the spectrum, we are
less concerned with noise power on the affected time scales, which are shorter
than the other timescales relevant in a transit light curve (e.g., the
ingress/egress duration). We estimated the power spectrum via the (modulus
squared) discrete Fourier transform. To reduce the variance at each frequency,
we smoothed with a 7 point “Daniell”, or moving average, filter. We compared
our power spectrum estimate with that expected of white noise by simulating
$10^{5}$ time-series with identical, independent Gaussian deviates of the same
time sampling and standard deviation as the _Spitzer_ residuals. We note that
$5\%$ of the simulated power spectra show peak values as high as the peak
value in _Spitzer_ power spectrum, while two peaks in the _Spitzer_ power
spectrum exceed the median peak value of the simulated spectra (the dashed
line in Fig. 2).
Figure 1: Transit photometry for HD 149026, with 40 second resolution (bins of
100 images). The top panel displays the raw light curve and the middle
displays the light curve corrected for the detector ramp as described in
section 3. At bottom are the residuals from the best fit light curve. Figure
2: Left: Root-mean-square of binned residuals vs. bin size. The solid line is
proportional to $N^{-1/2}$ and is normalized to match the value for bin size
$N=1$. Right: Power spectrum estimate for the time-series residuals. The
estimate has been divided by the power spectrum expected for randomly
generated white noise of the same standard deviation and time sampling as the
_Spitzer_ data. The dashed line represents the median peak value of the
simulated power spectrum estimates.
Because of the light curve modeling degeneracy between the parameters $a$ and
$R_{\star}$, transit photometry alone cannot determine the quantity of
interest, $R_{p}$. To break this degeneracy, one can either apply an external
constraint on $a$ (typically via Newton’s version of Kepler’s Third Law and a
constraint on $M_{\star}$), on $R_{\star}$, or on some combination of both.
Before applying any such constraints, we estimated the probability
distributions for the 7 light curve parameters by using the widely employed
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique (see e.g., Tegmark et al. 2004; Winn
et al. 2007; Burke et al. 2007). The benefit of performing this analysis
without any _a priori_ assumptions on stellar quantities is that we can
compare, on equal footing, the light curve constraints derived from our data
with constraints derived from other photometric data. For this analysis, we
adopted a conventional $\chi^{2}$ function as our goodness-of-fit statistic:
$\chi^{2}=\sum_{i}{\left(\frac{f_{mod}(i)-f_{obs}(i)}{\sigma}\right)^{2}}$ (1)
where $f_{mod}(i)$ the calculated flux at the time of the ith data point,
$f_{obs}(i)$ is the ith flux measurement, and $\sigma$ is fixed to the value
of the rms determined in the previous paragraph. We produced 10 chains of
length $10^{6}$, with each chain starting from independent parameter points
randomly chosen from a broad region (spanning approximately $5\sigma$) in
parameter space. The beginning $25\%$ of each chain was trimmed and the 10
chains were concatenated. We found that the Gelman-Rubin R statistic was
$<1.01$ for each parameter, which is an indication of convergence.
Our MCMC analysis yields $R_{p}/R_{\star}=0.05158\pm 0.00077$ and impact
parameter $|b|\equiv|a\cos i/R_{\star}|=0.62~{}^{+0.08}_{-0.24}$. Our result
for $R_{p}/R_{\star}$ is larger than that of W08
($R_{p}/R_{\star}=0.0491~{}^{+0.0018}_{-0.0005}$), though the difference is
only modestly significant. Our result for $|b|$ is higher than that of W08
($|b|=0.00$ with 68% upper limit $|b|=0.36$). We expect that our
$R_{p}/R_{\star}$ result is more robust than the result from the optical data
because, for weakly limb-darkened IR light curves, the radius ratio is
measured almost directly from the observed flux decrement. For optical light
curves, however, the radius ratio is strongly covariant with the assumed limb-
darkening coefficients. That is, an error in the assumed limb-darkening can
translate into an error in the radius ratio. To investigate this point, we
conducted a comparison with previously published $(b+y)/2$ HD 149026 light
curves of Sato et al. (2005) and W08 (see §4.2 for further discussion of these
data). For this sub-study we modeled the data in a manner similar to the
above, but assumed a linear limb-darkening coefficient, which we allowed to
vary freely. For the optical light curves, we determined a correlation
coefficient between $R_{p}/R_{\star}$ and the limb-darkening coefficient of
$r=0.55$, while for the same experiment with the _Spitzer_ data we found a
much weaker correlation ($r=-0.20$). Furthermore, in the presence of strong
limb-darkening, the radius ratio and impact parameter are also correlated; the
radius ratio can be traded off with the impact parameter to produce similar
transit depths. We point this out because it suggests that the above mentioned
discrepancies for $b$ and $R_{p}/R_{\star}$ are in fact correlated with each
other.
The results for these parameters and other important transit observables are
reported in Table 1 (marked with a superscript ‘a’). Noteworthy are the
results for the mean stellar density, $\rho_{\star}$, and planet surface
gravity, $g_{p}$, which are model-independent determinations making use of
information only from transit photometry and Doppler measurements (Seager &
Mallén-Ornelas, 2003; Southworth et al., 2007; Sozzetti et al., 2007). We also
find $a/R_{\star}=6.23~{}^{+0.71}_{-0.63}$, which is consistent with the
determination of W08 ($a/R_{\star}=7.11~{}^{+0.03}_{-0.81}$). Note that the
corresponding fractional uncertainty in our result for $R_{\star}/a$ is fairly
large ($\simeq 10\%$).
## 4 Stellar and Planetary Properties
In the transit modeling literature, the parameter of interest, $R_{p}$, is
usually determined via one of the following two methods. In the first, one
obtains an externally determined value of $R_{\star}$, and then multiplies by
the light curve results for $R_{p}/R_{\star}$. In the second, one assumes a
value for $M_{\star}$, utilizes Newton’s version of Kepler’s Third Law to
derive the semi-major axis, $a$, and then applies the light curve results for
$R_{\star}/a$ (and $R_{p}/R_{\star}$).222Another possible route is to assume a
stellar mass-radius relation (Cody & Sasselov, 2002). We have chosen not to
make such an assumption because of the uncertainty in the age and evolutionary
state of HD 149026. While the first method has the advantage that transit
photometry determines $R_{p}/R_{\star}$ more precisely than $R_{p}/a$, the
resulting $R_{p}$ depends strongly on the assumed $R_{\star}$ ($R_{p}\propto
R_{\star}$). This method also has the disadvantage of effectively disregarding
any information gleaned from the light curve on $R_{\star}/a$. In the second
method, the result for $R_{p}$ depends only weakly on the assumed $M_{\star}$
($R_{p}\propto M_{\star}^{1/3}$), but, in our case, $R_{p}/a$ is not
constrained well enough to lead to a satisfactorily precise determination of
$R_{p}$. For these reasons, we adopt a hybrid approach, imposing a radius
constraint and, to make use of the $R_{\star}/a$ information, a mass
constraint. Though the addition of this mass constraint represents an
increased dependence on stellar models, we consider it a fairly benign
dependency given how weakly the mass enters into the transit modeling
($\propto M_{\star}^{1/3}$).
In this section, we augment the _Spitzer_ dataset with 10 previously published
light curves. Together with independent constraints on the stellar properties
described below, we fit for the $R_{p}$ and other planet and stellar
quantities.
### 4.1 Stellar Radius and Mass
Using a collection of interferometric angular diameter measurements, Kervella
et al. (2004) derived empirical relations for the angular diameters of dwarf
stars as a function of Johnson magnitudes. We use their $V,K$ relation for the
angular diameter, $\phi$ (mas),
$\log\phi=0.0755(V\\!-\\!K)+0.5170-0.2K.$ (2)
Kervella et al. (2004) find the root mean square residual from this best fit
relation to be less than $1\%$ for 20 stars ranging from spectral type A0 to
M2. We applied $V=8.15$, as found in the _Hipparcos_ Catalog, and $K=6.85$,
after transforming the 2MASS $K_{s}$ magnitude to Johnson K following
Carpenter (2001). After propagating the uncertainties in the photometry and
the Kervella et al. (2004) best-fit parameters, we determined $\phi=0.1755\pm
0.0021$ mas (see also Torres et al. 2008). The formal uncertainty in angular
diameter is thus $1\%$ and negligible compared to the uncertainty in parallax.
After combining with the re-reduced _Hipparcos_ parallax and uncertainty
($\pi=12.59\pm 0.70$) of van Leeuwen (2007), we determine $R_{\star}=1.50\pm
0.09~{}\rm R_{\odot}$. For the stellar mass, we adopt the value
$M_{\star}=1.30\pm 0.10~{}\rm M_{\odot}$ from Sato et al. (2005), who derived
the value by matching stellar evolution tracks to spectroscopic properties.
### 4.2 Light Curve Analysis Revisited
We simultaneously fitted our _Spitzer_ data together with 3 light curves
published by Sato et al. (2005), 2 light curves by Charbonneau et al. (2006)
and 5 light curves by W08. The 10 previous transit observations are discussed
in detail in the references above, but we describe them briefly here. The Sato
et al. 2005 and W08 observations were obtained with 0.8 m automated
photometric telescopes at the Fairborn Observatory. Fluxes were measured
simultaneously through Strömgren $b$ and $y$ filters and averaged to create
$(b\\!+\\!y)/2$ fluxes. The Charbonneau et al. (2006) observations were
obtained with the Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory 1.2 m telescope through
the Sloan $g$ and $r$ filters. In analysis of the 10 light curves, W08 divided
each raw light curve by a linear function of time that was fitted to the out-
of-transit data. This step corrects for airmass effects and other systematic
trends, but also has the effect of normalizing each light curve to have unit
mean out-of-transit flux. We adopted these corrected data as well as their
revised photometric errors, which were rescaled to account for the effects of
noise correlation on ingress/egress timescales. Note that the composite of
these 10 light curves, when binned to 30 second resolution, shows roughly the
same scatter ($\sim 0.9$ mmag) as the the _Spitzer_ data binned to the same
resolution.
Next, we revisited the MCMC analysis of §3. We modeled the light curves as
before, using the small-planet transit routine of Mandel & Agol (2002). For
the $g$ and $r$ band data, we assumed linear limb-darkening, with coefficients
as tabulated by Claret (2004) for a 6250 K, $\log g=4.5$, and [Fe$/$H]=0.3
star. For the $(b\\!+\\!y)/2$ data, we assumed a linear limb-darkening
coefficient of 0.712, the average of Claret (2000) $b$ and $y$ limb-darkening
coefficients, following W08. We employed 9 free parameters: $R_{p}/R_{\star}$,
$i$, $c_{0}$, $c_{1}$, $c_{2}$, $P$, $T_{c}$, $M_{\star}$, and $R_{\star}$,
where the ramp correction coefficients, $c_{i}$, apply only to the _Spitzer_
data. Note that we fit for only a single mid-transit time and required the
transits to be spaced at integral multiples of $P$. W08 found no significant
deviations from predicted transit times, so this is a reasonable assumption.
We modified our goodness-of-fit statistic as follows:
$\chi^{2}=\sum_{i}{\left(\frac{f_{mod}(i)-f_{obs}(i)}{\sigma}\right)^{2}}+\left(\frac{R_{\star}/\rm
R_{\odot}-1.50}{0.09}\right)^{2}+\left(\frac{M_{\star}/\rm
M_{\odot}-1.30}{0.10}\right)^{2}$ (3)
with the second and third term reflecting the above determined stellar radius
and mass with errors assumed to follow normal distributions. Note that the
mass and radius constraints have entered into the $\chi^{2}$ in a simple
additive form, which is strictly valid only if the constraints were determined
entirely independent of each other. In fact, the mass determination of Sato et
al. (2005) makes use of the parallax, which implies that the mass and radius
determinations have some level of intrinsic covariance. To examine the impact
of this covariance, we repeated our analysis with the following trial
goodness-of-fit statistic,
$\displaystyle\chi^{2}_{trial}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\sum_{i}{\left(\frac{f_{mod}(i)-f_{obs}(i)}{\sigma}\right)^{2}}+\frac{1}{1-\rho_{MR}^{2}}\left[\left(\frac{R_{\star}/\rm
R_{\odot}-1.50}{0.09}\right)^{2}+\left(\frac{M_{\star}/\rm
M_{\odot}-1.30}{0.10}\right)^{2}\right.$ (4)
$\displaystyle\left.-2\rho_{MR}\left(\frac{R_{\star}/\rm
R_{\odot}-1.50}{0.09}\right)\left(\frac{M_{\star}/\rm
M_{\odot}-1.30}{0.10}\right)\right]$
where we experimented with values of the correlation coefficient, $\rho_{MR}$,
between -1 and 1. For $-0.7<\rho_{MR}<0.7$, we found the best-fit parameters
and error bars to be negligibly affected by the correlation, and we found the
results were significantly impacted only when $|\rho_{MR}|>0.9$. Since we
expect the covariance between the stellar mass and radius determination to be
more modest, we conclude that our results are not impacted by neglecting the
covariance.
We conducted the analysis as before; we produced 10 Monte Carlo chains of
length $10^{6}$, cut the first $25\%$ of each chain, and then combined the
chains. For each parameter the Gelman-Rubin R statistic was well within $1\%$
of unity. In table 1, we report best-fit values and uncertainties for various
parameters. We take the best-fit value to be the median of the MCMC samples,
and for the uncertainties, we report the interval that encloses the central
$68.3\%$ of the MCMC samples.
We determine a stellar radius of $1.497\pm 0.069~{}\rm R_{\odot}$, which is
moderately refined compared to its prior distribution ($1.50\pm 0.09~{}\rm
R_{\odot}$). This refinement indicates that the combination of _Spitzer_ and
ground-based data is able provide some statistical influence on the parameter
estimation through the observational constraint on $R_{\star}/a$. We note that
the external stellar radius constraint reinforces the high impact parameter
solutions favored by the analysis of §3 (_Spitzer_ data alone). This arises
because the radius constraint favors relatively large stellar radii, which,
for the given observed transit duration, can only be accommodated by non-
equatorial impact parameters. The planet radius is determined to be $0.755\pm
0.040~{}R_{J}$, with an uncertainty that is reduced versus previously
published determinations (for example, $0.71\pm 0.05~{}R_{J}$ as determined by
W08). The reduction is partly due to the smaller uncertainty in the revised
_Hipparcos_ parallax (van Leeuwen, 2007) that we have adopted, and partly due
to the combination of the _Spitzer_ and ground-based data.
Figure 3: Joint posterior probability distributions for $R_{p}$ and directly
observable quantities, as estimated by the MCMC analysis described in §4. The
contours mark the $68\%$ and $95\%$ confindence regions. Left: Joint
distribution for $R_{p}$ and the “transit depth,” $(R_{p}/R_{\star})^{2}$.
Middle: Joint distribution for $R_{p}$ and the transit duration, defined as
the interval from 1st to 4th contact. Right: Joint distribution for $R_{p}$
and the ingress (egress) duration, defined as the interval from 1st to 2nd
(3rd to 4th) contact. Note that the vertical axes in each panel are scaled so
that they encompass roughly the same fractional variation.
In Fig. 3, we look deeper into the observational constraints on the key
parameter, $R_{p}$. The most directly observable quantities from a transit
light curve are the transit depth, the total transit duration, and the ingress
or egress duration; a measurement of these three observables is sufficient (at
least in the absence of limb-darkening) to determine the more physical
parameters $R_{p}/R_{\star}$, $R_{\star}/a$, and $\cos i$. By examining the
joint posterior distributions for the three observables with the parameter
$R_{p}$, one can gain insight into the current observational limitations on
the precision of $R_{p}$. While each of the panels in Fig. 3 demonstrate
covariances, the third panel ($R_{p}$ and ingress duration) shows particularly
strong covariance. Thus, the major limiting factor in reducing the uncertainty
in planetary radius appears to be the ability to resolve the ingress duration.
Unfortunately, constraining this quantity with ground-based photometry is
complicated by limb-darkening and the effects of systematics and correlated
errors (e.g., Pont & Moutou, 2007).
### 4.3 Influence of Star Spots
As with limb-darkening, an inhomogeneous surface brightness due to spots would
impact both the depth and shape of the transit light curve. If the transit
chord intersects a star spot, a positive “bump” will be introduced into the
transit light curve, while if the transit chord is along an unspotted area of
an otherwise spotted star, the transit would appear deeper (see e.g. Knutson
et al. 2008, Beaulieu et al. 2008). The existence of star spots can be
investigated by long-term photometric observations of the star, monitoring for
periodic flux variations.
Previously published APT data has shown HD 149026 to be photometrically stable
to 0.0015 mag, the limit of precision of the APTs (Sato et al. 2005). Further
$(b+y)/2$ out-of-transit observations have been obtained with the APTs,
extending the dataset to over 3 years (Winn et al. 2008; G. Henry, private
communication). With this additional APT data, kindly shared with us by G.
Henry, we have searched for evidence of star spot-induced variability. We
computed the periodogram for the time-series (550 total flux measurements) in
fine steps of the period for periods between 0.5 and 100 days. Examination of
all prominent peaks in the periodogram reveals no evidence for any significant
periodicities, and allows us to place an upper limit on the peak-to-peak
amplitude of any sinusoid (in the period range 0.5-100 days) of less than
0.001 mag. Any spots at or below this level will have negligible impact on the
transit light curve, especially given that the 1 $\sigma$ uncertainty in the
transit depth for HD 149026b is $3\%$.
### 4.4 Refined Ephemeris
The precise transit timing from §3, along with the fact that the _Spitzer_
light curve extends the time base-line of HD 149026b transit observations,
enables a significant refinement in the transit ephemeris. For the previously
published transit observations, we adopt the transit times and uncertainties
listed in Table 3 of W08. We fit the timing data to the equation
$T_{c}(E)=T_{c}(0)+E\times P$ (5)
where $T_{c}$ is the transit time, $E$ is the transit epoch, and $P$ is the
orbital period. We determine $P=2.8758887\pm 0.0000035$ and
$T_{c}(0)=2454327.37211\pm 0.00047$, with $\chi^{2}/N_{\rm{dof}}=0.564$, with
$N_{\rm{dof}}=10$. In Fig. 4, we show the transit time residuals for all
published transits.
Figure 4: Observed minus calculated mid-transit times for HD 149026b. The
calculated transit times are derived from the ephemeris in eq. (2). The
estimates for the first 11 transit times are drawn from Table 3 of W08.
## 5 Discussion
We have presented and analyzed _Spitzer_ 8 $\mu$m transit observations of the
HD 149026 system. By incorporating previously published data, and adopting
constraints on the stellar mass and radius, we improve the determination of
the planetary radius to $R_{p}=0.755\pm 0.040~{}R_{J}$. Our measurement
reinforces previous findings of the intriguingly small radius of HD 149026b.
To place this result in context, models in which HD 149026b (with a total mass
of 114 $\pm 2~{}M_{\earth}$ ) is composed purely of H/He require a radius
greater than $1.1~{}R_{J}$ (e.g., Burrows et al., 2007).
The implications of the small measured radius on the interior structure of HD
149026b have been modeled by a number of authors. Most works (Sato et al.,
2005; Fortney et al., 2006; Ikoma et al., 2006; Burrows et al., 2007) have
assumed that all of the heavy elements reside within the planet’s core,
although it was often stressed that this may not necessarily be the case. For
instance, recent models of Jupiter’s structure indicate that the majority of
its heavy elements are mixed within the H/He envelope (Saumon & Guillot 2004).
Baraffe et al. (2008) recently computed evolution models of HD 149026b and
other planets and showed that if these heavy elements are distributed within
the envelope, rather than all in the core, less are needed to obtain the same
model radius at a given age. However, Ikoma et al. (2006) also explored this
effect, and noted that enhanced metallicity of the H/He envelope should also
lead to higher atmospheric opacity, which will slow the contraction,
necessitating more heavy elements.
The choices made by the modelers have been diverse, and many different
atmospheric boundary conditions, assumed heat capacities of the heavy
elements, and equations of state (EOSs) for the heavy elements have been
explored. Interior heavy element mass estimates have generally ranged from
50-90 $M_{\earth}$ for a planet radius of $0.725\pm 0.05R_{J}$. On the low
end, Ikoma et al. (2006) find that a $35M_{\earth}$ core would be necessary,
if the planet cooled and contracted in isolation, then was brought to 0.042 AU
at the present time. On the high end, Burrows et al. (2007) find 110
$M_{\earth}$, if the planet has an atmospheric opacity 10 times larger than
solar composition atmosphere models. For all of these models, uncertainty in
the measured radius is more significant than the uncertainty in the system
age.
A full exploration of new evolution models, including the potential
contribution of TiO/VO opacity, which may be present in the planet’s visible
atmosphere (Fortney et al. 2006, Fortney et al. 2008, Burrows et al. 2008), is
beyond the scope of this paper. Given the previous modeling efforts, together
with uncertainties in atmospheric metallicity and opacities and the
distribution of heavy elements within the planet, the 50-90 $M_{\earth}$ heavy
element mass range is still likely to be correct, even for our modestly larger
measured radius. We note that current estimates of the heavy element abundance
of Saturn (which is similar in mass to HD 149026b) and Jupiter range from
13-28 $M_{\earth}$ and 8-39 $M_{\earth}$, respectively (Saumon & Guillot,
2004). Uncertainty in the composition of giant planets is the rule, not the
exception.
As has been stressed recently by Burrows et al. (2007), and others,
constraints for any particular planet will remain uncertain, but with a large
sample size of transiting planets at various masses, radii, orbital distances,
and stellar metallicity, trends will emerge which will shed light on the
formation and structure of these planets (Guillot et al., 2006; Fortney et
al., 2007; Burrows et al., 2007).
We are thankful to F. van Leeuwen for providing parallax data for HD 149026,
and to G. Takeda for discussions regarding the spectroscopic determination of
stellar properties. We are especially grateful to G. Henry for sharing many
seasons of photometric data. We would also like to thank an anonymous referee
for specific and helpful recommendations. This work is based on observations
made with the Spitzer Space Telescope, which is operated by the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under a contract with NASA.
Support for this work was provided by NASA through an award issued by
JPL/Caltech.
## References
* Baraffe et al. (2008) Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., & Barman, T. 2008, A&A, 482, 315
* Beaulieu et al. (2008) Beaulieu, J. P., Carey, S., Ribas, I., & Tinetti, G. 2008, ApJ, 677, 1343
* Burke et al. (2007) Burke, C. J., et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 2115
* Burrows et al. (2007) Burrows, A., Hubeny, I., Budaj, J., & Hubbard, W. B. 2007, ApJ, 661, 502
* Burrows et al. (2008) Burrows, A., Budaj, J., & Hubeny, I. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1436
* Carpenter (2001) Carpenter, J. M. 2001, AJ, 121, 2851
* Charbonneau et al. (2006) Charbonneau, D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 636, 445
* Charbonneau et al. (2007) Charbonneau, D., Brown, T. M., Burrows, A., & Laughlin, G. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil, 701
* Claret (2000) Claret, A. 2000, A&A, 363, 1081
* Claret (2004) Claret, A. 2004, A&A, 428, 1001
* Cody & Sasselov (2002) Cody, A. M., & Sasselov, D. D. 2002, ApJ, 569, 451
* Fazio et al. (2004) Fazio, G. G., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 10
* Fortney et al. (2006) Fortney, J. J., Saumon, D., Marley, M. S., Lodders, K., & Freedman, R. S. 2006, ApJ, 642, 495
* Fortney et al. (2007) Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., & Barnes, J. W. 2007, ApJ, 659, 1661
* Fortney et al. (2008) Fortney, J. J., Lodders, K., Marley, M. S., & Freedman, R. S. 2008, ApJ, 678, 1419
* Gelman & Rubin (1992) Gelman, A. & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Stat. Sci., 7, 457
* Guillot et al. (2006) Guillot, T., Santos, N. C., Pont, F., Iro, N., Melo, C., & Ribas, I. 2006, A&A, 453, L21
* Harrington et al. (2007) Harrington, J., Luszcz, S., Seager, S., Deming, D., & Richardson, L. J. 2007, Nature, 447, 691
* Hubeny et al. (2003) Hubeny, I., Burrows, A., & Sudarsky, D. 2003, ApJ, 594, 1011
* Ikoma et al. (2006) Ikoma, M., Guillot, T., Genda, H., Tanigawa, T., & Ida, S. 2006, ApJ, 650, 1150
* Kervella et al. (2004) Kervella, P., Thévenin, F., Di Folco, E., & Ségransan, D. 2004, A&A, 426, 297
* Knutson et al. (2007) Knutson, H. A., et al. 2007, Nature, 447, 183
* Knutson et al. (2008) Knutson, H. A., et al. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 802, arXiv:0802.1705
* Kurucz (1979) Kurucz, R. L. 1979, ApJS, 40, 1
* Kurucz (1994) Kurucz, R. 1994, _Solar Abundance Model Atmospheres for 0, 1, 2, 4, and 8 km/s_ CD-ROM 19 (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA, 1994)
* Mandel & Agol (2002) Mandel, K., & Agol, E. 2002, ApJ, 580, 171
* Mizuno (1980) Mizuno, H. 1980, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 64, 544
* Pollack et al. (1996) Pollack, J. B., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J. J., Podolak, M., & Greenzweig, Y. 1996, Icarus, 124, 62
* Pont & Moutou (2007) Pont, F., & Moutou, C. 2007, Transiting Extrapolar Planets Workshop, 366, 209
* Press et al. (1992) Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T. & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)
* Sato et al. (2005) Sato, B., et al. 2005, ApJ, 633, 465
* Saumon & Guillot (2004) Saumon, D., & Guillot, T. 2004, ApJ, 609, 1170
* Seager & Mallén-Ornelas (2003) Seager, S., & Mallén-Ornelas, G. 2003, ApJ, 585, 1038
* Southworth et al. (2007) Southworth, J., Wheatley, P. J., & Sams, G. 2007, MNRAS, 379, L11
* Sozzetti et al. (2007) Sozzetti, A., Torres, G., Charbonneau, D., Latham, D. W., Holman, M. J., Winn, J. N., Laird, J. B., & O’Donovan, F. T. 2007, ApJ, 664, 1190
* Tegmark et al. (2004) Tegmark, M., et al. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 103501
* Torres et al. (2008) Torres, G., Winn, J. N., & Holman, M. J. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 801, arXiv:0801.1841
* van Leeuwen (2007) van Leeuwen, F. 2007, Hipparcos, the New Reduction of the Raw Data. By Floor van Leeuwen, Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK Series: Astrophysics and Space Science Library , Vol. 350 20 Springer Dordrecht
* Werner et al. (2004) Werner, M. W., et al. 2004, ApJS, 154, 1
* Winn et al. (2007) Winn, J. N., Holman M. J. & Roussanova A. 2007, ApJ, 657, 1098
* Winn et al. (2008) Winn, J. N., Henry, G. W., Torres, G., & Holman, M. J. 2008, ApJ, 675, 1531
Table 1: Estimates of the HD 149026 System Parameters Parameter | Median | 15.9th Percentile | 84.1st Percentile
---|---|---|---
$R_{p}/R_{\star}$aaDetermined from analysis of _Spitzer_ data alone | 0.05158 | $-$0.00077 | $+$0.00077
$R_{p}/R_{\star}$ | 0.05147 | $-$0.00077 | $+$0.00076
$i$ [deg]aaDetermined from analysis of _Spitzer_ data alone | $85\mbox{$.\\!\\!^{\circ}$}4$ | $-1\mbox{$.\\!\\!^{\circ}$}9$ | $+2\mbox{$.\\!\\!^{\circ}$}5$
$i$ [deg] | $85\mbox{$.\\!\\!^{\circ}$}3$ | $-0\mbox{$.\\!\\!^{\circ}$}8$ | $+0\mbox{$.\\!\\!^{\circ}$}9$
$a/R_{\star}$aaDetermined from analysis of _Spitzer_ data alone | 6.23 | $-$0.63 | $+$0.71
$a/R_{\star}$ | 6.20 | $-$0.25 | $+$0.28
$\rho_{\star}$[g cm-3]aaDetermined from analysis of _Spitzer_ data alone | 0.51 | $-$0.13 | $+$0.21
$\rho_{\star}$[g cm-3] | 0.547 | $-$0.064 | $+$0.076
$\log g_{p}$[cgs]a,ba,bfootnotemark: | 3.18 | $-$0.09 | $+$0.10
$\log g_{p}$[cgs]bbUsing $K=43.3\pm 1.2$ m s-1, from Sato et al. (2005) | 3.203 | $-$0.048 | $+$0.049
$P$ [days] | 2.8758887 | $-$0.0000035 | $+$0.0000035
$T_{c}$ [HJD]aaDetermined from analysis of _Spitzer_ data alone | 2454327.37213 | $-$0.00050 | $+$0.00050
$R_{p}[R_{J}]$ | 0.755 | $-$0.040 | $+$0.040
$R_{\star}[\rm R_{\odot}]$ | 1.497 | $-$0.069 | $+$0.069
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-06T18:52:58 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.650448 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Philip Nutzman, David Charbonneau, Joshua N. Winn, Heather A. Knutson,\n Jonathan J. Fortney, Matthew J. Holman, Eric Agol",
"submitter": "Philip Nutzman",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0777"
} |
0805.0951 | # Generalized zeta functions, shape invariance and one-loop corrections to
quantum Kink masses
S. Rafiei, S. Jalalzadeh and K. Ghafoori Tabrizi
Department of Physics, Shahid Beheshti University, Evin, Tehran 19839, Iran
email: s-jalalzadeh@sbu.ac.iremail: k-tabrizi@sbu.ac.ir
###### Abstract
We present a method to calculate the One-loop mass correction to Kinks mass in
a $(1+1)$-dimensional field theoretical model in which the fluctuation
potential $V^{\prime\prime}(\phi_{c})$ has shape invariance property. We use
the generalized zeta function regularization method to implement our setup for
describing quantum kink states. PACS: 11.27.+d, 11.30.Pb, 03.65.Fd
## 1 Introduction
The quantum corrections to the mass of classical topological defects plays an
important role in the semi-classical approach to the quantum field theory [1].
Computation of quantum energies around classical configurations in
$(1+1)$-dimensional kinks has been developed in [2] by using topological
boundary conditions, derivative expansion method [3], scattering phase shift
technique [4], mode regularization approach [5], zeta-function regularization
technique [6] and also dimensional regularization method [7]. In this paper we
will give a derivation of the one-loop renormalized kink quantum mass
correction in a $(1+1)$-dimensional scalar field theory model using
generalized zeta function method for those potentials where the fluctuation
potential, $V^{\prime\prime}(\phi_{c})$ has the shape invariance property.
This kind of potential is most occurrent in different fields of physics,
particularly in quantum gravity and cosmology. What makes these potentials so
important is that they posses a shape invariant operator in their prefactor,
making corrections of these kind of potentials exact by the heat kernel
method.
Consider the (1+1)-dimensional scalar field theory, where classical dynamics
is described by following action functional for scalar $\phi(x)$ with
potential $V(\phi)$
$\displaystyle S[\phi]=\int
d^{2}x\left[\frac{1}{2}\phi_{,\mu}\phi^{,\mu}-V(\phi)\right],$ (1)
where a semicolon denotes ordinary derivation in two dimensional Minkowskian
space-time. We shall consider the following examples
$\displaystyle
V(\phi)=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\frac{m^{4}}{\lambda}\left(1-\cos(\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}\phi}{m})\right);\,\,\,Sine-
Gordon(SG)\,\,model\vspace{.5 cm}\\\
\frac{m^{4}}{4\lambda}\left((\frac{\sqrt{\lambda}}{m}\phi)^{2}-1\right)^{2};\,\,\,\,\,\phi^{4}-model.\end{array}\right.$
(4)
These two kinds of potentials are tex-book cases. The method that we use can
easily be developed to include all potentials that have shape invariant
property. There are a number of papers where this kind of potentials are
discussed, see for example [8]. We know that mass $m$ and coupling constant
$\lambda$ may be scaled out so that semi-classical expansion is an expansion
in powers of $\frac{\hbar\lambda}{m^{2}}$ and therefore we can set
$m=\lambda=1$. Classical static kink-antikink solutions $\phi_{c}(x)$ satisfy
$\displaystyle\phi_{c}^{\prime}=\pm\sqrt{2V(\phi_{c})}.$ (5)
Therefore for potentials in (2), the classical solutions are
$\displaystyle\phi_{c}=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}4\arctan(e^{x});\hskip
14.22636ptSG\,\,model\\\ \\\ \tanh(\sqrt{2}x);\hskip
14.22636pt\phi^{4}-model.\end{array}\right.$ (9)
As we will see in the next section, to compute mass corrections we need the
fluctuation potential $V^{\prime\prime}(\phi_{c}(x))$. For cases listed above,
we have
$\displaystyle
V^{\prime\prime}(\phi_{c})=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}1-\frac{2}{\cosh^{2}x};\hskip
14.22636ptSG\,\,model\\\ \\\ 4-\frac{6}{\cosh^{2}x};\hskip
14.22636pt\phi^{4}-model.\end{array}\right.$ (13)
In the next section we quote briefly the generalized zeta function method. We
then use shape invariance property of potentials (5) and the heat kernel
method to obtain quantum corrections to kink masses.
## 2 Semi-Classical Quantum Kink States
Classical configuration space is found by static configuration $\Phi(x)$, so
that the energy functional corresponding to classical action functional (1)
$\displaystyle E[\Phi]=\int
dx\left[\frac{1}{2}\Phi_{,\mu}\Phi^{,\mu}+V(\Phi)\right],$ (14)
is finite. One can describe quantum evolution in Schrodinger picture by the
following functional equation
$\displaystyle i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial
t}\Phi[\phi(x),t]=H\Phi[\phi(x),t],$ (15)
so that quantum Hamiltonian operator is given by
$\displaystyle H=\int
dx\left[-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2}\frac{\delta}{\delta\phi(x)}\frac{\delta}{\delta\phi(x)}+E[\phi]\right].$
(16)
In field representation matrix elements of evolution operator are given by
$\displaystyle
G(\phi^{(f)}(x),\phi^{(i)}(x),T)=\langle\phi^{(f)}|e^{-\frac{iT}{\hbar}H}|\phi^{(i)}\rangle=\int
D[\phi(x,t)]\exp{(\frac{-i}{\hbar}S[\phi])},$ (17)
where the initial conditions are those of static solutions kink of classical
equations where $\phi^{(i)}(x,0)=\phi_{k}(x)$, $\phi^{(f)}(x,T)=\phi_{k}(x)$.
In semi-classical picture, we are interested in loop expansion for evolution
operator up to the first quantum correction
$\displaystyle
G(\phi^{(f)}(x),\phi^{(i)}(x),\beta)=\exp{(-\frac{\beta}{\hbar}E[\phi_{k}])}Det^{-\frac{1}{2}}\left[-\partial^{2}_{\tau}+P\Delta\right](1+{\cal
O}(\hbar)),$ (18)
where we use analytic continuation to Euclidean time, $t=-i\tau$,$T=-i\beta$,
and $\Delta$ is the differential operator
$\displaystyle\Delta=-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}+\frac{d^{2}V}{d\phi^{2}}\mid_{\phi=\phi_{k}},$
(19)
P is the projector over the strictly positive part of spectrum of $\Delta$
$\displaystyle\Delta\xi_{n}(x)=\omega_{n}^{2}\xi_{n}(x),\,\,\,\,\omega^{2}_{n}\,\,\epsilon\,\,Spec(\Delta)=Spec(P\Delta)+\\{0\\}.$
(20)
We write functional determinant in the form
$\displaystyle
Det\left[-\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial\tau^{2}}+\Delta\right]=\prod_{n}det\left[-\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial\tau^{2}}+\omega^{2}_{n}\right].$
(21)
All determinants in infinite product correspond to harmonic oscillators of
frequency $\omega_{n}$. On the other hand, it is well known that [10]
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{cc}det\left(-\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial\tau^{2}}+\omega^{2}_{n}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}=\prod_{j=1}^{N}\left(\frac{j^{2}\pi^{2}}{\beta^{2}}+\omega_{n}^{2}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\\\
\\\
=\prod_{j}\left(\frac{j^{2}\pi^{2}}{\beta^{2}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\prod_{j}\left(1+\frac{\omega^{2}_{n}\beta^{2}}{j^{2}\pi^{2}}\right)^{-\frac{1}{2}}.\end{array}$
(25)
The first product dose not depend on $\omega_{n}$ and combines with the
Jacobian and other factors we have collected into a single constant. The
second factor has the limit
$\left[\frac{\sinh(\omega_{n}\beta)}{\omega_{n}\beta}\right]^{-\frac{1}{2}}$,
and thus, with an appropriate normalization, we obtain for large $\beta$
$\displaystyle
G(\phi^{(f)}(x),\phi^{(i)}(x),\beta)\cong\exp{(-\frac{\beta}{\hbar}E[\phi_{k}])}\prod_{n}(\frac{\omega_{n}}{\pi\hbar})^{\frac{1}{2}}\exp{\left(-\frac{\beta}{2}\sum_{n}\omega_{n}(1+{\cal
O}(\hbar))\right)}$ (26)
where eigenvalues in the kernel of $\Delta$ have been excluded. Interesting
eigenenergy wave functionals
$\displaystyle H\Phi_{j}[\phi_{k}(x)]=\varepsilon_{j}\Phi_{j}[\phi_{k}(x)]$
(27)
we have an alternative expression for $G_{E}$ for $\beta\rightarrow\infty$.
$\displaystyle
G(\phi^{(f)}(x),\phi^{(i)}(x),\beta)\cong\Phi^{*}_{0}[\phi_{k}(x)]\Phi_{0}[\phi_{k}(x)]\exp{(-\beta\frac{\varepsilon_{0}}{\hbar})},$
(28)
and, therefore, from (14) and (16) we obtain
$\displaystyle\varepsilon_{0}=E[\phi_{k}]+\frac{\hbar}{2}\sum_{\omega^{2}_{n}>0}\omega_{n}+{\cal
O}(\hbar),$ (29)
$\displaystyle|\Phi_{0}[\phi_{k}(x)]|^{2}=Det^{\frac{1}{4}}\left[\frac{P\Delta}{\pi^{2}\hbar^{2}}\right],$
(30)
as the Kink ground state energy and wave functional up to One-Loop order.
If we define the generalized zeta function
$\displaystyle\zeta_{P\triangle}=Tr(P\Delta)^{-s}=\sum_{\omega^{2}_{n}>0}\frac{1}{(\omega^{2}_{n})^{s}},$
(31)
associated to differential operator $P\triangle$, then
$\displaystyle\varepsilon_{0}^{k}=E[\phi_{k}]+\frac{\hbar}{2}Tr(P\Delta)^{\frac{1}{2}}+{\cal
O}(\hbar^{2})=E[\phi_{k}]+\frac{\hbar}{2}\zeta_{P\Delta}(-\frac{1}{2})+{\cal
O}(\hbar^{2}).$ (32)
The eigenfunction of $\Delta$ is a basis for quantum fluctuations around kink
background, therefore sum of the associated zero-point energies encoded in
$\zeta_{P\Delta}(-\frac{1}{2})$ in (20) is infinite. According to zeta
function regularization procedure, energy and mass renormalization
prescription, renormalized kink energy in semi-classical limit becomes [9]
$\displaystyle\varepsilon^{k}(s)=E[\phi_{k}]+\Delta M_{k}+{\cal
O}(\hbar^{2})=E[\phi_{k}]+\lim_{s\rightarrow\frac{-1}{2}}[\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}(s)+\delta_{2}^{k}\varepsilon(s)]+{\cal
O}(\hbar^{2}),$ (33)
where
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{rr}\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}(s)=\frac{\hbar}{2}\mu^{2s+1}[\zeta_{P\Delta}(s)-\zeta_{\nu}(s)],\\\
\\\
\delta_{2}\varepsilon^{k}(s)=\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\hbar}{2L}\mu^{2s+1}\frac{\Gamma(s+1)}{\Gamma(s)}\zeta_{\nu}(s+1)\int_{-\frac{L}{2}}^{\frac{L}{2}}dx\left[\frac{d^{2}V}{d\phi^{2}}|_{\phi_{k}}-\frac{d^{2}V}{d\phi^{2}}|_{\phi\nu}\right].\end{array}\right.$
(37)
Here $\phi_{\nu}$ is a constant minimum of potential $V(\phi)$, $E$ is
corresponding classical energy where $\mu$ has the unit $length^{-1}$
dimension, introduced to make the terms in (37) homogeneous from a dimensional
point of view and $\zeta_{\nu}$ denoted zeta function associated with vacuum
$\phi_{v}$.
Now we explain very briefly how one can calculate zeta function of an operator
though heat kernel method. We introduce generalized Riemann zeta function of
operator A by
$\displaystyle\zeta_{A}(s)=\sum_{n}\frac{1}{|\lambda_{n}|^{s}},$ (38)
where $\lambda_{n}$ are eigenvalues of operator $A$. On the other hand,
$\zeta_{A}(s)$ is the Mellin transformation of heat kernel $G(x,y,t)$ which
satisfies the following heat diffusion equation
$\displaystyle AG(x,y,t)=-\frac{\partial}{\partial t}G(x,y,t),$ (39)
with an initial condition $G(x,y,0)=\delta(x-y)$. Note that $G(x,y,t)$ can be
written in terms of its spectrum
$\displaystyle G(x,y,t)=\sum_{n}e^{-\lambda_{n}t}\psi_{n}^{*}(x)\psi_{n}(y),$
(40)
and as usual, if the spectrum is continues, one should integrate it. From
relation (17), it is clear that
$\displaystyle\zeta_{A}(s)=\frac{1}{\Gamma(s)}\int_{0}^{\infty}d\tau\tau^{s-1}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}G(x,x,\tau)dx.$
(41)
Hence, if we know the associated Green function of an operator, we can
calculate generalized zeta function corresponding to that operator. In the
next sections we calculate the Green function of $\phi^{4}$-model and SG via
shape invariance property and there, by using equations (39), (40) and (41) we
will obtain one-loop corrections to quantum kink masses.
## 3 Quantum Mass of SG and $\phi^{4}$-models
In this section we calculate one-loop quantum mass of these two potentials.
According to the previous section the second derivative of these potentials at
the Kink solution can be written as
$\displaystyle U(x)=l^{2}-\frac{l(l+1)}{cosh^{2}(x)},$ (42)
so that for $l=1$ and $l=2$ we obtain SG and $\phi^{4}$-model second
derivative potentials respectively. Therefor the operator (19) which acts on
the eigenfunctions becomes
$\displaystyle\Delta_{l}=-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}+l^{2}-\frac{l(l+1)}{cosh^{2}(x)}.$
(43)
Also the operator acting on the vacuum has the following form
$\displaystyle\Delta_{l}(0)=-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}+l^{2}.$ (44)
In the reminding of this section, to obtaining the spectrum of (43) we will
use the shape invariance property. First we review briefly concepts that we
will use.
Consider the following one-dimensional bound-state Hamiltonian
$\displaystyle H=-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}+U(x),\hskip 56.9055ptx\in
I\subset\mathbb{R}$ (45)
where $I$ is the domain of $x$ and $U(x)$ is a real function of $x$, which can
be singular only in the boundary points of the domain. Let us denote by
$E_{n}$ and $\psi_{n}(x)$ the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of $H$
respectively. We use factorization method which consists of writing
Hamiltonian as the product of two first order mutually adjoint differential
operators $A$ and $A^{\dagger}$. If the ground state eigenvalue and
eigenfunctions are known, then one can factorize Hamiltonian (45) as
$\displaystyle H=A^{\dagger}A+E_{0},$ (46)
where $E_{0}$ denotes the ground-state eigenvalue,
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{lll}A=\frac{d}{dx}+W(x),\\\ \\\
A^{\dagger}=-\frac{d}{dx}+W(x),\end{array}\ $ (50)
and
$\displaystyle W(x)=-\frac{d}{dx}\ln(\psi_{0}).$ (51)
Supersymmetric quantum mechanics (SUSY QM) begins with a set of two matrix
operators, known as supercharges
$\displaystyle Q^{+}=\begin{pmatrix}0&A^{\dagger}\\\ 0&0\\\
\end{pmatrix},\hskip 56.9055ptQ^{-}=\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\\ A&0\\\
\end{pmatrix}.$ (52)
This operators form the following superalgebra [11]
$\displaystyle\\{Q^{+},Q^{-}\\}=H_{SS},\hskip
28.45274pt[H_{SS},Q^{\pm}]=(Q^{\pm})^{2}=0,$ (53)
where SUSY Hamiltonian $H_{SS}$ is defined as
$\displaystyle H_{SS}=\begin{pmatrix}A^{\dagger}A&0\\\ 0&AA^{\dagger}\\\
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}H_{1}&0\\\ 0&H_{2}\\\ \end{pmatrix}.$ (54)
In terms of the Hamiltonian supercharges
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{ccc}Q_{1}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(Q^{+}+Q^{-}),\\\
\\\ Q_{2}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2i}}(Q^{+}-Q^{-}),\end{array}$ (58)
the superalgebra takes the form
$\displaystyle\\{Q_{i},Q_{j}\\}=H_{SS}\delta_{ij},\hskip
14.22636pt[H_{SS},Q_{i}]=0,\hskip 14.22636pti,j=1,2.$ (59)
The operators $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{cc}H_{1}=A^{\dagger}A=-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}+U_{1}=-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}+W^{2}-\frac{dW}{dx},\\\
\\\
H_{2}=AA^{\dagger}=-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}+U_{2}=-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}+W^{2}+\frac{dW}{dx},\end{array}$
(63)
are called SUSY partner Hamiltonians and the function $W$ is called the
superpotential. Now, let us denote by $\psi^{(1)}_{\,\,\,l}$ and
$\psi^{(2)}_{\,\,\,l}$ the eigenfunctions of $H_{1}$ and $H_{2}$ with
eigenvalues $E^{(1)}_{l}$ and $E^{(2)}_{l}$, respectively. It is easy to see
that the eigenvalues of the above Hamiltonians are positive and isospectral,
i.e., they have almost the same energy eigenvalues, except for the ground
state energy of $H_{1}$. According to the [11], their energy spectra are
related as
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{cccc}E_{l}=E^{(1)}_{l}+E_{0},&E^{(1)}_{0}=0,&\psi_{l}=\psi^{(1)}_{l},&l=0,1,2,..,\\\
\\\ E^{(2)}_{l}=E^{(1)}_{l+1},\\\ \\\
\psi^{(2)}_{l}=[E^{(1)}_{l+1}]^{-\frac{1}{2}}A\psi^{(1)}_{l+1},\\\ \\\
\psi^{(1)}_{l+1}=[E^{(2)}_{l}]^{-\frac{1}{2}}A^{\dagger}\psi^{(2)}_{l}.\end{array}$
(71)
Therefor if the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of $H_{1}$ were known, one
could immediately derive the spectrum of $H_{2}$. However the above relations
only give the relationship between the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the
two partner Hamiltonians. A condition of an exactly solvability is known as
the shape invariance condition. This condition means the pair of SUSY partner
potentials $U_{1,2}(x)$ are similar in shape and differ only in the parameters
that appears in them [12],
$\displaystyle U_{2}(x;a_{1})=U_{2}(x;a_{2})+{\cal R}(a_{1}),$ (72)
where $a_{1}$ is a set of parameters and $a_{2}$ is a function of $a_{1}$.
Then the eigenvalues of $H_{1}$ are given by
$\displaystyle E^{(1)}_{l}={\cal R}(a_{1})+{\cal R}(a_{2})+...+{\cal
R}(a_{l}),$ (73)
and the corresponding eigenfunctions are
$\displaystyle\psi_{l}=\prod^{l}_{m=1}\frac{A^{\dagger}(x;a_{m})}{\sqrt{E_{m}}}\psi_{0}(x;a_{l+1}).$
(74)
The shape invariance condition (72) can be rewritten in terms of the
factorization operators defined in equation (50)
$\displaystyle
A(x;a_{1})A^{\dagger}(x;a_{1})=A^{\dagger}(x;a_{2})A(x;a_{2})+{\cal
R}(a_{1}),$ (75)
where $a_{2}=f(a_{1})$.
Now we are ready to obtain spectra of $\Delta_{l}$ operator defined in (43).
For a given eigenspectrum of $E_{l}$, we introduce the following factorization
operators
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{cc}A_{l}=\frac{d}{dx}+l\tanh(x),\\\ \\\
A^{\dagger}_{l}=-\frac{d}{dx}+l\tanh(x),\end{array}$ (79)
the operator $\Delta_{l}$ can be factorized as
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{cc}A^{\dagger}_{l}(x)A_{l}(x)\psi^{(1)}_{n}(x)=E^{(1)}_{n}\psi^{(1)}_{n}(x),\\\
\\\
A_{l}(x)A^{\dagger}_{l}(x)\psi^{(2)}_{n}(x)=E^{(2)}_{n}\psi^{(2)}_{n}(x).\end{array}$
(83)
Therefor for a given $l$, its first bounded excited state can be obtained from
the ground state of $l-1$ and consequently the excited state $m$ of a given
$l$, $\psi_{l,m}(x)$, using (74) can be written as
$\displaystyle\psi_{l,m}(x)=\sqrt{\frac{2(2m-1)!}{\Pi_{j=1}^{m}j(2l-j)}}\frac{1}{2^{m}(m-1)!}A^{\dagger}_{l}(x)A^{\dagger}_{l-1}(x)...A^{\dagger}_{m+1}(x)\frac{1}{\cosh^{m}(x)},$
(84)
with eigenvalue $E_{l,m}=m(2l-m)$. Obviously its ground state with $E_{l,0}=0$
is given by $\psi_{l,0}\propto\cosh^{-l}(x)$. Also its continuous spectrum
consists of
$\displaystyle\psi_{l,k}(x)=\frac{A^{\dagger}_{l}(x)}{\sqrt{k^{2}+l^{2}}}\frac{A^{\dagger}_{l-1}(x)}{\sqrt{k^{2}+(l-1)^{2}}}...\frac{A^{\dagger}_{1}(x)}{\sqrt{k^{2}+1}}\frac{e^{ikx}}{\sqrt{2\pi}},$
(85)
with eigenvalues $E_{l,k}=l^{2}+k^{2}$ with following normalization condition
$\displaystyle\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\psi^{*}_{l,k}(x)\psi_{l,k^{\prime}}(x)dx=\delta(k-k^{\prime}).$
(86)
Therefor, using equations (39), (40), (84) and (85) we find
$\displaystyle
G_{\Delta_{l}(0)}(x,y,\tau)=\frac{e^{-l^{2}\tau}}{2\sqrt{\pi\tau}}e^{-(x-y)^{2}/4\tau},$
(87)
and
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{cc}G_{\Delta_{l}}(x,y,\tau)=\sum_{m=1}^{l-1}\psi^{*}_{l,m}(x)\psi_{l,m}(y)e^{-m(2l-m)\tau}\\\
\\\
+\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{dk}{2\pi}\frac{e^{-(l^{2}+k^{2})\tau}}{\prod_{m=1}^{l}(k^{2}+m^{2})}\left(\prod_{m=1}^{l}A^{\dagger}_{m}(x)e^{ikx}\right)^{*}\left(\prod_{m=1}^{l}A^{\dagger}_{m}(y)e^{iky}\right).\end{array}$
(91)
Hence, for $l=1$ (SG), according to (41) it is easy to show that
$\displaystyle\xi_{P\Delta_{1}}(s)-\xi_{\Delta_{1}(0)}(s)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{dk}{(k^{2}+1)^{s+1}}=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\frac{\Gamma(s+\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(s+1)}.$
(92)
Consequently according to the (37) the first correction term to the kink
quantum mass of SG becomes
$\displaystyle\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}(s)=\frac{\hbar}{2}\mu^{2s+1}\left[\xi_{P\Delta_{1}}(s)-\xi_{\Delta_{1}(0)}(s)\right]=-\frac{\hbar}{2\sqrt{\pi}}\mu^{2s+1}\frac{\Gamma(s+\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(s+1)}.$
(93)
The second correction term is also given by
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{cc}\delta_{2}\varepsilon^{k}(s)=\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\hbar}{2L}\mu^{2s+1}\frac{\Gamma(s+\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(s)}\xi_{\Delta_{1}(0)}(s+1)\int_{-\frac{L}{2}}^{\frac{L}{2}}\left(1-\frac{2}{\cosh^{2}(x)}-1\right)dx\\\
\\\
=-\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\hbar}{2L}\mu^{2s+1}\frac{\Gamma(s+1)}{\Gamma(s)}\frac{L}{2\sqrt{\pi}\Gamma(s+1)}\Gamma(s+\frac{1}{2})2\tanh(\frac{L}{2})=\\\
\\\
-\frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{\pi}}\mu^{2s+1}\frac{\Gamma(s+\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(s)}\end{array}$
(99)
Therefore the corrected mass for SG kink is derived from
$\displaystyle\varepsilon^{k}(s)=E[\phi_{k}]+\lim_{s\rightarrow-\frac{1}{2}}\left[\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}(s)+\delta_{2}\varepsilon^{k}(s)\right],$
(100)
Using the variable $\alpha=s+\frac{1}{2}$, functions
$\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}(s)$ and $\delta_{2}\varepsilon^{k}(s)$ can be
written in the following form
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{rr}\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}(\alpha)=-\frac{\hbar}{2\sqrt{\pi}}\mu^{2s}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha)}{\Gamma(\alpha+\frac{1}{2})},\\\
\\\ \
\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}(\alpha)=-\frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{\pi}}\mu^{2s}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha)}{\Gamma(\alpha-\frac{1}{2})},\end{array}\right.$
(104)
Now by using the Gamma function properties, we have
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{rr}\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}(0)=-\frac{\hbar}{2\sqrt{\pi}}\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow
0}\mu^{2\alpha}\left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}\alpha}-\frac{\gamma-\Psi(\frac{1}{2})}{\sqrt{\pi}}+{\cal
O}(\alpha)\right],\\\ \\\ \
\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}(\alpha)=-\frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{\pi}}\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow
0}\mu^{2\alpha}\left[\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}\alpha}+\frac{\gamma+\Psi(-\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{\pi}}+\cal
O(\alpha)\right],\end{array}\right.$ (108)
where $\Psi(z)=\frac{\Gamma^{\prime}(z)}{\Gamma(z)}$ is digamma function and
$\gamma$ is the Euler-Mascheroni constant . Sum of contributions of two poles
leaves a finite remainder and we end with the finite answer
$\displaystyle\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}+\delta_{2}\varepsilon^{k}=-\frac{m\hbar}{\pi}\
\ ,\ \ \varepsilon^{k}=E[\phi_{k}]-\frac{m\hbar}{\pi}+{\cal
O}(\hbar^{2}\gamma).$ (109) $E[\phi_{k}]=\frac{8m}{\gamma}$
$\displaystyle\varepsilon^{k}=\frac{8m}{\gamma}-\frac{m\hbar}{\pi}+{\cal
O}(\hbar^{2}\gamma).$ (110)
The one-loop correction to SG kink obtained by means of generalized zeta
function procedure exactly agrees with accepted result, see [10], [11], [12],
[13] and henceforth, with outcome of the mode number regularization method,
[14]. In the case of $\phi^{4}$-model we left with $l=2$ and then using (41)
we have
$\displaystyle\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\left[G_{\nabla_{2}}(x,x,\tau)-G_{\nabla_{2}(0)}(x,x,\tau)\right]dx=e^{-3\tau}-\frac{3}{\pi}e^{-4\tau}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{(k^{2}+2)e^{-k^{2}\tau}}{(k^{2}+1)(k^{2}+4)},$
(111)
and using (41) we obtain
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{cc}\xi_{\nabla_{2}}(s)-\xi_{\nabla_{2}(0)}(s)=3^{-s}-\frac{3}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{dk}{(k^{2}+4)^{s+1}}-\frac{3}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{dk}{(k^{2}+1)(k^{2}+4)^{s+1}}=\\\
\\\
3^{-s}-\frac{3}{\sqrt{\pi}}2^{-(2s+1)}\frac{\Gamma(s+\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(s+1)}-\frac{3}{\sqrt{\pi}}2^{-(2s+3)}\frac{\Gamma(s+\frac{3}{2})}{\Gamma(s+2)}{{}_{2}F_{1}}[s+\frac{3}{2},1,s+2,\frac{3}{4}],\end{array}$
(115)
where we have used the well-known Feynman integral
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{cc}\frac{1}{D_{1}^{a_{1}}D_{2}^{a_{2}}...D_{n}^{a_{n}}}=\\\
\\\
\frac{\Gamma(a_{1}+a_{2}+...+a_{n})}{\Gamma(a_{1})\Gamma(a_{2})...\Gamma(a_{n})}\int
dt_{1}dt_{2}...dt_{n}\frac{\delta(1-t_{1}-t_{2}-...-t_{n})t_{1}^{a_{1}-1}...t_{n}^{a_{n}-1}}{(t_{1}D_{1}+...+t_{n}D_{n})^{a_{1}+...+a_{n}}}.\end{array}$
(119)
Consequently we have
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{cc}\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}(s)=\frac{\hbar}{2}\mu^{2s+1}\left[\xi_{P\Delta_{2}}(s)-\xi_{\Delta_{0}}(s)\right]=\\\
\\\
\frac{\hbar}{2}\left(3^{-s}-\frac{3}{\sqrt{\pi}}2^{-(2s+1)}\frac{\Gamma(s+\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(s+1)}-\frac{3}{\sqrt{\pi}}2^{-(2s+3)}\frac{\Gamma(s+\frac{3}{2})}{\Gamma(s+2)}{{}_{2}F_{1}}[s+\frac{3}{2},1,s+2,\frac{3}{4}]\right).\end{array}$
(123)
Also we obtain
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{cc}\delta_{2}\varepsilon^{k}(s)=\lim_{L\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\hbar}{2L}\mu^{2s+1}\frac{\Gamma(s+1)}{\Gamma(s)}\xi_{\Delta_{2}(0)}(s+1)\int_{-\frac{L}{2}}^{\frac{L}{2}}dx(-6\cosh^{-2}(x))\\\
\\\
=-\frac{3\hbar}{\sqrt{\pi}2^{2s+1}}\mu^{2s+1}\frac{\Gamma(s+\frac{1}{2})}{\Gamma(s)}.\end{array}$
(127)
Finally we have
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{ccc}\lim_{s\rightarrow-\frac{1}{2}}(\delta_{1}\varepsilon^{k}(s)+\delta_{2}\varepsilon^{k}(s))=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}\hbar-\frac{3\hbar}{8\sqrt{\pi}}\frac{\Gamma(1)}{\Gamma(\frac{3}{2})}{{}_{2}F_{1}}[1,1,\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{4}]\\\
\\\ -\lim_{\alpha\rightarrow
0}\left(\frac{3\hbar}{\sqrt{\pi}}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha)}{\Gamma(\alpha-\frac{1}{2})}+\frac{3\hbar}{2\sqrt{\pi}}\frac{\Gamma(\alpha)}{\Gamma(\alpha+\frac{1}{2})}\right)\\\
\\\ =\frac{\hbar}{2\sqrt{3}}-\frac{3\hbar}{\pi}.\end{array}$ (133)
Now using $E[\phi_{k}]=4m^{3}/3\lambda$, we find
$\displaystyle\varepsilon^{k}=\frac{4m^{3}}{3\lambda}+m\hbar(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}-\frac{3}{\pi}),$
(134)
the same answer offered by mode-number regularization method in [15].
## 4 Conclusion
In this article we used the shape invariance property of fluctuation operator
of SG and $\phi^{4}$-models to obtain one-loop quantum correction to the kink
mass. This method can be extend to those quantum fields that their fluctuation
operators have shape invariance property. An interesting extension worth
studying is to use this method for quantum fields in $(1+2)$-dimension.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank H. R. Sepangi for reading the
manuscript.
## References
* [1] R. Rajaraman, Kinks and Instantons (North Holland, Amesterdom, 1987), C. Rebbi and G. Soliani, Solitons and Particles (World Scientific, Singapore, 1984).
* [2] H. Nastase, M. Stephanov, P. Van Nieuwenhuizen and A. Rebhan, Nucl. Phys. B 542, 471 (1999),
N. Graham and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Lett. B 435, 145 (1998), Nucl. Phys. B 544,
432 (1999), Nucl. Phys. B 549, 516 (1999).
* [3] G. Dunne and K. Rao, JHEP 0001 019 (2000), I. J. R. Aitchison and C. M. Fraser, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2605 (1985), L-H. Chan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1222 (1985), (erratum) 56, 404 (1986), Phys. Rev. D 55, 6223 (1997), G. V. Dunne, Phys. Lett. B 467, 238 (1999).
* [4] N. Graham and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Lett. B 435, 145 (1998).
* [5] A. S. Goldhaber, A. Litvintsev, P. Van Nieuwenhuizen, Phys. Rev. D 64, 045013 (2001).
* [6] M. Bordag, A. S. Goldhaber, P. Van Nieuwenhuizen and D. Vassilevich, Phys. Rev. D 66 125014 (2002).
* [7] A. Rebhan, P. Van Nieuwenhuizen and R. Wimmer, New J. Phys. 4 31 (2002).
* [8] M. A. Jafarizadeh and S. Jalalzadeh, J. Math. Phys. 41 701 (2000).
* [9] A. A. Izquierdo, J. M. Guilarte, M. A. G. Leon and W. G. Fuertes, Nucl. Phys. B 635 525 (2002).
* [10] R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, (McGraw Hill, New York, 1965).
* [11] F. Cooper, A. Khare and U. Sukhatme, Phys. Rep. 251 267 (1995).
* [12] L. Gendenshtein, JETP Lett. 38 356 (1983).
* [13] G. Dunne, Phys. Lett. B 467 238 (1999).
* [14] G. Flores-Hidalgo, Phys. Lett. B 542 282 (2002).
* [15] R. F. Dashen, B. Hasslacher and A. Neveu, Phys. Rev. D 10 4130 (1974) and Phys. Rev D12 3424 (1975).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-07T10:44:13 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.657666 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "S. Rafiei, S. Jalalzadeh, K. Ghafoori Tabrizi",
"submitter": "Shahram Jalalzadeh",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.0951"
} |
0805.1000 | # The one-dimensional Schrödinger operators with singular periodic potentials
Vladimir Mikhailets Institute of Mathematics of NAS of Ukraine
mikhailets@imath.kiev.ua and Volodymyr Molyboga Institute of Mathematics of
NAS of Ukraine molyboga@imath.kiev.ua
###### Abstract.
The one-dimensional Schrödinger operators
$S(q)u:=-u^{\prime\prime}+q(x)u,\quad u\in\mathrm{Dom}\left(S(q)\right)$
with real-valued 1-periodic singular potentials $q(x)\in
H_{per}^{-1}(\mathbb{R})$ are studied on the Hilbert space
$L_{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$. An equivalence of five basic definitions for
the operators $S(q)$ and their self-adjointness are established. A new proof
of spectral continuity of the operators $S(q)$ is found. Endpoints of spectral
gaps are precisely described.
###### Key words and phrases:
Hill equations, Schrödinger operators, singular potentials, spectral gaps,
periodic eigenvalues
###### 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 34L05, 47A05; Secondary 34L40, 47A10, 47B25
## 1\. Introduction
On the complex Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ we consider the one-
dimensional Schrödinger operators
(1) $S(q)u:=-u^{\prime\prime}+q(x)u,\quad u\in\mathrm{Dom}\,\left(S(q)\right)$
with real-valued 1-periodic distributional potentials $q(x)$, so called the
Hill-Schrödinger operators.
Under the assumption
(2) $q(x)=\sum_{k\in 2\mathbb{Z}}\widehat{q}(k)e^{ik\pi x}\in
H_{per}^{-1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}),$
i.e., when
$\sum_{k\in
2\mathbb{Z}}(1+|k|)^{-2}|\widehat{q}(k)|^{2}<\infty,\quad\text{and}\quad\widehat{q}(k)=\overline{\widehat{q}(-k)}\quad\forall
k\in 2\mathbb{Z},$
the Hill-Schrödinger operators $S(q)$ can be well defined on the Hilbert space
$L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ in the following different ways:
* $\bullet$
as minimal/maximal quasi-differential operators $S_{min}(q)$/$S_{max}(q)$;
* $\bullet$
as Friedrichs extensions $S_{F}(q)$ of quasi-differential operators
$S_{min}(q)$;
* $\bullet$
as form-sum operators $S_{form}(q)$;
* $\bullet$
as a sequence limits $S_{lim}(q)$ of the Hill-Schrödinger operators with
smooth periodic potentials in the norm resolvent sense.
Hryniv and Mykytyuk [HrMk], Djakov and Mityagin [DjMt] studied Friedrichs
extensions $S_{F}(q)$, and Korotyaev [Krt] treated form-sum operators
$S_{form}(q)$. We propose join together these results showing an equivalence
of all definitions.
More precisely, we will prove the following statements.
###### Theorem A (Theorem 14).
The Hill-Schrödinger quasi-differential operators $S_{max}(q)$ with
distributional potentials $q(x)\in
H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$ are self-adjoint.
###### Theorem B (Corollary 15, Corollary 16, Theorem 18).
Quasi-differential operators $S_{min}(q)$ and $S_{max}(q)$, Friedrichs
extensions $S_{F}(q)$, form-sum operators $S_{form}(q)$ and operators
$S_{lim}(q)$ coincide.
In the paper [HrMk, Theorem 3.5] the authors tried to show that the operators
$S_{max}(q)$ and $S_{F}(q)$ coincide. But proof of this assertion is
incorrect. Our proofs of Theorem A and Theorem B base on a different idea (see
Lemma 5).
The equality $S(q)=S_{lim}(q)$ together with the classical Birkhoff-Lyapunov
Theorem allow to prove the following statement.
###### Theorem C (Theorem 19).
The Hill-Schrödinger operators $S(q)$ with distributional potentials $q(x)\in
H_{per}^{-1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$ have continuous spectra with a band and
gap structure such that the endpoints
$\\{\lambda_{0}(q),\lambda_{k}^{\pm}(q)\\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ of spectral gaps
satisfy the inequalities:
$-\infty<\lambda_{0}(q)<\lambda_{1}^{-}(q)\leq\lambda_{1}^{+}(q)<\lambda_{2}^{-}(q)\leq\lambda_{2}^{+}(q)<\ldots\,.$
Moreover, the endpoints of spectral gaps for even/odd numbers
$k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}$ are periodic/semiperiodic eigenvalues of the problems on
the interval $[0,1]$,
$S_{\pm}(q)u=-u^{\prime\prime}+q(x)u=\lambda u,\quad
u\in\mathrm{Dom}\left(S_{\pm}(q)\right).$
It is interested to remark that the last assertion is nontrivial and for the
more singular $\delta^{\prime}$-interactions,
$q(x)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\beta\,\delta^{\prime}(x-k)\notin
H_{per}^{-1}(\mathbb{R}),\quad\beta<0,$
an unusual situation, when the endpoints of spectral gaps for even/odd numbers
$k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}$ are semiperiodic/periodic eigenvalues of the problems on
the interval $[0,1]$, is possible [Alb, Theorem III.3.6].
In the closely related paper [HrMk] Hryniv and Mykytyuk established that
spectra of the operators $S(q)$ are absolutely continuous.
## 2\. Preliminaries
### 2.1. Sobolev spaces
Let us denote by $\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ the
Schwartz space of 1-periodic distributions defined on the whole real axis
$\mathbb{R}$ (see, for an example, [Vld]). For a detail characteristic of
1-periodic distributions we introduce Sobolev spaces.
So, Sobolev spaces $H_{per}^{s}(\mathbb{R})$, $s\in\mathbb{R}$ of 1-periodic
functions/distributions are defined by means of their Fourier coefficients:
$\displaystyle H_{per}^{s}(\mathbb{R})$ $\displaystyle:=\left\\{f=\sum_{k\in
2\mathbb{Z}}\widehat{f}(k)e^{ik\pi x}\left|\;\parallel
f\parallel_{H_{per}^{s}(\mathbb{R})}<\infty\right.\right\\},$
$\displaystyle\parallel f\parallel_{H_{per}^{s}(\mathbb{R})}$
$\displaystyle:=\left(\sum_{k\in 2\mathbb{Z}}\langle
k\rangle^{2s}|\widehat{f}(k)|^{2}\right)^{1/2},\quad\langle k\rangle:=1+|k|,$
$\displaystyle\widehat{f}(k)$ $\displaystyle:=\langle f,e^{ik\pi
x}\rangle_{L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R})},\quad k\in 2\mathbb{Z},$ $\displaystyle
2\mathbb{Z}$ $\displaystyle:=\left\\{k\in\mathbb{Z}\;\left|\;k\equiv
0\;(\mathrm{mod}\,2)\right.\right\\}.$
Sesqui-linear form $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R})}$ pairs
the dual, respectively $L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R})$, spaces
$H_{per}^{s}(\mathbb{R})$ and $H_{per}^{-s}(\mathbb{R})$, and it is an
extension by continuity the $L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R})$-inner product [Brz, GrGr],
$\langle
f,g\rangle_{L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R})}:=\int_{0}^{1}f(x)\overline{g(x)}\,dx\quad\forall
f,g\in L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R}).$
It should be noted that
$H_{per}^{0}(\mathbb{R})=L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R}),$
and that by $\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$ and
$H_{per}^{s}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$, $s\in\mathbb{R}$ are denoted real-valued
1-periodic distributions from the correspondent spaces,
$\displaystyle\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$
$\displaystyle:=\left\\{f(x)\in\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}(\mathbb{R})\left|\,\mathrm{Im}f(x)=0\right.\right\\},$
$\displaystyle H_{per}^{s}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$
$\displaystyle:=\left\\{f(x)\in
H_{per}^{s}(\mathbb{R})\left|\,\mathrm{Im}f(x)=0\right.\right\\}.$
Note that $\mathrm{Im}f(x)=0$ for a 1-periodic distribution
$f(x)\in\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}_{1}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ means that
$\widehat{f}(2k)=\overline{\widehat{f}(-2k)}\quad\forall k\in\mathbb{Z}.$
### 2.2. Quasi-differential equations
The differential expressions in the right-hand of the (1) by introducing
quasi-derivatives:
$u^{[1]}(x):=u^{\prime}(x)-Q(x)u(x),\qquad\langle q,\varphi\rangle=-\langle
Q,\varphi^{\prime}\rangle\quad\forall\varphi\in
C_{comp}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}),$
may be re-written as quasi-differential ones [SvSh1, SvSh2],
$l_{Q}[u]:=-(u^{\prime}-Qu)^{\prime}-Q(u^{\prime}-Qu)-Q^{2}u,$
which are well defined if $u,u^{[1]}\in W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R})$ [Nai].
###### Proposition 1 (Existence and Uniqueness Theorem).
Let $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}$, and $f(x)\in L_{1,loc}(\mathbb{R})$. Then for any
complex numbers $c_{0},\;c_{1}\in\mathbb{C}$ and arbitrary
$x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}$ the quasi-differential equation
(3) $l_{Q}[u]=\lambda u+f,\quad\lambda\in\mathbb{C},\;f\in
L_{1,loc}(\mathbb{R})$
has one and only one solution $u\in W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R})$ with the
initial conditions
$u(x)\left|\right._{x=x_{0}}=c_{0},\quad
u^{[1]}(x)\left|\right._{x=x_{0}}=c_{1}.$
With the quasi-differential equation (3) it is related the normal
2-dimensional system of the first order differential equations with the
locally integrable coefficients,
$\begin{pmatrix}u_{1}\\\ u_{2}\ \end{pmatrix}^{\prime}=\begin{pmatrix}Q&1\\\
-\lambda-Q^{2}&-Q\ \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}u_{1}\\\ u_{2}\
\end{pmatrix}+\begin{pmatrix}0\\\ -f\ \end{pmatrix},$
where $u_{1}(x):=u(x)$, $u_{2}(x):=u^{[1]}(x)$.
Then Proposition 1 follows from [Nai, Theorem 1, §16], also see [AhGl].
###### Lemma 2 (Lagrange Formula).
Let $u(x)$ and $v(x)$ be functions such that quasi-differential expressions
$l_{Q}[\cdot]$ are well defined. Then the Lagrange formula
$l_{Q}[u]\overline{v}-ul_{Q}[\overline{v}]=\frac{d}{dx}[u,v]_{x}$
holds, where the sesqui-linear forms $[u,v]_{x}$ are defined in the following
fashion:
$[u,v]_{x}:=u(x)\overline{\left(v^{\prime}(x)-Q(x)v(x)\right)}-\left(u^{\prime}(x)-Q(x)u(x)\right)\overline{v(x)}.$
###### Proof.
Under the assumption $u(x)$ and $v(x)$ are such that
$u,u^{\prime}-Qu\in W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R})\quad\text{and}\quad
v,v^{\prime}-Qv\in W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R}).$
Then we have
$\displaystyle\frac{d}{dx}[u,v]_{x}$
$\displaystyle\equiv\frac{d}{dx}\left(u\overline{\left(v^{\prime}-Qv\right)}-\left(u^{\prime}-Qu\right)\overline{v}\right)$
$\displaystyle=u^{\prime}\overline{\left(v^{\prime}-Qv\right)}+u\overline{\left(v^{\prime}-Qv\right)^{\prime}}-\left(u^{\prime}-Qu\right)^{\prime}\overline{v}-\left(u^{\prime}-Qu\right)\overline{v^{\prime}}$
$\displaystyle=l_{Q}[u]\overline{v}-ul_{Q}[\overline{v}]+Qu^{\prime}\overline{v}-Qu\overline{v^{\prime}}+u^{\prime}\overline{\left(v^{\prime}-Qv\right)}-\left(u^{\prime}-Qu\right)\overline{v^{\prime}}$
$\displaystyle=l_{Q}[u]\overline{v}-ul_{Q}[\overline{v}]$
taking into account that under the made assumptions
$u^{\prime}\overline{v^{\prime}},\,Q^{2}u\overline{v},\,Qu^{\prime}\overline{v},\,Qu\overline{v^{\prime}}\in
L_{1,loc}(\mathbb{R}).$
The proof is complete. ∎
Integrating both parts of the Lagrange Formula over the compact interval
$[\alpha,\beta]\Subset\mathbb{R}$ we obtain the Lagrange Identity in an
integral form,
(4)
$\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}l_{Q}[u]\overline{v}\,dx-\int_{\alpha}^{\beta}ul_{Q}[\overline{v}]\,dx=[u,v]_{\alpha}^{\beta},$
where
$[u,v]_{\alpha}^{\beta}:=[u,v]_{\beta}-[u,v]_{\alpha}.$
### 2.3. Quasi-differential operators on a finite interval
Here, we due to Savchuk and Shkalikov [SvSh1] give a short review of results
related with Sturm-Liouville operators with distributional potentials defined
on a finite interval.
On the Hilbert space $L_{2}(0,1)$ we consider the Sturm-Liouville operators
$L(q)u:=-u^{\prime\prime}+q(x)u,\quad u\in\mathrm{Dom}\,\left(L(q)\right)$
with real-valued distributional potentials $q(x)\in
H^{-1}\left([0,1],\mathbb{R}\right)$, i.e., when
$Q(x)=\int q(\xi)\,d\xi\in L_{2}\left((0,1),\mathbb{R}\right).$
Set
$\displaystyle L_{max}(q)u$ $\displaystyle:=l_{Q}[u],$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(L_{max}(q))$ $\displaystyle:=\left\\{u\in
L_{2}(0,1)\left|\right.u,u^{\prime}-Qu\in W_{1}^{1}[0,1],\,l_{Q}[u]\in
L_{2}(0,1)\right\\},$
and
$\displaystyle\dot{L}_{min}(q)u$ $\displaystyle:=l_{Q}[u],$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{L}_{min}(q))$
$\displaystyle:=\left\\{u\in\mathrm{Dom}(L_{max}(q))\left|\right.\mathrm{supp}\,u\Subset[0,1]\right\\}.$
We also consider the operators
$\displaystyle L_{min}(q)u$ $\displaystyle:=l_{Q}[u],$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(L_{min}(q))$
$\displaystyle:=\left\\{u\in\mathrm{Dom}(L_{max}(q))\left|\right.u^{[j]}(0)=u^{[j]}(1)=0,\;j=0,1\right\\}.$
###### Proposition 3 ([SvSh1]).
Let suppose that $q(x)\in H^{-1}\left([0,1],\mathbb{R}\right)$. Then the
following statements are fulfilled:
* (``I”)
Operators $L_{min}(q)$ are densely defined on the Hilbert space $L_{2}(0,1)$.
* (``II”)
Operators $L_{min}(q)$ and $L_{max}(q)$ are mutually adjoint,
$L_{min}^{\ast}(q)=L_{max}(q),\qquad L_{max}^{\ast}(q)=L_{min}(q).$
In particular, operators $L_{min}(q)$ and $L_{max}(q)$ are closed.
In Statement 4, which proof is given in Appendix A.1, we establish
relationships between operators $\dot{L}_{min}(q)$ and $L_{min}(q)$.
###### Statement 4.
Operators $L_{min}(q)$ are closures of operators $\dot{L}_{min}(q)$,
$L_{min}(q)=(\dot{L}_{min}(q))^{\sim}=\dot{L}_{min}^{\ast\ast}(q).$
## 3\. Main results
### 3.1. Principal lemma
The following operator-theory statement is an essential point of our approach.
It has two important applications in this section.
###### Lemma 5.
Let $A$ be a densely defined and closed on a complex Banach space $X$ linear
operator, and let $B$ be a bounded on $X$ linear operator, such that
* (a)
$BA\subset AB$ ($A$ and $B$ commute);
* (b)
$\sigma_{p}(B)=\varnothing$ (point spectrum $\sigma_{p}(B)$ of operator $B$ is
empty).
Then the operator $A$ has no eigenvalues of a finite multiplicity.
###### Proof.
Let suppose that the operator $A$ has eigenvalue $\lambda\in\sigma_{p}(A)$ of
a finite multiplicity, and let $G_{\lambda}$ be a correspondent eigenspace.
Further, let $f$ be an eigenvector of the operator $A$,
$Af=\lambda f,\qquad f\in G_{\lambda},$
Then we have
$A(Bf)=B(Af)=\lambda(Bf),\qquad f\in G_{\lambda},$
from where one may conclude that
$BG_{\lambda}\subset G_{\lambda}.$
Taking into account that under the assumption
$\mathrm{dim}(G_{\lambda})\in\mathbb{N}$ from the latter we obtain that point
spectrum $\sigma_{p}(B)$ of the operator $B$ is not empty. This contradicts to
the condition (b).
The proof is complete. ∎
###### Remark 6.
The condition (b) is valid if the space $X=L_{p}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C})$,
$1\leq p<\infty$, and $B$ be a shift operator,
$B:\,y(x)\mapsto y(x+T),\,T>0.$
Indeed, the operator $B$ is an unitary one on the space
$X=L_{p}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C})$. Therefore
$\sigma_{p}(B)\subset\sigma(B)=\left\\{\lambda\in\mathbb{C}\left|\right.|\lambda|=1\right\\},$
and the equality
$By(x)=\lambda y(x)=y(x+T),\quad y(x)\not\equiv 0,\quad|\lambda|=1$
implies that the function $|y(x)|$ is $T$-periodic. Then $y(x)\not\in
L_{p}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C})$, and one may conclude that
$\sigma_{p}(B)=\varnothing$.
The condition (a) means in this case that the operator $A$ is $T$-periodic on
the line.
### 3.2. Self-adjointness of the Hill-Schrödinger operators with
distributional potentials
Under the assumption (2) the distributional potentials $q(x)$ have got the
representations
$q(x)=C+Q^{\prime}(x)$
with
$C=\widehat{q}(0)$
and
$Q(x)=\sum_{k\in
2\mathbb{Z}\setminus\\{0\\}}\frac{1}{ik\pi}\widehat{q}(2k)e^{ik\pi x}\in
L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$
such that
$\langle q,\varphi\rangle=-\langle
Q,\varphi^{\prime}\rangle\quad\forall\varphi\in
C_{comp}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}),$
see [DjMt, Proposition 1], [Vld]. Here, by $\langle f,\cdot\rangle$,
$f\in\mathfrak{D}^{\prime}(\mathbb{R})$ we denote sesqui-linear functionals
over the space $C_{comp}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R})$.
###### Remark 7.
Without loss of any generality throughout of the remainder of the paper we
will assume that
$\widehat{q}(0)=0.$
Then the Hill-Schrödinger operators can be well defined on the Hilbert space
$L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ as quasi-differential ones [SvSh1, SvSh2] by means of
quasi-expressions,
$l_{Q}[u]=-(u^{\prime}-Qu)^{\prime}-Q(u^{\prime}-Qu)-Q^{2}u.$
Set
$\displaystyle S_{max}(q)u$ $\displaystyle:=l_{Q}[u],$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))$ $\displaystyle:=\left\\{u\in
L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\left|\right.u,u^{\prime}-Qu\in
W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R}),\,l_{Q}[u]\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\right\\},$
and
$\displaystyle\dot{S}_{min}(q)u$ $\displaystyle:=l_{Q}[u],$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q))$
$\displaystyle:=\left\\{u\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))\left|\right.\mathrm{supp}\,u\Subset\mathbb{R}\right\\}.$
It is obvious that operators $S_{max}(q)$ are defined on the maximally
possible linear manifolds on which quasi-expressions $l_{Q}[\cdot]$ are well
defined.
###### Proposition 8.
Let $q(x)\in H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$. Then the
following statements are fulfilled:
* (``I”)
Operators $\dot{S}_{min}(q)$ are symmetric and lower semibounded on the
Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$. In particular, they are closable.
* (``II”)
Closures $S_{min}(q)$ of operators $\dot{S}_{min}(q)$,
$S_{min}(q):=(\dot{S}_{min}(q))^{\sim}$, are symmetric, lower semibounded
operators on the Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ with deficiency numbers of
a view $(m,m)$ where $0\leq m\leq 2$. Operators $S_{max}(q)$ are adjoint to
operators $S_{min}(q)$,
$S_{min}^{\ast}(q)=S_{max}(q).$
In particular, $S_{max}(q)$ are closed operators on the Hilbert space
$L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$, and
$S_{max}^{\ast}(q)=S_{min}(q).$
* (``III”)
Domains $\mathrm{Dom}(S_{min}(q))$ of operators $S_{min}(q)$ consist of those
and only those functions $u\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))$ which satisfy the
conditions:
$[u,v]_{+\infty}-[u,v]_{-\infty}=0\quad\forall v\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q)),$
where the limits
$[u,v]_{+\infty}:=\lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}[u,v]_{x},\quad\text{and}\quad[u,v]_{-\infty}:=\lim_{x\rightarrow-\infty}[u,v]_{x}$
are well defined and exist.
Proposition 8, which describes properties of operators $\dot{S}_{min}(q)$ and
$S_{max}(q)$, is proved by using methods of a linear quasi-differential
operators theory in Appendix A.2.
In Proposition 10 we define the Friedrichs extensions of minimal operators
$S_{min}(q)$. But firstly, for a convenience, we remind some related facts and
prove the useful Lemma 9.
Let $H$ be a Hilbert space, and $\dot{A}$ is a densely defined, lower
semibounded linear operator on $H$. Hence, $\dot{A}$ is a closable, symmetric
operator. Define by $A$ its closure, $A:=(\dot{A})^{\sim}$.
Set
$\dot{t}[u,v]:=(\dot{A}u,v),\qquad\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{t}):=\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{A}).$
As known [Kt] sesqui-linear form $\dot{t}[u,v]$ is closable, lower semibounded
and symmetric on a Hilbert space $H$ one. Let $t[u,v]$ be its closure,
$t:=(\dot{t})^{\sim}$.
By the operator $\dot{A}$ it is uniquely defined its Friedrichs extension
$A_{F}$ [Kt],
$t[u,v]=(A_{F}u,v),\qquad
u\in\mathrm{Dom}(A_{F})\subset\mathrm{Dom}(t),\,v\in\mathrm{Dom}(t).$
Due to the First Representation Theorem [Kt] operator $A_{F}$ is lower
semibounded and self-adjoint. In Lemma 9 we describe its domain, but at first
note that the following relationships hold:
$\dot{A}\subset A\subset A_{F}\subset A^{\ast}.$
###### Lemma 9.
Let $A_{F}$ be a Friedrichs extension of a densely defined, lower semibounded
operator $\dot{A}$ on a Hilbert space $H$, and let $t[u,v]$ is a densely
defined, closed, symmetric and bounded from below on $H$ sesqui-linear form
built by operator $\dot{A}$. Then the following formula
$\mathrm{Dom}(A_{F})=\mathrm{Dom}(t)\cap\mathrm{Dom}(A^{\ast})$
holds.
###### Proof.
It is obvious that
$\mathrm{Dom}(A_{F})\subset\mathrm{Dom}(t)\cap\mathrm{Dom}(A^{\ast}).$
Let prove the inverse inclusion.
Let $u\in\mathrm{Dom}(t)\cap\mathrm{Dom}(A^{\ast})$, and
$v\in\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{A})\subset\mathrm{Dom}(A_{F})\subset\mathrm{Dom}(t)$.
Remark that $\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{A})$ is a core of the form $t[u,v]$ as well as
$\mathrm{Dom}(t)\cap\mathrm{Dom}(A^{\ast})$ containing
$\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{A})$. Then we have
$(A^{\ast}u,v)=(u,\dot{A}v)=(u,A_{F}v)=\overline{(A_{F}v,u)}=\overline{t[v,u]}=t[u,v],$
i.e.,
$t[u,v]=(A^{\ast}u,v),\qquad
u\in\mathrm{Dom}(t)\cap\mathrm{Dom}(A^{\ast}),\,v\in\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{A}).$
Due to the First Representation Theorem [Kt] we get that
$u\in\mathrm{Dom}(A_{F})$, i.e.,
$\mathrm{Dom}(t)\cap\mathrm{Dom}(A^{\ast})\subset\mathrm{Dom}(A_{F}).$
The proof is complete. ∎
###### Proposition 10.
The Friedrichs extensions $S_{F}(q)$ of the operators $S_{min}(q)$ are defined
in the following fashion:
$\displaystyle S_{F}(q)u$ $\displaystyle:=l_{Q}[u],$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(S_{F}(q))$ $\displaystyle:=\left\\{u\in
H^{1}(\mathbb{R})\left|\right.u^{\prime}-Qu\in
W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R}),\,l_{Q}[u]\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\right\\}.$
###### Proof.
Let us introduce the sesqui-linear forms,
$\dot{t}[u,v]:=(\dot{S}_{min}(q)u,v),\quad\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{t}):=\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q)).$
As well known [Kt] the sesqui-linear forms $\dot{t}[u,v]$ are densely defined,
closable, symmetric and bounded from below on the Hilbert space
$L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$. Taking into account that
$\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q))\subset H_{comp}^{1}(\mathbb{R})$ the forms
$\dot{t}[u,v]$ have got a view
$\dot{t}[u,v]=(u^{\prime},v^{\prime})-(Qu,v^{\prime})-(Qu^{\prime},v),\quad\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{t})\subset
H_{comp}^{1}(\mathbb{R}).$
Set
$\displaystyle\dot{t}_{1}[u,v]$
$\displaystyle:=(u^{\prime},v^{\prime})+(u,v),\quad$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{t}_{1}):=\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q))\subset
H_{comp}^{1}(\mathbb{R}),$ $\displaystyle\dot{t}_{2}[u,v]$
$\displaystyle:=-(Qu,v^{\prime})-(Qu^{\prime},v)-(u,v),\quad$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{t}_{2}):=\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q))\subset
H_{comp}^{1}(\mathbb{R}),$
i.e.,
$\dot{t}=\dot{t}_{1}+\dot{t}_{2}.$
As well known the form $\dot{t}_{1}[u,v]$ is closable, and its closure
$t_{1}[u,v]$, $t_{1}:=(\dot{t}_{1})^{\sim}$, has the representation
$t_{1}[u,v]=(u^{\prime},v^{\prime})+(u,v),\quad\mathrm{Dom}(t_{1})=H^{1}(\mathbb{R}).$
As it was shown in the [HrMk] the forms $\dot{t}_{2}[u,v]$ are $t_{1}$-bounded
with relative boundary 0. So, we finally obtain that the forms $\dot{t}[u,v]$
closures $t[u,v]$, $t:=(\dot{t})^{\sim}$, are defined as following,
$t[u,v]=(u^{\prime},v^{\prime})-(Qu,v^{\prime})-(Qu^{\prime},v),\quad\mathrm{Dom}(t)=H^{1}(\mathbb{R}).$
And the sesqui-linear forms $t[u,v]$ are densely defined, closed, symmetric
and lower semibounded on the Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$.
Further, as
$\displaystyle S_{min}^{\ast}(q)u$ $\displaystyle=l_{Q}[u],$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(S_{min}^{\ast}(q))$ $\displaystyle=\left\\{u\in
L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\left|\right.u,u^{\prime}-Qu\in
W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R}),\,l_{Q}[u]\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\right\\},$
applying Lemma 9 we get the need representations for Friedrichs extensions of
operators $\dot{S}_{min}(q)$.
The proof is complete. ∎
###### Statement 11.
It is valid the following envelops:
$\dot{S}_{min}(q)\subset S_{min}(q)\subset S_{F}(q)\subset S_{max}(q)$
and
$\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q))$ $\displaystyle\subset
H_{comp}^{1}(\mathbb{R}),$ $\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(S_{min}(q))\subset
H^{1}(\mathbb{R}),$ $\displaystyle\quad\mathrm{Dom}(S_{F}(q))\subset
H^{1}(\mathbb{R}),$ $\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))$
$\displaystyle\subset L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\cap H_{loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R}).$
Statement 11 immediately follows from the correspondent definitions and not
very complicate computations.
Now, our aim is to prove a self-adjointness of maximal quasi-differential
operators $S_{max}(q)$.
###### Proposition 12.
Let $q(x)\in H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$. The following
statements are equivalent:
* (a)
Operators $S_{max}(q)$ are self-adjoint.
* (b)
$\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))\subset H^{1}(\mathbb{R})$.
* (c)
$u^{\prime}-Qu\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\cap W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R})\quad\forall
u\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))$.
###### Proof.
$(a)$ Let $S_{max}(q)$ are self-adjoint. Then as it follows from Proposition
8.II and Statement 11 we obtain
$\displaystyle S_{min}(q)=S_{F}(q)=S_{max}(q),$
$\displaystyle\mathrm{Dom}(S_{min}(q))=\mathrm{Dom}(S_{F}(q))=\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))\subset
H^{1}(\mathbb{R}),$
and $(b)$ is true.
Further, under the assumptions $Q\in L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R})$ and $u\in
H^{1}(\mathbb{R})$ we have got $Qu\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ [HrMk] that yields
$(c)$.
$(b)$ Let suppose that $\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))\subset H^{1}(\mathbb{R})$. As
above we get $Qu\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$, and as a consequence we obtain $(c)$.
Then the statement $(a)$ follows from the Lagrange Identity (4), taking into
account that
$[u,v]_{+\infty}=0\quad\text{and}\quad[u,v]_{-\infty}=0$
for $u,v\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ and $u^{\prime}-Qu,v^{\prime}-Qv\in
L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\cap W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R})$.
$(c)$ Let given $(c)$, i.e., $u^{\prime}-Qu\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\cap
W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R})\quad\forall u\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))$. Then
applying the Lagrange Identity (4) as above we have got $(a)$, and as a
consequence $(b)$.
The proof is complete. ∎
Hryniv and Mykytyuk [HrMk] studied operators associated due to the First
Representation Theorem [Kt] with the sesqui-linear forms
$t[u,v]=(u^{\prime},v^{\prime})-(Qu,v^{\prime})-(Qu^{\prime},v),\quad\mathrm{Dom}(t)=H^{1}(\mathbb{R}).$
I.e., they studied namely Friedrichs extensions $S_{F}(q)$.
Djakov and Mityagin [DjMt] also treated Friedrichs extensions $S_{F}(q)$ a
priori considering operators on the domains
$\mathrm{Dom}(S_{F}(q))=\left\\{u\in
H^{1}(\mathbb{R})\left|\right.u^{\prime}-Qu\in
W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R}),\,l_{Q}[u]\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\right\\},$
see Proposition 10 and Proposition 12.
So, due to Proposition 8.II we have
$S_{max}(q)\supset S_{max}^{\ast}(q),$
and therefore it remains to show a symmetry of the operators $S_{max}(q)$,
$S_{max}(q)\subset S_{max}^{\ast}(q).$
We do it applying Lemma 5.
Let consider on the Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ a shift operator
$(Uf)(x):=f(x+1),\qquad\mathrm{Dom}(U):=L_{2}(\mathbb{R}),$
then $\sigma_{p}(U)=\varnothing$.
Further, let $f\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))$. It is obvious that
$Uf\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))$ also, and
$U(S_{max}(q)f)=Ul_{Q}[f(x)]=l_{Q}[f(x+1)]=l_{Q}[(Uf)(x)]=S_{max}(q)(Uf),$
i.e., operators $S_{max}(q)$ and $U$ commute.
Taking into account that $S_{max}(q)$ are the second order quasi-differential
operators, i.e., their possible eigenvalues cannot have multiplicities more
than two, and applying Lemma 5 to the operators $S_{max}(q)$ and $U$ we obtain
the next proposition.
###### Proposition 13.
Point spectra $\sigma_{p}(S_{max}(q))$ of the quasi-differential operators
$S_{max}(q)$ are empty.
###### Theorem 14.
The quasi-differential operators $S_{max}(q)$ are self-adjoint.
###### Proof.
From Proposition 8.II and Proposition 13 we get that the minimal symmetric
operators $S_{min}(q)$ have deficiency index of a view $(0,0)$, i.e., they are
self-adjoint. Due to Proposition 8.II this implies that the operators
$S_{max}(q)$ are self-adjoint also.
The proof is complete. ∎
###### Corollary 15.
Minimal operators $S_{min}(q)$, Friedrichs extensions $S_{F}(q)$ and maximal
operators $S_{max}(q)$ coincide. In particular, they are self-adjoint and
lower semibounded.
###### Corollary 16.
Let $q(x)\in H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$, and $q_{n}(x)\in
H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that
$q_{n}(x)\overset{H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)}{\longrightarrow}q(x)\quad\text{as}\quad
n\rightarrow\infty.$
Then the Hill-Schrödinger operators $S(q_{n})$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ converge to
the operators $S(q)$ in the norm resolvent sense,
$\left\|\left(S(q_{n})-\lambda I\right)^{-1}-\left(S(q)-\lambda
I\right)^{-1}\right\|\rightarrow 0\quad\text{as}\quad n\rightarrow\infty,$
for any $\lambda$ belonging to resolvent sets of $S(q)$ and $S(q_{n})$,
$n\in\mathbb{N}$.
###### Proof.
It immediately follows from [HrMk, Theorem 4.1] and Corollary 15. ∎
In particular, the Hill-Schrödinger operators $S(q)$ with distributional
potentials $q(x)\in H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$ are a
sequence limits $S_{lim}(q)$ of operators $S(q_{n})$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ with
smooth potentials $q_{n}(x)\in L_{2,per}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$.
For an instance, for
$q(x)=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\widehat{q}(2k)\,e^{i\,2k\pi x}\in
H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$
we may choose
$q_{n}(x):=\sum_{|k|\leq n}\widehat{q}(2k)\,e^{i\,2k\pi x}\in
C_{per}^{\infty}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right),\quad n\in\mathbb{N}.$
Now, we are going to define the Hill-Schrödinger operators with distributional
potentials as form-sum operators [Krt]. We will show that this definition
coincides with the given above ones.
Let consider on the Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ the sesqui-linear forms
$\tau[u,v]:=\left\langle-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}u,v\right\rangle_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})}+\left\langle
q(x)u,v\right\rangle_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})},\quad\mathrm{Dom}(\tau)=H^{1}(\mathbb{R}),$
generated by the one-dimensional Schrödinger operators with $q(x)\in
H_{per}^{-1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$.
Here, by $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})}$ is denoted sesqui-
linear form pairing dual, respectively $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$, spaces
$H^{s}(\mathbb{R})$ and $H^{-s}(\mathbb{R})$ for $s\in\mathbb{R}$, which
(sesqui-linear form) is an extension by continuity the
$L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$-inner product [Brz, GrGr],
$\langle
f,g\rangle_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})}:=\int_{\mathbb{R}}f(x)\overline{g(x)}\,dx\quad\forall
f,g\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R}).$
As known [Krt] the sesqui-linear forms $\tau[u,v]$ are densely defined,
closed, bounded from below, defined on the Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$
ones. Due to the First Representation Theorem [Kt] with them it is associated
uniquely defined on the Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ self-adjoint, lower
semibounded operators $S_{form}(q)$ such that
* i)
$\mathrm{Dom}\left(S_{form}(q)\right)\subset\mathrm{Dom}\left(\tau\right)$,
and
$\tau[u,v]=(S_{form}(q)u,v)\quad\forall
u\in\mathrm{Dom}\left(S_{form}(q)\right),\,\forall
v\in\mathrm{Dom}\left(\tau\right);$
* ii)
$\mathrm{Dom}\left(S_{form}(q)\right)$ are cores of the forms $\tau[u,v]$;
* iii)
if $u\in\mathrm{Dom}\left(\tau\right)$, $w\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$, and
$\tau[u,v]=(w,v)$
hold for every $v$ in cores of the forms $\tau[u,v]$, then
$u\in\mathrm{Dom}\left(S_{form}(q)\right)$ and
$S_{form}(q)u=w.$
Operators $S_{form}(q)$ are called form-sum operators associated with the
forms $\tau[u,v]$, and denoted as following
$S_{form}(q):=-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}\dotplus q(x),$
and also it is convenient to use the denotations
$\tau_{S_{form}(q)}[u,v]\equiv\tau[u,v].$
###### Proposition 17 ([Krt]).
The Hill-Schrödinger operators with distributional potentials from the
negative Sobolev space $H_{per}^{-1}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$ are well defined
on the Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ as self-adjoint, lower semibounded
form-sum operators $S_{form}(q)$,
$S_{form}(q)=-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}\dotplus q(x),$
associated with the sesqui-linear forms
$\tau_{S_{form}(q)}[u,v]=\left\langle-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}u,v\right\rangle_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})}+\left\langle
q(x)u,v\right\rangle_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})},\quad\mathrm{Dom}(\tau)=H^{1}(\mathbb{R}),$
acting on the dense domains
$\mathrm{Dom}\left(S_{form}(q)\right):=\left\\{u\in
H^{1}(\mathbb{R})\left|-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}u+q(x)u\in
L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\right.\right\\}$
as
$S_{form}(q)u:=-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}u+q(x)u\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R}),\quad
u\in\mathrm{Dom}\left(S_{form}(q)\right).$
###### Theorem 18.
The quasi-differential operators $S(q)$ and form-sum operators $S_{form}(q)$
coincide.
###### Proof.
Let $u\in\mathrm{Dom}\left(S(q)\right)$. Let us remember that
$\mathrm{Dom}(S(q))=\left\\{u\in
H^{1}(\mathbb{R})\left|\right.u^{\prime}-Qu\in
W_{1,loc}^{1}(\mathbb{R}),\,l_{Q}[u]\in L_{2}(\mathbb{R})\right\\},$
i.e.,
$\mathrm{Dom}(S(q))\subset\mathrm{Dom}(\tau_{S_{form}(q)})=H^{1}(\mathbb{R}).$
Then we have,
$\displaystyle\tau_{S_{form}(q)}[u,v]$
$\displaystyle=\langle-u^{\prime\prime},v\rangle_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})}+\langle
q(x)u,v\rangle_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})}=\langle
u^{\prime},v^{\prime}\rangle_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})}-\langle
Q(x),\overline{u^{\prime}}v+\overline{u}v^{\prime}\rangle_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})}$
$\displaystyle=(u^{\prime},v^{\prime})-(Qu,v^{\prime})-(Qu^{\prime},v)=(l_{Q}[u],v)\quad\forall
v\in C_{comp}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}).$
And due to the First Representation Theorem [Kt] we conclude that
$u\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{form}(q)),\quad\text{and}\quad S_{form}(q)u=l_{Q}[u],$
i.e.,
$S(q)\subset S_{form}(q).$
Taking into account that operators $S(q)$ and $S_{form}(q)$ are self-adjoint
from the latter we have got also the inverse inclusions
$S(q)\supset S_{form}(q).$
The proof is complete. ∎
### 3.3. Spectra of the Hill-Schrödinger operators with distributional
potentials
Here, we establish characteristic properties of a spectrum structure of the
Hill-Schrödinger operators $S(q)$ with distributional potentials $q(x)\in
H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$. By means of a limit process
in generalized sense applied to the Hill-Schrödinger operators $S(q_{n})$,
$n\in\mathbb{N}$ with smooth potentials $q_{n}(x)\in
L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$ (see Corollary 16) we show that the Hill-
Schrödinger operators $S(q)$ with distributions $q(x)\in
H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$ as potentials have continuous
spectra with a band and gap structure.
For different approaches see [HrMk, Krt, DjMt].
At first let us remind well known results related with the classical case of
$L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$-potentials $q(x)$,
(5) $q(x)\in L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}),$
see, for an example, [DnSch2, ReSi4]. Under the assumption (5) the Hill-
Schrödinger operators $S(q)$ are lower semibounded and self-adjoint on the
Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$, they have absolutely continuous spectra
with a band and gap structure.
Spectra of the Hill-Schrödinger operators are defined well by a location of
the spectral gap endpoints. It is known that for the endpoints
$\\{\lambda_{0}(q),\lambda_{k}^{\pm}(q)\\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ of spectral gaps it
is valid the following inequalities:
(6)
$-\infty<\lambda_{0}(q)<\lambda_{1}^{-}(q)\leq\lambda_{1}^{+}(q)<\lambda_{2}^{-}(q)\leq\lambda_{2}^{+}(q)<\ldots\,.$
Spectral bands (or stability zones),
$\mathcal{B}_{0}(q):=[\lambda_{0}(q),\lambda_{1}^{-}(q)],\qquad\mathcal{B}_{k}(q):=[\lambda_{k}^{+}(q),\lambda_{k+1}^{-}(q)],\quad
k\in\mathbb{N},$
are characterized as a locus of those real $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ for which
all solutions of the equation
(7) $S(q)u=\lambda u$
are bounded. On the other hand, spectral gaps (or instability zones),
$\mathcal{G}_{0}(q):=(-\infty,\lambda_{0}(q)),\qquad\mathcal{G}_{k}(q):=(\lambda_{k}^{-}(q),\lambda_{k}^{+}(q)),\quad
k\in\mathbb{N},$
are a locus of those real $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ for which any nontrivial
solution of the equation (7) is unbounded.
As we see from the (6) it is possible situation when
$\lambda_{k}^{-}(q)=\lambda_{k}^{+}(q)$
for some $k\in\mathbb{N}$. In this case one say that the correspondent
spectral gap $\mathcal{G}_{k}(q)$ is collapsed, or closed. Note, that for
spectral bands it cannot happen.
Further, it happens that the endpoints of spectral gaps for even numbers
$k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}$ are periodic eigenvalues of the problems on the interval
$[0,1]$:
$S_{+}(q)u:=-u^{\prime\prime}+q(x)u=\lambda u,\quad
u\in\mathrm{Dom}\left(S_{+}(q)\right),$
and the endpoints of spectral gaps for odd numbers $k\in\mathbb{N}$ are
semiperiodic eigenvalues of the problems on the interval $[0,1]$:
$S_{-}(q)u:=-u^{\prime\prime}+q(x)u=\lambda u,\quad
u\in\mathrm{Dom}\left(S_{-}(q)\right).$
Under the assumption (5) domains of operators $S_{+}(q)$ and $S_{-}(q)$ have a
view
$\mathrm{Dom}(S_{\pm}(q))=\left\\{u\in H^{2}[0,1]\left|\,u^{(j)}(0)=\pm
u^{(j)}(1),\,j=0,1\right.\right\\}.$
Now, applying a limit process in generalized sense (see Corollary 16) to the
Hill-Schrödinger operators $S(q_{n})$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ with
$L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$-potentials $q_{n}(x)$ we establish the
following statement.
###### Theorem 19.
Suppose that $q(x)\in H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R}\right)$. Then
the Hill-Schrödinger operators $S(q)$ have continuous spectra with a band and
gap structure such that the endpoints
$\\{\lambda_{0}(q),\lambda_{k}^{\pm}(q)\\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ of spectral gaps
satisfy the inequalities:
$-\infty<\lambda_{0}(q)<\lambda_{1}^{-}(q)\leq\lambda_{1}^{+}(q)<\lambda_{2}^{-}(q)\leq\lambda_{2}^{+}(q)<\ldots\,.$
Moreover, the endpoints of spectral gaps for even/odd numbers
$k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}$ are periodic/semiperiodic eigenvalues of the problems on
the interval $[0,1]$,
$S_{\pm}(q)u=-u^{\prime\prime}+q(x)u=\lambda u,\quad
u\in\mathrm{Dom}\left(S_{\pm}(q)\right).$
###### Remark 20.
Operators $S_{+}(q)$ and $S_{-}(q)$ are well defined on the Hilbert space
$L_{2}(0,1)$ as lower semi-bounded, self-adjoint form-sum operators,
$S_{\pm}(q)=\left(-\frac{d^{2}}{dx^{2}}\right)_{\pm}\dotplus q(x).$
Also they can be well defined in alternative equivalent ways: as quasi-
differential ones and as a sequence limits in the norm resolvent sense of
operators with smooth potentials.
In the papers [MiMl3, MiMl4, MiMl5] the authors meticulously treated the form-
sum operators
$S_{\pm}(V)=\left((-1)^{m}\frac{d^{2m}}{dx^{2m}}\right)_{\pm}\dotplus
V(x),\quad V(x)\in H_{per}^{-m}[0,1],\,m\in\mathbb{N}$
defined on $L_{2}(0,1)$.
And in the [Mlb, MiMl1, MiMl2] it is studied two terms differential operators
of an even order defined on the negative Sobolev spaces.
###### Proof.
Let $\left\\{q_{n}(x)\right\\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a sequence of real-valued
trigonometric polynomials which converge to the singular potential $q(x)$ by
the norm of the space $H_{per}^{-1}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$. With this
sequence one may associate a sequence of self-adjoint operators
$\left\\{S_{\pm}(q_{n})\right\\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ defined on $L_{2}(0,1)$ and
a sequence of Hill operators $\left\\{S(q_{n})\right\\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$
defined on $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$. As it was proved by the authors in the [MiMl3,
MiMl5] the sequences $\left\\{S_{\pm}(q_{n})\right\\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$
converge to operators $S_{\pm}(q)$ in the norm resolvent sense. Hence,
eigenvalues of these operators
$\left\\{S_{\pm}(q_{n})\right\\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ converge to correspondent
eigenvalues of limiting operators $S_{\pm}(q)$ [ReSi1, Theorem VIII.23 and
Theorem VIII.24] (also see [Kt]). Further, as well known [CdLv, DnSch2] for
the operators $\left\\{S_{\pm}(q_{n})\right\\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ it holds the
assertions of theorem, i.e.,
(8)
$-\infty<\lambda_{0}(q_{n})<\lambda_{1}^{-}(q_{n})\leq\lambda_{1}^{+}(q_{n})<\lambda_{2}^{-}(q_{n})\leq\lambda_{2}^{+}(q_{n})<\ldots\,.$
Moreover, as we already have proved (see Corollary 16) the sequence
$\left\\{S(q_{n})\right\\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ converge to the operator $S(q)$
in the norm resolvent sense. Therefore, from the (8) we get
$-\infty<\lambda_{0}(q)\leq\lambda_{1}^{-}(q)\leq\lambda_{1}^{+}(q)\leq\lambda_{2}^{-}(q)\leq\lambda_{2}^{+}(q)\leq\ldots\,,$
where $\lambda_{0}(q),\,\lambda_{2k}^{\pm}(q)\in\sigma(S_{+}(q))$ and
$\lambda_{2k-1}^{\pm}(q)\in\sigma(S_{-}(q))$, $k\in\mathbb{N}$.
Now, it remains to show that the strong inequalities
$\lambda_{k}^{+}(q_{n})<\lambda_{k+1}^{-}(q_{n}),\quad k\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}$
can not become into equalities. Really, let suppose contrary. Then, one of the
operator $S(q)$ spectral zones degenerates into the point:
$\lambda_{k_{0}}^{+}(q)=\lambda_{k_{0}+1}^{-}(q),\quad
k_{0}\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}.$
As it is isolate the operator $S(q)$ spectrum point, therefore, it cannot
belong to continuous spectrum $\sigma_{c}\left(S(q)\right)$ of the one. On the
other hand, it cannot belong to the operator $S(q)$ point spectrum as
$\sigma_{p}\left(S(q)\right)=\varnothing$. And obtained contradiction proves
the inequalities of theorem.
The proof is complete. ∎
## 4\. Concluding remarks
From the direct integral decomposition of the Hill-Schrödinger operators
$S(q)$ [HrMk] and the known Reed-Simon Theorem [ReSi4, Theorem XIII.86] follow
that $\sigma_{sc}(S(q))=\varnothing$. Therefore, the proved in this paper
continuity of the operators $S(q)$ spectra yield their absolutely continuity
[MiSb].
From Theorem C and the authors results [MiMl3] one obtain a series of theorems
establishing relationships between spectral gap lengths and a smoothness of
distributional potentials $q(x)\in H_{per}^{-s}(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{R})$,
$s\geq-1$ of the Hill-Schrödinger operators $S(q)$ [MiMl6].
Acknowledgment. The investigation of the first author was partially supported
by Ukrainian Foundation for Fundamental Research, Grant 14.1/003.
## Appendix: Some proofs
A.1. Proof of Statement 4. At first note that from the relationships
$\dot{L}_{min}(q)\subset L_{min}(q)$
follows that
$(\dot{L}_{min}(q))^{\sim}\subset L_{min}(q),$
see Proposition 3.III. Therefore, it suffices to show the inverse inclusions
$(\dot{L}_{min}(q))^{\sim}\supset L_{min}(q).$
Let $\Delta=[\alpha,\beta]$ denotes a fixed, closed interval completely
belonging to the interval $[0,1]$, and let
$\mathfrak{H}_{\Delta}:=L_{2}(\alpha,\beta).$
On the Hilbert space $\mathfrak{H}_{\Delta}$ one may consider operators
$L_{min,\Delta}(q)$ and $L_{max,\Delta}(q)$ generated by $l_{Q}[\cdot]$ on the
interval $\Delta$ which due to Proposition 3.III are mutually adjoint,
$L_{min,\Delta}^{\ast}(q)=L_{max,\Delta}(q),\qquad
L_{max,\Delta}^{\ast}(q)=L_{min,\Delta}(q).$
On the other hand the Hilbert space $\mathfrak{H}_{\Delta}$ can be well inject
into the space $\mathfrak{H}:=L_{2}(0,1)$ assuming that over the interval
$\Delta$ a function $u\in\mathfrak{H}_{\Delta}$ is equal zero. Thus, domains
$\mathrm{Dom}(L_{min,\Delta}(q))$ of operators $L_{min,\Delta}(q)$ become of a
part of domains $\mathrm{Dom}(L_{max}(q))$ of operators $L_{max}(q)$ as under
such extension of function $u\in\mathrm{Dom}(L_{min,\Delta}(q))$ over the
interval $\Delta$ a continuity of its quasi-derivatives $u^{[j]}(x)$, $j=0,1$,
is not destroy. Moreover, extended in such fashion function
$u\in\mathrm{Dom}(L_{min,\Delta}(q))$ then belong to the
$\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{L}_{min}(q))$. Therefore, if
$v\in\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{L}_{min}^{\ast}(q))$ then we have
(9)
$\left(\dot{L}_{min}^{\ast}(q)v,u\right)=\left(v,\dot{L}_{min}(q)u\right)\qquad\forall
u\in\mathrm{Dom}(L_{min,\Delta}(q)).$
As $u(x)=0$ over the interval $\Delta$ scalar product in the (9) is an
$\mathfrak{H}_{\Delta}$-inner product. Denoting these scalar products by index
$\Delta$ we can re-write (9) as following,
$\left((\dot{L}_{min}^{\ast}(q)v)_{\Delta},u\right)_{\Delta}=\left(v_{\Delta},L_{min,\Delta}(q)u\right)_{\Delta}\qquad\forall
u\in\mathrm{Dom}(L_{min,\Delta}(q)).$
Here, by $(\dot{L}_{min}^{\ast}(q)v)_{\Delta}$, $v_{\Delta}$ are denoted
functions $\dot{L}_{min}^{\ast}(q)v$ and $v$ considered only in the interval
$\Delta$. So, from the latter we obtain
$v_{\Delta}\in\mathrm{Dom}(L_{min,\Delta}^{\ast}(q))=\mathrm{Dom}(L_{max,\Delta}(q))$
and
$(\dot{L}_{min}^{\ast}(q)v)_{\Delta}=L_{min,\Delta}^{\ast}(q)v_{\Delta}=L_{max,\Delta}(q)v_{\Delta}=\left(l_{Q}[v]\right)_{\Delta}.$
As these relationships are valid for any interval $\Delta\subset[0,1]$ we
conclude that
$v\in\mathrm{Dom}(L_{max}(q)),\quad\text{and}\quad\dot{L}_{min}^{\ast}(q)v=l_{Q}[v]=L_{max}(q)v.$
Thus, it has been proved
$\dot{L}_{min}^{\ast}(q)\subset L_{max}(q),$
i.e., we have
$\dot{L}_{min}^{\ast\ast}(q)\supset L_{max}^{\ast}(q)=L_{min}(q),$
that implies the required inclusions,
$(\dot{L}_{min}(q))^{\sim}\supset L_{min}(q).$
The proof is complete.
A.2. Proof of Proposition 8. $(\verb"I")$ At first note that
(10) $\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q))\subset H_{comp}^{1}(\mathbb{R}).$
Let $u\in\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q))$, then we have
$(\dot{S}_{min}(q)u,u)=(l_{Q}[u],u)=(u^{\prime},u^{\prime})-(Qu,u^{\prime})-(Qu^{\prime},u)$
taking into account that due to the (10)
$|u^{\prime}|^{2},\,Quu^{\prime}\in L_{1,comp}(\mathbb{R}).$
Further, $(Qu,u^{\prime})$ and $(Qu^{\prime},u)$ we estimate as in the [HrMk],
$\left|(Qu,u^{\prime})\right|\leq\|Q\|_{L_{2,per}(\mathbb{R})}\left(\varepsilon\|u^{\prime}\|_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})}+b(\varepsilon^{-1})\|u\|_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})}\right),\quad\varepsilon\in(0,1],b\geq
0,$
that yields
$(\dot{S}_{min}(q)u,u)\geq-\gamma(\varepsilon^{-1})\|u\|_{L_{2}(\mathbb{R})}\quad\forall
u\in\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q)),\,\gamma\geq 0.$
And we can conclude that $\dot{S}_{min}(q)$ are Hermitian lower semibounded on
$L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ operators.
Now, let show that $\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q))$ are dense in the Hilbert
space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$.
Obviously, it is sufficient to prove that any element $h\in\mathfrak{H}$,
$\mathfrak{H}:=L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$, which is orthogonal to
$\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q))$ is equal zero. Let suppose that $h(x)$ is
namely a such function, i.e.,
$h(x)\perp\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q)),$
and let $\Delta=[\alpha,\beta]$ is a fixed, closed interval compactly
belonging to the real axis $\mathbb{R}$ ($\Delta\Subset\mathbb{R}$). Any
element $u\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{min,\Delta}(q))$ can be viewed as element from
$\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q))$ (with respect to the denotations see the
proof of Statement 4), consequently, $h(x)$ is orthogonal to
$\mathrm{Dom}(S_{min,\Delta}(q))$. Due to Proposition 3.II
$\mathrm{Dom}(S_{min,\Delta}(q))$ are dense in
$\mathfrak{H}_{\Delta}=L_{2}(\alpha,\beta)$, hence function $h(x)$ considered
in the interval $\Delta$ has to be equal zero almost everywhere in $\Delta$.
For an arbitrarity of the interval $\Delta\Subset\mathbb{R}$ choice we
conclude that $h(x)=0$ almost everywhere on $\mathbb{R}$.
So, statement $(\verb"I")$ of Proposition 8 has been proved completely.
$(\verb"II")$ It is obvious that operators $S_{min}(q)$ are symmetric, lower
semibouded on the Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$ ones.
Make sure that operators $S_{min}(q)$ and $S_{max}(q)$ are mutually adjoint.
As $(\dot{S}_{min}(q))^{\sim}=S_{min}(q)$, therefore
$\dot{S}_{min}^{\ast}(q)=S_{min}^{\ast}(q)$, and it suffices to show that
$\dot{S}_{min}^{\ast}(q)=S_{max}(q).$
Applying the Lagrange Identity (4) we have got
$(S_{max}(q)u,v)=(u,\dot{S}_{min}(q)v)\quad\forall
u\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q)),\,\forall v\in\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}(q)),$
that implies
$S_{max}(q)\subset\dot{S}_{min}^{\ast}(q).$
So, it remains to prove the inverse inclusions,
$S_{max}(q)\supset\dot{S}_{min}^{\ast}(q).$
We do it in a similar fashion as in the proof of Statement 4.
Let $v(x)$ is an arbitrary element from the domains
$\mathrm{Dom}(\dot{S}_{min}^{\ast}(q))$ of the operators
$\dot{S}_{min}^{\ast}(q)$, and let $\Delta=[\alpha,\beta]$ is a fixed, compact
interval ($\Delta\Subset\mathbb{R}$). As in the proof of Statement 4 we obtain
$\left((\dot{S}_{min}^{\ast}(q)v)_{\Delta},u\right)_{\Delta}=\left(v_{\Delta},S_{min,\Delta}(q)u\right)_{\Delta}\qquad\forall
u\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{min,\Delta}(q)).$
So, one can conclude that
$v_{\Delta}\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max,\Delta}(q))$
and
$(\dot{S}_{min}^{\ast}(q)v)_{\Delta}=S_{min,\Delta}^{\ast}(q)v_{\Delta}=S_{max,\Delta}(q)v_{\Delta}=\left(l_{Q}[v]\right)_{\Delta}.$
Taking into account an arbitrarity of the interval $\Delta\subset\mathbb{R}$
choice we finally get that
$v\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q)),\quad\text{and}\quad\dot{S}_{min}^{\ast}(q)v=l_{Q}[v]=S_{max}(q)v,$
i.e, the required inclusions
$S_{max}(q)\supset\dot{S}_{min}^{\ast}(q)$
hold.
Further, let find deficiency index of the operators $S_{min}(q)$. At first it
is necessary note as the operators $S_{min}(q)$ are lower semibounded
therefore their deficiency numbers are equal.
Let $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}$, $\mathrm{Im}\,\lambda\neq 0$. Then the operators
$S_{min}(q)$ deficiency numbers, which we will denote by $m$, are equal to the
number of linear independent solutions of the equation
$S_{min}^{\ast}(q)u=\lambda u,$
i.e., of the equation (Proposition 8.II)
$S_{max}(q)u=\lambda u.$
In other words the deficiency number is a maximal number of linear independent
solutions of the equation
$l_{Q}[u]=\lambda u$
in the Hilbert space $L_{2}(\mathbb{R})$. As a whole number of linear
independent solutions of this equation is equal 2 we conclude that
$0\leq m\leq 2.$
Assertion $(\verb"II")$ has been proved.
$(\verb"III")$ Let $u,v\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))$. Then applying the
Lagrange Identity (4) we conclude that there exist the limits
$[u,v]_{+\infty}:=\lim_{x\rightarrow+\infty}[u,v]_{x},\quad\text{and}\quad[u,v]_{-\infty}:=\lim_{x\rightarrow-\infty}[u,v]_{x},$
and as a consequence the Lagrange Identity (4) has got a view
(11) $(l_{Q}[u],v)-(u,l_{Q}[v])=[u,v]_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\quad\forall
u,v\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q)).$
Further, due to Proposition 8.II it holds
$S_{min}(q)=S_{max}^{\ast}(q).$
Therefore, domains $\mathrm{Dom}(S_{min}(q))$ consist of that and only that
functions $u\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))$ which satisfy the relationships
$(u,S_{max}(q)v)=(S_{max}(q)u,v)\quad\forall v\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q)).$
Together with the Lagrange Identity (11) the latter implies the required
assertion, i.e.,
$u\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{min}(q))\Leftrightarrow[u,v]_{+\infty}-[u,v]_{-\infty}=0\quad
u\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q))\,,\forall v\in\mathrm{Dom}(S_{max}(q)).$
Proposition 8 has been proved.
## References
* [AhGl] Akhiezer, N., I., Glazman, I., M., Theory of linear operators in Hilbert space, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1993, 218 pp.; Russian edition: Nauka, Moscow, 1966, 544 pp.
* [Alb] Albeverio, S., Gesztesy, F., Høegh Krohn, R., Holden, H., Solvable models in quantum mechanics, Springer-Verlag, New York, etc.,1988; Russian edition: Mir, Moscow, 1991, 568 pp.
* [Brz] Berezansky, Yu., M., Expantions in eigenfunctions of self-adjoint operators, Transl. Math. Monographs, vol. 17, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1968, 809 pp.; Russian edition: Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1965, 800 pp.
* [CdLv] Coddington, E., Levinson, N., Theory of ordinary diffrential operators, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, etc., 1955; Russian edition: Izd. In. Lit., Moscow, 1958, 475 pp.
* [DjMt] Djakov, P., Mityagin, B., Fourier method for one dimentional Schrödinger operators with singular periodic potentials, arXiv:math.SP/0710.0237v1 1 Oct 2007, 1–39.
* [DnSch2] Dunford, N., Schwartz, J., T., Linear operators, Part II: Spectral theory. Self-adjoint operators in Hilbert space, Interscience, New York, London, 1963; Russian edition: Mir, Moscow, 1966, 1064 pp.
* [GrGr] Gorbachuk, V., I., Gorbachuk, M., L., Boundary value problems for operator differential equations, Kluwer, Dordrecht, etc., 1991, 347 pp.; Russian edition: Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1984, 283 pp.
* [HrMk] Hryniv, R., Mykytyuk, Ya., 1-D Schrödinger operators with periodic singular potentials, Meth. Funct. Anal. Top. 7 (2001), no. 4, 31–42.
* [Kt] Kato, T., Perturbation theory for linear operators, Springler-Verlag, Berlin, etc., 1966, 592 pp.; Russian edition: Mir, Moscow, 1972, 740 pp.
* [Krt] Korotyaev, E., Characterization of the spectrum of Schrödinger operators with periodic distributions, Int. Math. Res. Not. 37 (2003), 2019–2031.
* [MiMl1] Mikhailets, V., Molyboga, V., Singular eigenvalue problems on the circle, Meth. Funct. Anal. Top., $\mathbf{10}$ (2004), no. 3, 44–53.
* [MiMl2] Mikhailets, V., Molyboga, V., Uniform estimates for the semi-periodic eigenvalues of the singular differential operators, Meth. Funct. Anal. Top., $\mathbf{10}$ (2004), no. 4, 30–57.
* [MiMl3] Mikhailets, V., Molyboga, V., The spectral problems over the periodic classes of distributions (Ukrainian), Preprint, Institute of Mathematics of NAS of Ukraine, Kyiv, 2004, 46 pp.
* [MiMl4] Mikhailets, V., Molyboga, V., The perturbation of periodic and semiperiodic operators by Schwartz distributions (Russian), Repots of NAS of Ukraine, 7 (2006), 26 – 31.
* [MiMl5] Mikhailets, V., Molyboga, V., Singularly perturbed periodic and semiperiodic differential operators, Ukrainian Math. J. 59 (2007), no. 6, 785–797.
* [MiMl6] Mikhailets, V., Molyboga, V., Spectral gaps of the one-dimensional Schrödinger operators with singular periodic potentials, to appear.
* [MiSb] Mikhailets, V., Sobolev, A., Common eigenvalue problem and periodic Schrödinger operators, J. Funct. Anal. 165 (1999), 150–172.
* [Mlb] Molyboga, V., Estimates for periodic eigenvalues of the differential operator $\mathbf{(-1)^{m}d^{2m}/dx^{2m}+V}$ with V – distribution, Meth. Funct. Anal. Top., $\mathbf{9}$ (2003), no. 2, 163–178.
* [Nai] Naimark, M., A., Linear differential operators, Parts I and II, Ungar, New York, 1968; Russian edition: Nauka, Moscow, 1969, 528 pp.
* [ReSi1] Reed, M., Simon, B., Methods of modern mathematical physics: Vols 1-4, Academic Press, New York, etc, 1972–1978, V. 1: Functional Analysis, 1972, 400 pp. (Russian edition: Mir, Moscow, 1977, 359 pp.).
* [ReSi4] Reed, M., Simon, B., Methods of modern mathematical physics: Vols 1-4, Academic Press, New York, etc, 1972–1978, V. 4: Analysis of operators, 1978, 396 pp. (Russian edition: Mir, Moscow, 1982, 428 pp.).
* [SvSh1] Savchuk, A., Shkalikov, A., Sturm-Liouvillle operators with singular potentials, Matem. Zametki 66 (1999), no. 6, 897–912.
* [SvSh2] Savchuk, A., Shkalikov, A., Sturm-Liouville operators with distribution potentials Russian, Tr. Mosk. Mat. Obs. 64 (2003), 159–212; translation in Trans. Moscow Math. Soc. (2003), 143–192.
* [Vld] Vladimirov, V., S., Generalized functions in mathematical physics (Russian), Nauka, Moscow, 1976, 280 pp.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-07T15:31:18 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.662363 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"authors": "V. Mikhailets, V. Molyboga",
"submitter": "Volodymyr Tesko",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1000"
} |
0805.1105 | # Theory of huge tunneling magnetoresistance in graphene
Feng Zhai fengzhai@dlut.edu.cn School of Physics and Optoelectronic
Technology and College of Advanced Science and Technology, Dalian University
of Technology, Dalian 116024, People’s Republic of China Kai Chang
kchang@red.semi.ac.cn NLSM, Institute of Semiconductors, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, P.O. Box 912, Beijing 100083, People’s Republic of China
###### Abstract
We investigate theoretically the spin-independent tunneling magnetoresistance
effect in a graphene monolayer modulated by two parallel ferromagnets
deposited on a dielectric layer. For the parallel magnetization configuration,
Klein tunneling can be observed in the transmission spectrum, but at specific
oblique incident angles. For the antiparallel magnetization configuration, the
transmission can be blocked by the magnetic-electric barrier provided by the
ferromagnets. Such a transmission discrepancy results in a tremendous
magnetoresistance ratio and can be tuned by the inclusion of an electric
barrier.
###### pacs:
73.23.-b, 03.65.Pm, 73.43.Cd, 75.70.Ak
Recent experiments have demonstrated the stability of graphene (a single
atomic layer of graphite) and the feasibility of controlling its electrical
properties by local gate voltages,Graphene fabrication1 ; Graphene
fabrication2 ; Graphene fabrication3 ; half QHE ; gate control1 ; gate
control2 opening a promising way to explore carbon-based nanoelectronics. In
graphene, the energy spectrum of carriers consists of two valleys labeled by
two inequivalent points (referred to as $K$ and $K^{\prime}$) at the edges of
the hexagonal Brillouin zone. In each valley, the energy dispersion relation
is approximately linear near the points where the electron and hole bands
touch. Such a peculiar band structure results in many interesting phenomena,
including the half-integer quantum Hall effectGraphene fabrication2 ; Graphene
fabrication3 ; half QHE and minimum conductivity.Graphene fabrication2 ;
Graphene fabrication3 Further, Dirac-like fermions in graphene can transmit
through high and wide electrostatic barriers almost perfectly, in particular
for normal incidence.Klein tunneling1 ; Klein tunneling2 ; Klein tunneling3
Such a phenomenon, known as Klein tunneling, leads to a poor rectification
effect in graphene p-n junctionsgate control2 and thus may limit the
performance of graphene-based electronic devices.
Very recently, inhomogeneous magnetic fields on the nanometer scale have been
suggested to confine massless two-dimensional (2D) Dirac electrons,magnetic
confinement providing another clue to the manipulation of electrons in
graphene. For conventional semiconductor two-dimensional electron gas systems,
the patterned local magnetic fields define various magnetic nanostructures
ranging from magnetic barriers and wellsmagnetic barrier1 to magnetic dots
and antidots.magnetic barrier2 A great deal of experimental and theoretical
works have been devoted to understand physical properties of Schrödinger
fermions in these systems. The effects of nonuniform magnetic field
modulations on 2D Dirac-Weyl fermions, however, has not been investigated as
thoroughly, especially for the Klein tunneling under inhomogeneous magnetic
field. In this work we explore ballistic transport features of graphene under
the modulations of both local magnetic fields and local electrostatic barriers
generated by two parallel ferromagnetic stripes. A remarkable tunneling
magnetoresistance (TMR) effect is predicted and its physical mechanism is
explained.
Figure 1: (Color online) (a) Schematic illustration of the considered two-
dimensional electron system modulated by two FM stripes deposited on top of
the graphene plane. Each FM stripe has a rectangular cross section and a
magnetization directed along the current direction (the $x$ axis). The gate
voltage $V_{g}$ applied on both FM stripes provides an electrostatic double
barrier in the underneath graphene plane. (b) Simplified profiles of the
magnetic barrier for the P alignment (spikelike lines), the corresponding
vector potential $A_{y}(x)$ (solid line), and the electrostatic potential
$U(x)$ (dashed line). (c) The same as in (b) but for the AP alignment.
The system under consideration is a single-layer graphene sheet covered by a
thin dielectric layer,gate control1 ; gate control2 as sketched in Fig. 1(a).
Two parallel ferromagnetic metal (FM) stripes are deposited on top of the
insulating layer to influence locally the motion of Dirac electrons in the
graphene ($x,y$) plane. Both FM stripes have a width $d$ and a magnetization
in parallel or in antiparallel to the current direction (the $x$ axis). Their
fringe fields thus provide a perpendicular magnetic modulation $B_{z}$, which
is assumed to be homogeneous in the $y$ direction and only varies along the
$x$ axis. A suitable external in-plane magnetic field can change the relative
orientation of the two magnetizations which are antiparallel at zero field. At
the limit of a small distance between the graphene plane and the ferromagnets,
the magnetic barrier can be approximated by several delta functions, i.e.,
$B_{z}(x)=Bl_{B_{0}}\\{[\delta(x+L/2)-\delta(x+D/2)]+\gamma[\delta(x-D/2)-\delta(x-L/2)]\\}$.
Here, $B$ gives the strength of the local magnetic field,
$l_{B_{0}}=\sqrt{\hbar/eB_{0}}$ is the magnetic length for an estimated
magnetic field $B_{0}$, $\gamma$ represents the magnetization configuration
[$\pm 1$ or parallel (P)/antiparallel (AP)], $D$ is the distance between the
two FM stripes, and $L=2d+D$ is the total length of the structure along the
transport direction. The model magnetic field configurations for $\gamma=\pm
1$ are depicted in Figs. 1(b) and 1(c), respectively. Further, when a negative
gate voltage is applied to both FM stripes, a tunable electrostatic double
barrier potential $U(x)$ arises in the graphene layer. A square shape with
height $U_{0}$ can be taken for the electric potential created by either gate.
Accordingly, the simplified electrostatic barrier has the form,
$U(x)=U_{0}[\Theta(x+L/2)\Theta(-D/2-x)+\Theta(x-D/2)\Theta(L/2-x)]$, where
$\Theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function.
For such a system, the low-energy excitations in the vicinity of the $K$ point
can be described by the following Dirac equation
$\left[\upsilon_{{}_{F}}\mathbf{\sigma}\cdot(\mathbf{p}+e\mathbf{A})+U\sigma_{0}\right]\Psi=E\Psi\text{,}$
(1)
where $\upsilon_{{}_{F}}\thickapprox 0.86\times 10^{6}$ m/s is the Fermi
velocity of the system, $\sigma_{x}$, $\sigma_{y}$, and $\sigma_{z}$ are three
isospin Pauli matrices, $\mathbf{p}=(p_{x},p_{y})$ is the electron momentum,
$\mathbf{A}$ is the vector potential which in the Landau gauge has the form
$\mathbf{A=}(0,A_{y}(x),0)$, and $\sigma_{0}$ is the $2\times 2$ unit matrix.
Since the Dirac Hamiltonian of graphene is valley degenerate, it is enough to
consider the $K$ point.magnetic confinement For convenience we express all
quantities in dimensionless units by means of two characteristic parameters,
i.e., the magnetic length $l_{B_{0}}$ and the energy
$E_{0}=\hbar\upsilon_{{}_{F}}/l_{B_{0}}$. For a realistic value $B_{0}=0.1$ T,
we have $l_{B_{0}}=811$ Å and $E_{0}=$ $7.0$ meV.
Since the system is homogeneous along the $y$ direction, the transverse wave
vector $k_{y}$ is conserved. At each region with a constant vector potential
$A_{y}$ and electrostatic potential $U$, the solution of Eq. (1) for a given
incident energy $E$ can be written as
$\Psi=e^{ik_{y}y}\left[C_{+}e^{ik_{x}x}\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\\
\frac{k_{x}+iq}{E-U}\end{array}\right)+C_{-}e^{-ik_{x}x}\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\\
\frac{-k_{x}+iq}{E-U}\end{array}\right)\right]\text{.}$ (2)
Here $q=k_{y}+A_{y}$, and $k_{x}$ is the longitudinal wave vector satisfying
$k_{x}^{2}+(k_{y}+A_{y})^{2}=(E-U)^{2}\text{.}$ (3)
The sign of $k_{x}$ is chosen in such a way that the corresponding eigenstate
is either propagating or evanescent in the forward direction. The coefficients
$C_{+}$ and $C_{-}$ are determined by the requirement of wave function
continuity and the scattering boundary conditions. The scattering matrix
methodSM is adopted to obtain these coefficients and the transmission
probability $T=T_{P/AP}(E,k_{y})$ for the P/AP configuration. The latter
depends on the incident energy $E$ and the transverse wave vector $k_{y}$. The
ballistic conductance at zero temperature is calculated from
$\displaystyle G_{P/AP}(E_{F})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{4e^{2}}{h}\int_{-E_{F}}^{E_{F}}T_{P/AP}(E_{F},k_{y})\frac{dk_{y}}{2\pi/L_{y}}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
G_{0}\int_{-\pi/2}^{\pi/2}T_{P/AP}(E_{F},E_{F}\sin\theta)\cos\theta
d\theta\text{,}$
where $L_{y}\gg L$ is the sample size along the $y$ direction, $\theta$ is the
incident angle relative to the $x$ direction, and $G_{0}=2e^{2}E_{F}L_{y}/(\pi
h)$ is taken as the conductance unit.
Figure 2: (Color online) Transmission as a function of incident angle for
electrons traversing the considered structure (depicted in Fig. 1) with
(a)-(d) parallel or (e)-(f) antiparallel magnetization configuration. Device
parameters used in the calculations are $d=D=1$ and $B=2$. The incident energy
is fixed at $E=5$. Note that all curves in (f) are scaled by a factor $200$.
The proposed device relies on the interplay between the Klein tunneling and
the wave vector filtering provided by local magnetic fields. To obtain a
quantitative understanding of this interplay, Fig. 2 plots the transmission
probability calculated as a function of the incident angle $\theta$ for both
the P and AP magnetization configurations. In our calculations the structure
parameters of the magnetic barrier are set at $d=D=1$ and $B=2$. The incident
energy is fixed at $E=5$ and the electric barrier height $U_{0}$ is taken as
$2,3,4,5,6,7,8$ for different curves.
For the magnetic barrier with P alignment, the transmission spectrum
demonstrates obvious angular anisotropy [see Figs. 2(a)-2(d)]. The reflection
at normal incidence is finite and is almost complete at suitable electric
barrier heights. Instead, perfect transmission appears at some oblique
incidences. For example, in the special case $E=U_{0}$, the transmission peak
with a finite width locates at $k_{y}=-A_{y}$ [see Fig. 2(d)]. In comparison
with the case of pure electric barriers,Klein tunneling3 we can see that the
magnetic barrier changes the incident direction at which the Klein tunneling
occurs. The transmission is remarkable in a wide region of negative $\theta$
and is blocked by the magnetic barrier when the incident angle exceeds a
critical value $\theta_{+}(U_{0})$ or is below another critical value
$\theta_{-}(U_{0})$. This can be understood as follows. From Eq. (3) we know
that evanescent states appear in the magnetic barrier regions when the
magnetic vector potential (here $A_{y}=B$) and electrostatic barrier satisfy
$\left|k_{y}+B\right|>\left|E-U_{0}\right|$. The transmission is generally
weak as the decaying length of the evanescent states is shorter than the
barrier width. In the transmission forbidden region, there may exist one or
two line-shaped peaks with unity values, as a result of resonant tunneling
through the symmetric double barrier structure. The applied electric barrier
significantly alters the positions of the transmission peaks. We can also
observe a large difference between the transmission curves for the barrier
height $U_{0}<E$ and $U_{0}^{\prime}=2E-U_{0}$. Such a difference arises from
the fact that the carrier states for the two cases are not completely
complementary.
We next examine the transmission characteristics for the AP alignment, which
is shown in Figs. 2(e) and 2(f). In this configuration the magnetic vector
potential is antisymmetric about the central line $x=0$ [see Fig. 1(c)]. The
Dirac Hamiltonian possesses a symmetry associated with the operation
$\hat{T}\hat{R}_{x}\hat{\sigma}_{y}$, where $\hat{T}$ is the time reversal
operator and $\hat{R}_{x}$ is the reflection operator $x\rightarrow-x$. This
symmetry implies the invariance of the transmission with respect to the
replacement $k_{y}\rightarrow-k_{y}$, as seen in Figs. 2(e) and 2(f). For
large $\left|E-U_{0}\right|$ the transmission decays monotonically as the
incident angle increases from zero [see Fig. 2(e)]. Since the carrier states
in the two magnetic barriers are not identical, perfect transmission can not
be achieved (except for the case of normal incidence). Note that for the AP
configuration and a given wave vector $k_{y}\geqslant 0$, the presence of
evanescent states in the first magnetic barrier only requires
$k_{y}>\left|E-U_{0}\right|-B$. When $\left|E-U_{0}\right|<B$ this condition
is met for all incident directions and the transmission can be strongly
suppressed, as shown in Fig. 2(f). Within this parameter regime, the
transmission exhibits a nonmonotonic variation with the positive incident
angle. Furthermore, the maximal transmission for the AP alignment can be 2
orders of magnitude lower than that for the P alignment [Figs. 2(c) and 2(d)].
Figure 3: (Color online) Conductance as a function of Fermi energy for
electrons traversing the considered structure with a parallel (solid line) or
antiparallel (dashed line) magnetization configuration. Device parameters used
in the calculations are $d=D=1$ and $B=2$. Figure 4: (Color online) MR ratio
as a function of [(a) and (c)] Fermi energy or [(b) and (d)] electric barrier
height for electrons traversing the considered magnetic-electric barrier
structure. In (a) and (b) simplified magnetic field profiles are utilized and
the device parameters used in the calculations are $d=D=1$ and $B=2$. In (c)
and (d) realistic magnetic field profiles are taken. In the calculations we
assume that both ferromagnetic stripes have a rectangular cross section of
width $d=1$ and height $d_{z}=0.6$ and magnetization $\mu_{0}M_{x}=1.8$ T (for
cobalt material), placed at a distance of $z_{0}=0.2$ on top of the graphene
plane. Their distance is $D=1$.
As demonstrated above, the transmission features for the P and AP
configurations are quite distinct. Such a difference is also exhibited in the
measurable quantity, the conductance $G$. In Fig. 3 the conductance is plotted
as a function of the Fermi energy for several heights of the electric barrier.
Resonant peaks can be observed in the conductance spectrum for both P and AP
alignments. For the P alignment, the conductance is finite (larger than 0.1 in
most cases in Fig. 3). For the AP alignment, the conductance is almost zero
within a broad energy interval [covering $(U_{0}-B,U_{0}+B)$] except for
several sharp conductance peaks. In this energy region $G_{AP}$ is depleted by
the magnetic barrier whereas $G_{P}$ is finite. Away from this transmission-
blocking region, $G_{AP}$ essentially increases with the Fermi energy and is
primarily contributed by the propagating modes. The normalized difference
between $G_{P}$ and $G_{AP}$, i.e., the TMR ratio $MR=(G_{P}-G_{AP})/G_{AP}$,
is presented in Fig. 4(a). In the absence of the electric barrier, high values
of $MR$ are located in the low Fermi energy region, as a result of the strong
suppression of transmission in the AP alignment. The inclusion of an electric
barrier shifts the transmission-blocking region and, thus, can be used to
adjust the MR ratio. The latter is obviously reflected in Fig. 4(b).
In the above analysis, we take simplified magnetic field profiles to
illustrate the operating principles of the proposed device. In realistic cases
the modulated magnetic field $B_{z}(x)$ has the smoothing variations on the
scale of graphene lattice spacing ($a=0.246$ nm). When both FM stripes have
the same rectangular cross section and magnetization along the $x$-direction,
the generated magnetic field profiles for the P and AP alignments can be
obtained analytically.profile For the parameters given in the figure caption
the calculated MR ratio is shown in Figs. 4(c) and 4(d). The calculation shows
that the conductance of the device has a variation similar to that in Figs.
4(a) and 4(b). The TMR ratio remains large and exhibits rich variations as the
electric barrier height increases. Since ferromagnetic elements with a
submicron scale have been successfully fabricated on top of a two-dimensional
electron systemFM and dielectric layers on monolayered graphene have been
realized recently,gate control1 ; gate control2 our considered structure is
realizable with current technology.
In summary, we have investigated the transport features of a graphene
monolayer under the modulation of both a magnetic double barrier and an
electric barrier, where the magnetic double barrier is provided by depositing
two parallel ferromagnetic stripes with magnetizations along the current
direction. The results indicate that for the AP magnetization configuration
the transmission of electrons in graphene can be drastically suppressed for
all incident angles. When in the P alignment the Klein tunneling can be
generally observed at specific oblique incident directions rather than the
normal incidence. The difference of wave-vector-dependent transmission for two
magnetization configurations (P/AP) leads to a large TMR ratio, which can be
further adjusted by the electric barrier. Note that different thin dielectric
layers atop graphene sheets have been fabricated and then the top gates can be
formed by means of standard e-beam lithography.gate control1 ; gate control2
The deposition of ferromagnetic materials on insulating layers has been widely
adopted to create local magnetic field modulations of the underlying 2D
semiconducting systems.magnetic barrier1 ; magnetic barrier2 Thus our
proposed device is within the realizable scope of current technological
advances.
F. Zhai was supported by the training fund of young teachers at Dalian
University of Technology (Grant No. 893208) and the NSFC (Grant No. 10704013).
K. Chang was supported by the NSFC (Grant No. 60525405)and the knowledge
innovation project of CAS.
## References
* (1) K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubons, I. V. Grogorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science 306, 666 (2004).
* (2) K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Mozorov, D. Jiang, M. I. V. Gregorieva, S. V. Dubonos, and A. A. Firsov, Nature (London) 438, 197 (2005).
* (3) Y. Zhang, Y.-W. Tan, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, Nature (London) 438, 201 (2005).
* (4) B. Huard, J. A. Sulpizio, N. Stander, K. Todd, B. Yang, and D. Goldhaber-Gordon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 236803 (2007).
* (5) J. R. Williams, L. DiCarlo, and C. M. Marcus, Sicence 317, 638 (2007).
* (6) V. P. Gusynin and S. G. Sharapov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146801 (2005).
* (7) V. V. Cheianov and V. I. Falko, Phys. Rev. B 74, 041403 (2006).
* (8) M. I. Katsnelson, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K. Geim, Nature Phys. 2, 620 (2006).
* (9) J. J. Milton Pereira, P. Vasilopoulos, and F. M. Peeters, Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 132122 (2007).
* (10) A. D. Martino, L. Dell’Anna, and R. Egger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 066802 (2007).
* (11) For recent work, see J. Hong, S. Joo, T.-S. Kim, K. Rhie, K. H. Kim, S. U. Kim, B. C. Lee, and K.-H. Shinc, Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 023510 (2007); M. Cerchez, S. Hugger, T. Heinzel, and N. Schulz, Phys. Rev. B 75, 035341 (2007) and references therein.
* (12) See, for example, A. Matulis, F.M. Peeters, and P. Vasilopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1518 (1994); S. J. Lee, S. Souma, G. Ihm, and K. J. Chang, Phys. Rep. 394, 1 (2004).
* (13) H. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 50, 8469 (1994); David Yuk Kei Ko and J. C. Inkson, ibid. 38, 9945 (1988).
* (14) I. S. Ibrahim and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B 52, 17 321 (1995).
* (15) See, for example, V. Kubrak, F. Rahman, B. L. Gallagher, P. C. Main, H. Henini, C. H. Marrows, and M. A. Howson, Appl. Phys. Lett. 74, 2507 (1999); T. Vančura, T. Ihn, S. Broderick, K. Ensslin, W. Wegscheider, and M. Bichler, Phys. Rev. B 62, 5074 (2000); A. Nogaret, D. N. Lawton, D. K. Maude, J. C. Portal, and M. Henini, ibid. 67, 165317(2003).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-08T05:59:20 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.669979 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "F. Zhai and K. Chang",
"submitter": "Kai Chang",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1105"
} |
0805.1106 | # Spin current diode based on an electron waveguide with spin-orbit
interaction
Feng Zhai fengzhai@dlut.edu.cn School of Physics and Optoelectronic
Technology and College of Advanced Science and Technology, Dalian University
of Technology, Dalian 116024, People’s Republic of China Kai Chang
kchang@red.semi.ac.cn NLSM, Institute of Semiconductors, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, P.O. Box 912, Beijing 100083, People’s Republic of China H. Q. Xu
Hongqi.Xu@ftf.lth.se Division of Solid State Physics, Lund University, Box
118, S-22100 Lund, Sweden
###### Abstract
We propose a spin current diode which can work even in a small applied bias
condition (the linear-response regime). The prototypal device consists of a
hornlike electron waveguide with Rashba spin-orbit interaction, which is
connected to two leads with different widths. It is demonstrated that when
electrons are incident from the narrow lead, the generated spin conductance
fluctuates around a constant value in a wide range of incident energy. When
the transport direction is reversed, the spin conductance is suppressed
strongly. Such a remarkable difference arises from spin-flipped transitions
caused by the spin-orbit interaction.
###### pacs:
72.25.Dc, 71.70.Ej, 85.75.-d, 73.23.Ad
The spin of carriers has been exploited in recent years to develop solid-state
devices combining the standard microelectronics with spin-dependent
effects.Spintronics ; Spintronics1 The operation of spin-based electronic
circuits requires the electrical generation of excess spin in nonmagnetic
materials. To this end, various spin injection methods and spin filters have
been explored. For a spin filtering device it would be very desirable that the
spin polarization (both amplitude and orientation) of the outgoing current
could be controllable by electric means.spin filtering diode ; voltage1 ;
rectification1 ; rectification2 ; voltage2 ; direction As an example, the
concept of spin filtering diodespin filtering diode has been put forward
based on the giant Zeeman splitting in semimagnetic semiconductor
heterostructures. Its salient feature lies in the large difference of spin
polarization when switching the polarity of the dc bias applied to the device.
The rectification of spin current has also been predicted in asymmetric
systems composed of either a molecular wirerectification1 or a quantum
dotrectification2 sandwiched by a ferromagnetic and a nonmagnetic lead. In
these systems the ferromagnetic lead is essential to generate a spin-polarized
current.
The presence of spin-orbit interaction (SOI) in semiconductors provides a way
to design spintronic devices without need for a magnetic element or an
external magnetic field. Several devices utilizing multiterminal electron
waveguides have been proposed to generate spin-polarized currents by means of
the SOI alone.SOC filter1 ; SOC filter2 ; SOC filter3 ; SOC filter4 ; SOC
filter5 For a two-terminal stub waveguide structure, we have shown that the
SOI-induced effective magnetic field can generate both spin localization
inside the stub and spin polarization in the transmitted electron beam near
structure-induced Fano resonances.SOC filter6 We have also shown that the SOI
alone can not generate a spin-polarized transmitted electron beam in a two-
terminal waveguide when the output lead supports only one orbital
channel.Zhai-symmetry Inspired by this fact, we will show, in this work, that
the spin transport properties of a hornlike waveguide can be utilized to
devise a spin current diode without need for a ferromagnetic material or a
magnetic field.
Our system is illustrated in the inset of Fig. 1(c), where a two-dimensional
electron gas (2DEG) in the $(x,y)$ plane is restricted to a waveguide along
the $x$ direction by a hard-wall confinement potential $V_{c}(x,y)$. The 2DEG
is contained in an asymmetric quantum well so that the SOI arises mainly from
the interfacial electric field (the Rashba mechanism). The waveguide consists
of three parts. The left (right) part has a length $L_{1}$ ($L_{3}$) and a
uniform width $W_{L}$ ($W_{R}$), connected to the left (right) lead with the
same width. A finite difference between the widths of the left and right parts
of the waveguide ($W_{L}$ and $W_{R}$) is essential for the proposed device.
Since we are concerned only with spin-unpolarized injection, the two
connecting leads are nonmagnetic and have a vanishing SOI. The central part of
the waveguide spans the region $(x_{0}$, $x_{0}+L_{2})$ along the $x$
direction, within which the waveguide width $W_{C}$ varies smoothly from the
initial value $W_{L}$ to the final value $W_{R}$. To be specific, we take
$W_{C}(x)=W_{L}+(W_{R}-W_{L})\sin^{2}[\pi(x-x_{0})/(2L_{2})].$ (1)
For simplicity we assume that the whole waveguide shares a common horizontal
central line (at $y=0$). The effective-mass Hamiltonian describing the
considered system reads
$\displaystyle H$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left[\frac{1}{2m^{\ast}}(p_{x}^{2}+p_{y}^{2})+V_{c}(x,y)\right]\sigma_{0}$
(2)
$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2\hbar}\left[\alpha(x,y)(\sigma_{x}p_{y}-\sigma_{y}p_{x})+\text{H.c.}\right]\text{.}$
Here $m^{\ast}$ is the effective mass of electrons, $p_{x}$ and $p_{y}$ are
the in-plane momentum components, $\sigma_{x},\sigma_{y}$, and $\sigma_{z}$
are the three Pauli matrices, and $\sigma_{0}$ is the $2\times 2$ unit matrix.
The Rashba SOI strength $\alpha(x,y)$ is assumed to be uniform (with a value
$\alpha$) in the central part of the waveguide and decreases adiabatically
down to zero in the transition regions of the entrance and exit. We take the
spin quantum axis to be along the transverse $y$ direction, so that
$|\uparrow\rangle=(1,i)^{T}/\sqrt{2}$ and
$|\downarrow\rangle=(1,-i)^{T}/\sqrt{2}$ represent the spin-up and spin-down
states, respectively.
A real-space discretization of Eq. (2) yields a tight-binding model, which can
be solved numerically by means of the recursive Green’s function methodbook
to obtain the outgoing wave amplitudes. The Landauer-Büttiker formula is then
used to determine the spin-resolved conductances $G_{\sigma^{\prime},\sigma}$
($\sigma^{\prime},\sigma=\pm 1$ or $\uparrow\downarrow$), which depend both on
the incident spin states $|\sigma\rangle$ in one lead and on the outgoing spin
states $|\sigma^{\prime}\rangle$ in the other lead. The transmitted spin
current in the linear-response regime is characterized by the spin conductance
$(G_{s;\mathbf{x}},G_{s;\mathbf{y}},G_{s;\mathbf{z}})$.Zhai-symmetry Since
our system is invariant under the operation $\hat{R}_{y}\hat{\sigma}_{y}$,
where $\hat{R}_{y}$ is the reflection $y\rightarrow-y$, the spin conductance
could be nonvanishing only along the $y$ direction and is given by
$G_{s;\mathbf{y}}=\frac{-e}{4\pi}\frac{G_{\uparrow,\uparrow}+G_{\uparrow,\downarrow}-G_{\downarrow,\downarrow}-G_{\downarrow,\uparrow}}{e^{2}/h}\text{.}$
(3)
In the calculations we have chosen to fix the size parameters
$W_{L}=W_{R}/2=100$ nm and $L_{1}=L_{2}=L_{3}=100$ nm. The electron effective
mass has been taken to be $0.041$ $m_{0}$ ($m_{0}$ is the free-electron mass),
which is appropriate to an InGaAs quantum well system.Sato
In Fig. 1 we plot the total charge conductance
$G=G_{\uparrow,\uparrow}+G_{\uparrow,\downarrow}+G_{\downarrow,\downarrow}+G_{\downarrow,\uparrow}$
and the normalized spin conductance $G_{s;\mathbf{y}}$ [in unit of
$-e/(4\pi)$] as functions of the Fermi wave vector
$k_{F}=(2m^{\ast}E_{F}/\hbar^{2})^{1/2}$, where $E_{F}$ is the electron Fermi
energy, for several values of the SOI strength $\alpha$. Here $k_{F}$ is given
in units of $k_{1}=\pi/W_{L}$, a value corresponding to the first subband
energy $E_{1}$ in the narrow lead. The charge conductance exhibits a steplike
feature [see Fig. 1(a)] and is determined by the number of propagating modes
in the narrow lead, $N_{c}(E_{F})$. This indicates a negligible backscattering
when electrons traverse the considered waveguide structure from the narrow
lead to the wide lead (the forward transport direction), that is
$G_{\uparrow,\downarrow}^{L\rightarrow
R}+G_{\downarrow,\downarrow}^{L\rightarrow R}\approx
N_{c}(E_{F})e^{2}/h\approx G_{\downarrow,\uparrow}^{L\rightarrow
R}+G_{\uparrow,\uparrow}^{L\rightarrow R}\text{.}$ (4)
The left-to-right and right-to-left charge conductances, $G^{L\rightarrow R}$
and $G^{R\rightarrow L}$, are identical due to the time reversal symmetry. In
contrast, the spin conductance changes remarkably once the transport direction
is reversed. Under the forward bias, the spin conductance fluctuates around a
single plateau in the whole considered energy region [see Fig. 1(b)]. The
plateau moves up as the SOI strength increases. The derivation of
$G_{s;\mathbf{y}}^{L\rightarrow R}$ from the plateau value occurs in the
energy region $E_{1}<E_{F}<4E_{1}$ and near the onset of subbands in the
narrow lead. The spin polarization of the current is the ratio between the
normalized spin conductance and the normalized charge conductance.Zhai-
symmetry As a result, the spin polarization exhibits a steplike decrease as
the Fermi energy increases. When electrons are incident from the wide lead,
the spin conductance and thus the spin polarization is greatly suppressed [see
Fig. 1(c)]. A vanishing spin current is found in the energy region of
$E_{F}<4E_{1}$, in which the outgoing lead (the left lead in this case) can
support the lowest orbital mode only. This is in full agreement with the
prediction of Ref. Zhai-symmetry, . When the outgoing lead supports two or
more propagating orbital modes, the spin conductance can be finite but it is
rather small in general [Fig. 1(c)]. A narrow peak is observed near the onset
of a subband (with subband index $>1$) of the outgoing lead, which is due to
SOI-induced Fano resonance.Fano-Rashba
The contrast in the spin conductance between the forward and backward
transport directions indicates a spin current diode even in the small bias
condition (the linear-response regime). The spin current of the ”on” state
(the forward biased case) can be controlled by the SOI strength. For the ”off”
state (the backward biased case), the spin current is weak when the charge
conductance is on a quantized plateau or vanishing when the Fermi energy is in
the region of $[E_{1},4E_{1}]$. The results can be understood as follows. The
spin conductance comes from two parts ($G_{s;y}=G_{s1}+G_{s2}$). One is the
difference between the two spin-conserved conductances ($G_{s1}\propto
G_{\uparrow,\uparrow}-G_{\downarrow,\downarrow}$) and the other one is the
difference between the two spin-flipped conductances ($G_{s2}\propto
G_{\uparrow,\downarrow}-G_{\downarrow,\uparrow}$). We first consider the
situation that electrons are incident from the left (narrow) lead. From Eq.
(4) we know that the two parts, $G_{s1}$ and $G_{s2}$, are almost identical.
Thus, the spin conductance $G_{s;\mathbf{y}}^{L\rightarrow R}$ can be
expressed in terms of the difference between the two spin-flipped
conductances,
$G_{s;\mathbf{y}}^{L\rightarrow
R}\approx-e/(2\pi)(G_{\uparrow,\downarrow}^{L\rightarrow
R}-G_{\downarrow,\uparrow}^{L\rightarrow R})/(e^{2}/h)\text{.}$ (5)
Such a difference is reflected by the variations of spin-flipped transmissions
$T_{q\bar{\sigma}\leftarrow p\sigma}^{L\rightarrow R}$ shown in Fig. 2. Here,
$\bar{\sigma}=-\sigma$, while $p$ and $q$ are the indices of the incident and
outgoing modes, respectively. The $\hat{R}_{y}\hat{\sigma}_{y}$ symmetry of
the considered system implies
$T_{q\bar{\sigma}\leftarrow p\sigma}^{L\rightarrow R}=0,\text{ }p-q\equiv
0\text{ }\text{mod 2.}$ (6)
It can be seen that each nonvanishing transmission $T_{q\bar{\sigma}\leftarrow
p\sigma}^{L\rightarrow R}$ is remarkable only within an energy window. When
the left lead supports only a single orbital channel [Figs. 2(a) and 2(b)],
the spin-flipped transmission for the spin-down injection is much larger than
that for the spin-up injection. This can be explained by examining the SOI-
induced mode mixing between subbands of different spins in the central part of
the considered waveguide.adiabatic As two or more orbital modes are allowable
for conducting in the left lead ($p>1$), $T_{q\downarrow\leftarrow
p\uparrow}^{L\rightarrow R}$ can be remarkable and even exceed the
corresponding $T_{q\uparrow\leftarrow p\downarrow}^{L\rightarrow R}$ in
certain energy windows [see Figs. 2(c)-2(f)]. However, the spin-flipped
transmissions $T_{q\uparrow\leftarrow p\downarrow}^{L\rightarrow R}$ for spin-
down injections are seen to be in general larger than their corresponding
spin-flipped transmissions $T_{q\downarrow\leftarrow p\uparrow}^{L\rightarrow
R}$ over large energy regions. Furthermore, there exists such an outgoing
channel $q=p^{\prime}$ that $T_{p^{\prime}\downarrow\leftarrow
p\uparrow}^{L\rightarrow R}$ is much smaller than
$T_{p^{\prime}\uparrow\leftarrow p\downarrow}^{L\rightarrow R}$. The
combination of these facts gives rise to a nearly constant spin conductance.
When the transport direction is reversed, the spin-resolved conductance can be
obtained from the relation imposed by the time reversal symmetry,
$G_{\sigma,\sigma}^{R\rightarrow
L}=G_{\bar{\sigma},\bar{\sigma}}^{L\rightarrow R}\text{,
}G_{\bar{\sigma},\sigma}^{R\rightarrow
L}=G_{\bar{\sigma},\sigma}^{L\rightarrow R}\text{.}$ (7)
This relation together with Eq. (4) indicates a cancellation of $G_{s1}$ and
$G_{s2}$ and thus results in $G_{s;\mathbf{y}}^{R\rightarrow L}\approx 0$, as
observed in Fig. 1(c). From the above analysis one can see that the spin
current diode proposed here relies only on two gradients: the quantized
conductance and the difference of the two spin-flipped conductances. Equation
(7) also indicates that for a spin-conserved system, such as the system
studied in Ref. spin filtering diode, , the diode function of spin current can
be performed only in the nonlinear-response regime.
In conclusion, we have proposed a spin current diode based on a waveguide
connected to two leads with different width. It is demonstrated that the spin
conductance fluctuates around a constant value in a wide range of incident
energy when electrons are incident from the narrow lead. When the transport
direction is reversed, the spin conductance is suppressed strongly. The
rectification of spin current is achievable even in the linear-response regime
and thus the proposed diode can work at a low power consumption condition. The
SOI alone is utilized to realize such a function of spin current
rectification.
F. Zhai was supported by the NSFC (Grant No. 10704013) and the training fund
of young teachers at Dalian University of Technology. K. Chang was supported
by the NSFC (Grant No. 60525405) and the knowledge innovation project of the
Chinese Academy of Sciences. H. Q. Xu acknowledges supports from the Swedish
Research Council (VR) and from the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
(SSF) through the Nanometer Structure Consortium at Lund University.
## References
* (1) S. A. Wolf, D. D. Awschalom, R. A. Buhrman, J. M. Daughton, S. von Molnár, M. L. Roukes, A. Y. Chtchelkanova, and D. M. Treger, Science 294, 1488 (2001).
* (2) I. Zutic, J. Fabian, and S. D. Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 323 (2004).
* (3) Y. Guo, X. Y. Chen, F. Zhai, B. L. Gu, and Y. Kawazoe, Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 4591 (2002); F. Zhai, Y. Guo, and B. L. Gu, J. Appl. Phys. 94, 5432 (2003).
* (4) A. Slobodskyy, C. Gould, T. Slobodskyy, C.R. Becker, G. Schmidt, and L.W. Molenkamp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 246601 (2003).
* (5) H. Dalgleish and G. Kirczenow, Phys. Rev. B 73, 235436 (2006).
* (6) F. M. Souza, J. C. Egues, and A. P. Jauho, Phys. Rev. B 75, 165303 (2007).
* (7) F. Zhai and H.Q. Xu, Phys. Lett. A 369, 498 (2007).
* (8) T. Kimura, Y. C. Otani, and P. M. Levy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 166601 (2007).
* (9) A. A. Kiselev and K. W. Kim, Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 775 (2001).
* (10) M. Governale, D. Boese, U. Zülicke, and C. Schroll, Phys. Rev. B 65, 140403(R) (2002).
* (11) J. Ohe, M. Yamamoto, T. Ohtsuki, and J. Nitta, Phys. Rev. B 72, 041308(R) (2005).
* (12) M. Yamamoto, T. Ohtsuki, and B. Kramer, Phys. Rev. B 72, 115321 (2005).
* (13) A. W. Cummings, R. Akis, and D. K. Ferry, Appl. Phys. Lett. 89, 172115 (2006).
* (14) F. Zhai and H. Q. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 76, 035306 (2007).
* (15) F. Zhai and H. Q. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 246601 (2005).
* (16) D. K. Ferry and S. M. Goodnick, Transport in nanostructures (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).
* (17) Y. Sato, T. Kita, S. Gozu, and S. Yamada, J. Appl. Phys. 89, 8017 (2001).
* (18) Lebo Zhang, P. Brusheim, and H. Q. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 72, 045347 (2005); D. S$\acute{a}$nchez and L. Serra, Phys. Rev. B 74, 153313 (2006); Lebo Zhang, F. Zhai, and H. Q. Xu, Phys. Rev. B 74, 195332 (2006).
* (19) M. Eto, T. Hayashi, and Y. Kurotani, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 74, 1934 (2005).
Figure Captions
Figure 1: (Color online) Conductance spectra of a two-terminal horn-like
waveguide structure with the Rashba SOI plotted as functions of the Fermi wave
vector for spin-unpolarized electron injections: (a) total conductance $G$ (in
unit of $e^{2}/h$); (b) and (c) spin conductances $G_{s;y}^{L\rightarrow R}$
and $G_{s;y}^{R\rightarrow L}$ [both in unit of $-e/(4\pi)$] for the forward
and backward transport directions, respectively. The inset in panel (c)
illustrates schematically the considered waveguide structure. The structural
parameters are given in the text. Figure 2: (Color online) Typical spin-
flipped transmission probabilities $T_{q\bar{\sigma}\leftarrow
p\sigma}^{L\rightarrow R}$ for electrons with spin $\sigma$ incident from the
subband $p$ in the narrow lead scattering into the subband $q$ in the right
lead with opposite spin. The structural parameters are the same as those in
Fig. 1 and the Rashba SOI strength is set at $\alpha=25$ meV nm. Note that for
the considered structure depicted in the inset of Fig. 1(c),
$T_{q\bar{\sigma}\leftarrow p\sigma}^{L\rightarrow R}$ vanishes when modes $p$
and $q$ have the same parity.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-08T06:04:29 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.673449 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "F. Zhai, K. Chang and H. Q. Xu",
"submitter": "Kai Chang",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1106"
} |
0805.1178 | # Cosmological bounce from a deformed Heisenberg algebra
Marco Valerio Battisti battisti@icra.it Dipartimento di Fisica (G9) and ICRA
- International Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, Università di Roma
“Sapienza” P.le A. Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy
###### Abstract
The implications of a deformed Heisenberg algebra on the Friedmann-Robertson-
Walker cosmological models are investigated. We consider the Snyder non-
commutative space in which the translation group is undeformed and the
rotational invariance preserved. When this framework is implemented to one-
dimensional systems (which is this case) the modifications are uniquely fixed
up to a sign. A cosmological quantum bounce à la loop quantum cosmology is
then obtained. We also get the Randall-Sundrum braneworld scenario and this
way a Snyder-deformed quantum cosmology can be considered as a common
phenomenological description for both theories.
###### pacs:
98.80.Qc; 11.10.Nx; 04.20.Dw
## I Introduction
The emergence of space-time singularities in Einstein general relativity
undoubtedly implies that such a classical description is valid only on
macroscopic scale HE . One of the most important example is the big-bang
singularity appearing in the standard model of cosmology. However, the
Friedmann dynamics is expected to be modified by quantum effects in the regime
of small scale factor and that such corrections naturally come out from a
quantum theory of gravity. Anyway, it is not yet clear which kind of
modifications may appear and this problem is somehow related to the one of
finding the right (phenomenological) description of the low energy limit of
quantum gravity. In particular, it is argued that this limit should contain
the notion of an other invariant, observer independent, scale (the Planck
scale) RovSmo and this can be regarded as the main intuition of doubly
special relativity (DSR) AMS .
In this work the (deformed) dynamics of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW)
Universe is analyzed in the context of the Snyder non-commutative space Sny .
The Snyder approach is relevant since it can be related to some of DSR models
Kov and has some motivations from loop quantum gravity LO as well as two-
time physics tt .
The only deformed commutator in the Snyder framework is the one between the
coordinates, i.e. the translation group is not modified and the rotational
symmetry is preserved. This way, infinitely many generalized uncertainty
relations, underlying deformed Heisenberg algebras, are predicted BatMel08 .
Assuming the FRW phase space as Snyder-deformed (in this case we deal with a
one-dimensional system), the scheme is almost uniquely fixed. A non-singular
bouncing cosmological evolution is then predicted. Notably, the modified
Friedmann equation resembles the one arising in loop quantum cosmology (LQC)
elqc . It is worth noting that, since the Snyder picture is fixed up to a
sign, also the Randall-Sundrum braneworld scenario Roy is predicted by our
model. In other words, this deformed phase space can be considered, from a
phenomenological point of view, as an effective framework which is able to
describe the results obtained in more general theories. From this perspective,
the different predictions of such approaches can then be understood
considering the opposite sign in the deformation term.
Our model can be regarded as an important step toward the comparison between
deformed and loop quantum cosmology. In fact the quantum behavior of the FRW
Universe, using deformed Heisenberg algebras reproducing the string theory
uncertainty principle String , has been analyzed to describe the fate of the
big-bang singularity BM07 . However, in the previous work the classical
singularity appears to be probabilistically suppressed, but no evidences for a
big-bounce arise. (For a comparison between deformed and polymer-loop quantum
cosmology in the Taub Universe see BM08 .) On the other hand, we now deal with
a more general framework (the previous approach is recovered as a particular
case) and a cosmological bounce à la loop is then allowed.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II the Snyder space and its
deformed quantum mechanics are analyzed. Section III is devoted to the study
of the modified FRW cosmological dynamics. Finally, in Section IV the wave
packets dynamics is investigated and a comparison with LQC showed. Concluding
remarks follow.
Over the paper we adopt units such that $\hbar=c=1$.
## II Snyder Space and Deformed Quantum Mechanics
In this Section the modifications induced on the Heisenberg uncertainty
relations by a non-commutative Snyder geometry are described. The Hilbert
space representation and the deformed harmonic oscillator are also
investigated. A relation with the $\kappa$-deformed Poincaré algebra is
reviewed.
### II.1 Snyder-deformed Heisenberg algebras
Let us start by considering a $n$-dimensional non-commutative (deformed)
Euclidean space such that the commutator between the coordinates has the non-
trivial structure ($\\{i,j,...\\}\in\\{1,...,n\\}$)
$[\tilde{q}_{i},\tilde{q}_{j}]=\alpha M_{ij}\,,$ (1)
where with $\tilde{q}_{i}$ we refer to the non-commutative coordinates and
$\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ is the deformation parameter with dimension of a squared
length (for more details see BatMel08 ). We then demand that the rotation
generators $M_{ij}=-M_{ji}=i(q_{i}p_{j}-q_{j}p_{i})$ satisfy the ordinary
$SO(n)$ algebra and that the translation group is not deformed, i.e.
$[p_{i},p_{j}]=0$. We also assume that the rotational symmetry is preserved
(the non-commutative coordinates transform as vectors under $SO(n)$
rotations), i.e. the commutators
$\displaystyle[M_{ij},\tilde{q}_{k}]$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\tilde{q}_{i}\delta_{jk}-\tilde{q}_{j}\delta_{ik},$ (2)
$\displaystyle[M_{ij},p_{k}]$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
p_{i}\delta_{jk}-p_{j}\delta_{ik}$
hold. This way we deal with the (Euclidean) Snyder space Sny . The above
relations however do not uniquely fix the commutators between $\tilde{q}_{i}$
and $p_{j}$. More precisely, there are infinitely many of such commutators
which are all compatible (in the sense that the algebra closes in virtue of
the Jacobi identities) with the above natural requirements.
Such a feature can be understood considering a rescaling of the non-
commutative coordinates $\tilde{q}_{i}$ in terms of ordinary phase space
variables ($q_{i},p_{j}$) Mel . The most general $SO(n)$ covariant realization
for $\tilde{q}_{i}$ is given by
$\tilde{q}_{i}=q_{i}\varphi_{1}(\alpha
p^{2})+\alpha(q_{j}p_{j})p_{i}\varphi_{2}(\alpha p^{2}),$ (3)
where the convention $a_{i}b_{i}=\sum_{i}a_{i}b_{i}$ is adopted and
$\varphi_{1}$ and $\varphi_{2}$ are two finite functions. The boundary
condition we have to impose in order to recover the ordinary Heisenberg
algebra as $\alpha=0$, reads $\varphi_{1}(0)=1$. The rescaling (3) depends on
the adopted algebraic structure, but the two functions $\varphi_{1}$ and
$\varphi_{2}$ are not uniquely fixed. Given any function $\varphi_{1}$
satisfying the boundary condition $\varphi_{1}(0)=1$, the function
$\varphi_{2}$ is thus determined by the relation BatMel08
$\varphi_{2}=(1+2\dot{\varphi}_{1}\varphi_{1})/(\varphi_{1}-2\alpha
p^{2}\dot{\varphi}_{1})$ where $\dot{\varphi}_{1}=d\varphi_{1}/d(\alpha
p^{2})$. The commutator between $\tilde{q}_{i}$ and $p_{j}$ then arises from
the realization (3) and reads
$[\tilde{q}_{i},p_{j}]=i\left(\delta_{ij}\varphi_{1}+\alpha
p_{i}p_{j}\varphi_{2}\right).$ (4)
From this relation we obtain the generalized uncertainty principle underlying
the Snyder non-commutative space as
$\Delta\tilde{q}_{i}\Delta
p_{j}\geq\frac{1}{2}|\delta_{ij}\langle\varphi_{1}\rangle+\alpha\langle
p_{i}p_{j}\varphi_{2}\rangle|$ (5)
and the ordinary framework is recovered in the $\alpha\rightarrow 0$ limit.
Therefore, the deformation of the only commutator between the spatial
coordinates as in (1) leads to infinitely many realizations of the algebra,
and thus generalized uncertainty relations (5), all of them consistent with
the assumptions underlying the model. We also note that, unless
$\varphi_{2}=0$, compatible observables no longer exist.
The most interesting feature to be stressed is that, for one-dimensional
systems, this picture is almost uniquely fixed. In this case the symmetry
group is trivial ($SO(1)=\text{Id}$) and the most general realization is given
by $\tilde{q}=q\varphi(\alpha p^{2})=q\sqrt{1-\alpha p^{2}}$. The commutation
relation (4) reduces to
$[\tilde{q},p]=i\sqrt{1-\alpha p^{2}}$ (6)
and the only freedom relies on the sign of the deformation parameter $\alpha$.
It is worth noting that, when $\alpha>0$ a natural cut-off on the momentum
arises, i.e. $|p|<\sqrt{1/\alpha}$, while as $\alpha<0$ the uncertainty
relation (5) predicts a minimal observable length
$\Delta{\tilde{q}}_{\text{min}}=\sqrt{-\alpha}/2$. In fact, equation (5)
becomes
$\Delta\tilde{q}\Delta p\geq\frac{1}{2}|\langle\sqrt{1-\alpha p^{2}}\rangle|,$
(7)
from which the minimal uncertainty in $\tilde{q}$, if $\alpha<0$, is obtained.
Moreover, at the first order in $\alpha$, the string theory result String
$\Delta q\gtrsim(1/\Delta p+l_{s}^{2}\Delta p)$, in which the string length
$l_{s}$ can be identified with $\sqrt{-\alpha/2}$, is recovered. On the other
hand, if $\alpha>0$ a vanishing uncertainty in the non-commutative coordinate
is allowed and appears as soon as $\Delta p$ reaches the critical value of
$(\Delta p)^{\star}=\sqrt{(1-\alpha\langle p\rangle)/\alpha}$. We can then
conclude that, a maximum momentum or a minimal length are predicted by the
Snyder-deformed relation (6) if $\alpha>0$ or $\alpha<0$, respectively.
### II.2 Hilbert space representation
The Hilbert space representation of the deformed Heisenberg algebra (6) is
constructed. Such a relation can be represented in the momentum space, where
the $p$ and $\tilde{q}$ operators act on the wave function $\psi(p)=\langle
p|\psi\rangle$ as
$p\,\psi(p)=p\,\psi(p),\qquad\tilde{q}\,\psi(p)=i\sqrt{1-\alpha
p^{2}}\,\partial_{p}\psi(p),$ (8)
on a dense domain $D$ of smooth functions. Further, the self-adjoint
requirement of the position and momentum operators implies a modified measure
in the Hilbert space. In fact, $p$ and $\tilde{q}$ are self-adjoint operators
in the domain $D$ with respect to the scalar product
$\langle\psi|\phi\rangle_{\pm}=\int_{I(\mathbb{R})}\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1-\alpha
p^{2}}}\psi^{\ast}(p)\phi(p),$ (9)
where $I=\left(-1/\sqrt{\alpha}\,,1/\sqrt{\alpha}\right)$ and $\pm$ indicates
the cases $\alpha>0$ and $\alpha<0$ respectively. Here the factor $(1-\alpha
p^{2})^{-1/2}$ in the measure is necessary in order to cancel the
corresponding term of the operator representation of $\tilde{q}$. This way,
the identity operators can be immediately obtained and the scalar product
between momentum eigenstates appears modified as $\langle
p|p^{\prime}\rangle=\sqrt{1-\alpha p^{2}}\delta(p-p^{\prime})$. The deformed
Hilbert spaces $\mathcal{F}_{\pm}$, which are the Cauchy completions with
respect to the inner product (9), can be written as
$\mathcal{F}_{\pm}=L^{2}\left(I(\mathbb{R}),dp/\sqrt{1-\alpha p^{2}}\right).$
(10)
We note that these Hilbert spaces are unitarily inequivalent to each other and
also with respect to the ordinary one $L^{2}(\mathbb{R},dp)$ which appears as
$\alpha\rightarrow 0$. This is not surprising since the deformation of the
canonical commutation relations can be viewed, from the realization (3), as an
algebra homomorphism which is a non-canonical transformation. In particular,
it cannot be implemented at the quantum level as an unitary transformation.
New features are then introduced at both classical and quantum level.
Let us now investigate how the position eigenvectors are modified in this
framework. They satisfy, in the momentum space, the differential equation
$i\sqrt{1-\alpha p^{2}}\,\partial_{p}\psi_{k}(p)=k\psi_{k}(p)$ and explicitly
read
$\psi^{(+)}_{k}(p)=c\exp\left(-i\frac{k}{\sqrt{\alpha}}\sin^{-1}(\sqrt{\alpha}p)\right),\qquad\psi^{(-)}_{k}(p)=c\exp\left(-i\frac{k}{\sqrt{-\alpha}}\sinh^{-1}(\sqrt{-\alpha}p)\right)$
(11)
$c$ being the normalization constant. These states generalize the plane waves
and, as in the ordinary quantum mechanics, they are not normalizable. The
$(+)$ and $(-)$ eigenstates can be obtained each other simply sending
$\alpha\rightarrow-\alpha$, but an important difference between these states
has to be stressed. As we have seen, if $\alpha<0$ a finite minimal
uncertainty in position $\Delta{\tilde{q}}_{\text{min}}>0$ is predicted. This
feature implies that there cannot be any physical state which is a position
eigenstate since an eigenstate of an observable necessarily has vanishing
uncertainty on it Kem . To be more precise, in the ordinary quantum mechanics
a sequence $|\psi_{n}\rangle\in D$ with position uncertainties decreasing to
zero, exists. On the other hand, in presence of a minimal uncertainty, it is
not longer possible to find some $|\psi_{n}\rangle\in D$ such that
$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\left(\Delta\tilde{q}\right)_{|\psi_{n}\rangle}=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\langle\psi|(\tilde{q}-\langle\psi|\tilde{q}|\psi\rangle)^{2}|\psi\rangle=0.$
(12)
Thus, although it is possible to construct position eigenvectors, they are
only formal eigenvectors and not physical states. In this case we have lost
direct information on the position itself (it can be recovered by an analysis
like the one in Kem ). On the other hand, when $\alpha>0$ the position
eigenvectors $\psi^{(+)}_{k}(p)$ in (11) are “proper physical states” in the
sense of the standard quantum theory (a zero uncertainty in position is
allowed), but two remarks are in order. (i) They are generally no longer
orthogonal111The position operator is no longer essentially self-adjoint but
has a one-parameter family of self-adjoint extensions. Considering
$k=\sqrt{\alpha}(2n+\lambda)$ $(n\in\mathbb{Z},\,\lambda\in(-1,1))$, a one-
parameter family of eigenvectors $\psi^{(+)}_{k}$ which explicitly
diagonalizes the position operator is constructed and a lattice spacing
$2\sqrt{\alpha}$ is then introduced.. In fact, the scalar product of these
eigenvectors appear to be
$\langle\psi^{(+)}_{k^{\prime}}|\psi^{(+)}_{k}\rangle_{-}=2c^{2}\sqrt{\alpha}(\pi(k-k^{\prime}))^{-1}\sin\left(\pi(k-k^{\prime})/2\sqrt{\alpha}\right)$,
instead of the Dirac $\delta$-distribution. (ii) They have a finite energy,
namely the mean value of $p^{2}$ between such states is finite, i.e.
$\langle\psi^{(+)}_{k}|p^{2}|\psi^{(+)}_{k}\rangle_{-}=c^{2}\pi/2\alpha^{3/2}$.
Of course, when the limit $\alpha\rightarrow 0$ is taken into account, the
usual results of Heisenberg quantum mechanics are recovered.
### II.3 The harmonic oscillator
We now investigate a direct physical prediction of the framework discussed
above. The harmonic oscillator is surely one of the most relevant mechanical
systems for testing any quantization scheme and therefore we apply such a
formalism to this model, focusing on the modifications on the energy spectrum
induced by the deformation parameter $\alpha$. Considering the classical
Hamiltonian with a Snyder-deformed quadratic potential
$\mathcal{H}=\frac{p^{2}}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega^{2}\tilde{q}^{2}$ (13)
and the representation for $p$ and $\tilde{q}$ as reported in (8), we
immediately get the deformed stationary Schrödinger equation for the model
$\psi^{\prime\prime}(p)-\frac{\alpha p}{1-\alpha
p^{2}}\psi^{\prime}(p)+\frac{1}{1-\alpha
p^{2}}\left(\epsilon-d^{4}p^{2}\right)\psi(p)=0,$ (14)
where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $p$ and we have
defined $\epsilon=2E/m\omega^{2}$ and the characteristic length scale
$d=1/\sqrt{m\omega}$. We note that if $\alpha>0$, i.e. $p\in I$, no
singularities appear in (14). This equation is well-known in mathematics as
the so-called Mathieu equation in the algebraic form AS . Its solution can be
explicitly written in terms of the Mathieu cosine $\mathcal{C}$ and sine
$\mathcal{S}$ as
$\psi(p)=A\mathcal{C}\left(\nu,q,\cos^{-1}(\sqrt{-\alpha}p)\right)+B\mathcal{S}\left(\nu,q,\cos^{-1}(\sqrt{-\alpha}p)\right),$
(15)
where $A,B$ are integration constants and
$\nu=\frac{-d^{4}-2\alpha\epsilon}{2\alpha^{2}},\qquad
q=\frac{d^{4}}{4\alpha^{2}}.$ (16)
Modifications on the ordinary energy eigenvalues $E=E_{n}$, induced by the
deformed algebra, can be easily obtained considering an asymptotic formula for
the $\nu$ coefficients. In fact, we are interested only at first-order
corrections to the spectrum and these appear for $\alpha\rightarrow 0$, or
more precisely when the scale $d^{2}$ of the harmonic oscillator is much
bigger then the deformation scale $\alpha$, i.e. when $\alpha/d^{2}\ll 1$. In
other words, we are interested when $q\gg 1$ and in this case $\nu$ can be
expanded as AS
$\nu=\nu_{n}=-2q+2\sqrt{q}(2n+1)-\frac{2n^{2}+2n+1}{4}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\right).$
(17)
This way, considering the definitions (16), the deformed energy spectrum reads
$E_{n}=\frac{\omega}{2}(2n+1)-\frac{\omega}{8}(2n^{2}+2n+1)\left(\frac{\alpha}{d^{2}}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\alpha^{2}}{d^{4}}\right)$
(18)
and, as expected, for $\alpha/d^{2}\rightarrow 0$ the ordinary eigenvalues are
recovered. Let us discuss such a result. The spectrum in the $\alpha>0$ case
is nothing but the one obtained in the polymer quantum mechanics pol . This
framework relies on a non-standard representation of the canonical commutation
relations (inspired by loop quantum gravity LQG ) which is (unitarily)
inequivalent to the Heisenberg one. A notable fact is that such type of
quantization when applied to the minisuperspace models, leads to LQC LQC .
Differently, the spectrum (18) for $\alpha<0$ appears to be the same as the
one achieved in minimal length quantum mechanics Kem , i.e. considering the
fundamental commutator as $[\tilde{q},p]=i(1+\beta p^{2})$, which can be
considered as the first order approximation in $\alpha=-2\beta$ of (6).
### II.4 Relation with the $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra
The non-commutative Snyder space has been analyzed in the literature from
different points of view Kov ; LO ; tt , but only two particular realizations
of its algebra are known: the Snyder Sny and the Maggiore Mag ones. The
original realization of Snyder is recovered as a special case of (3) if
$\varphi_{1}=1$. On the other hand, the Maggiore algebra
$[\tilde{q}_{i},p_{j}]=i\delta_{ij}\sqrt{1-\alpha p^{2}}$, can be regarded as
the particular case of (3) when the condition $\varphi_{2}=0$ is taken into
account. In this case the Snyder framework can be related to the
$\kappa$-Poincaré scheme in the following sense Mag . The $\kappa$-Poincaré
algebra (for reviews see kP ) provides an explicit realization of the Snyder-
deformed algebra, once some identifications are taken into account. If
$\tilde{q}$ is identified with a suitably $\kappa$-deformed Newton-Wigner
position operator and $p$ and $M_{ij}$ as the generators of spatial
translations and rotations of the $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra respectively, the
modified Heisenberg relations are recovered. (For other comparisons between
deformed Heisenberg algebras and $\kappa$-Poincaré see gupk .) Physical
interest in the $\kappa$-Poincaré algebra arises since it is the mathematical
structure of DSR. Moreover, this framework describes the symmetries of fields
living on $\kappa$-Minkowski non-commutative space-times and is widely
expected that the study of (quantum) fields, invariant under such symmetries,
may give physical insights on a flat space limit of quantum gravity Arz .
## III Deformed Dynamics of the FRW models
We investigate the Snyder-deformed dynamics of the isotropic cosmological
models. The system is studied at classical level searching for the
modifications induced by the deformed Heisenberg algebra. We start reviewing
the ordinary FRW dynamics and then turn to the deformed one.
### III.1 Ordinary canonical dynamics
The FRW cosmological models are (spatially) isotropic models described by the
line element
$ds^{2}=-N^{2}dt^{2}+a^{2}\left(\frac{dr^{2}}{1-kr^{2}}+r^{2}d\Omega^{2}\right),$
(19)
where $N=N(t)$ is the lapse function and $a=a(t)$ the scale factor. The lapse
function does not play a dynamical role while the scale factor is the only
degree of freedom of the system describing the expansion of the Universe. The
parameter $k$ can be zero or $\pm 1$ depending on the symmetry group. The
dynamics of such models is summarized in the scalar constraint
$\mathcal{H}=-\frac{2\pi G}{3}\frac{p_{a}^{2}}{a}-\frac{3}{8\pi
G}ak+a^{3}\rho=0,$ (20)
where $G=l_{P}^{2}$ in the gravitational constant and $\rho=\rho(a)$ denotes a
generic energy density we have introduced into the system. Therefore, isotropy
reduces the phase space of general relativity to be 2-dimensional in which the
only non-vanishing Poisson bracket is $\\{a,p_{a}\\}=1$. The Friedmann
equation can be extracted by using the Hamilton equations with respect to the
extended Hamiltonian
$\mathcal{H}_{E}=\frac{2\pi G}{3}N\frac{p_{a}^{2}}{a}+\frac{3}{8\pi G}Nak-
Na^{3}\rho+\lambda\pi,$ (21)
where $\lambda$ is a Lagrange multiplier and the term $\lambda\pi$ is
introduced since $\pi$, the momenta conjugate to $N$, vanishes. We note that
$\dot{N}=\\{N,\mathcal{H}_{E}\\}=\lambda$ and that the scalar constraint (20)
is obtained requiring the constraint $\pi=0$ will be satisfied at all times,
i.e. demanding that the secondary constraint
$\dot{\pi}=\\{\pi,\mathcal{H}_{E}\\}=\mathcal{H}=0$ holds. The remaining
equations of motion with respect to $\mathcal{H}_{E}$ read
$\dot{a}=\\{a,\mathcal{H}_{E}\\}=\frac{4\pi
G}{3}N\frac{p_{a}}{a},\qquad\dot{p}_{a}=\\{p_{a},\mathcal{H}_{E}\\}=N\left(\frac{2\pi
G}{3}\frac{p_{a}^{2}}{a^{2}}-\frac{3}{8\pi
G}k+3a^{2}\rho+a^{3}\frac{d\rho}{da}\right).$ (22)
Making use of the above equations and the scalar constraint (20), we
immediately obtain the equation of motion for the Hubble rate $(\dot{a}/a)$ as
$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2}=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho-\frac{k}{a^{2}},$
(23)
which is the desired Friedmann equation in a synchronous reference frame222In
the synchronous reference frame, defined in the $3+1$ framework by $N=1$ and
$N^{i}=0$, the time coordinate identifies with the proper time at each point
of space.. It is well-known that this equation leads to the big-bang
singularity where the (general-relativistic) description of the Universe is no
longer appropriate and quantum modifications are required.
### III.2 Deformed canonical dynamics
We now perform the analysis of the deformed dynamics of the FRW models and
therefore we consider the one-dimensional case of the scheme analyzed above.
More precisely, we check the modifications arising from the algebra (6) on the
classical trajectory of the Universe described in the previous Section. A
quantum cosmological bouncing solution is obtained and it resembles the one
achieved in recent issues of LQC (if $\alpha>0$). As $\alpha<0$ the Randall-
Sundrum braneworld scenario is recovered.
The Snyder-deformed classical dynamics is summarized in the modified
symplectic geometry arising from the classical limit of (6), as soon as the
parameter $\alpha$ is regarded as an independent constant with respect to
$\hbar$. It is then possible to replace the quantum-mechanical commutator (6)
via the Poisson bracket
$-i[\tilde{q},p]\Longrightarrow\\{\tilde{q},p\\}=\sqrt{1-\alpha p^{2}}.$ (24)
We stress once again that this relation corresponds exactly to the unique (up
to a sign) possible realization of the Snyder space. In order to obtain the
deformed Poisson bracket, some natural requirements have to be considered. As
a matter of fact, it must possess the same properties as the quantum
mechanical commutator, i.e. it has to be anti-symmetric, bilinear and satisfy
the Leibniz rules as well as the Jacobi identity. This way, the Poisson
bracket (for any two-dimensional phase space function) appears to be
$\\{F,G\\}=\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial\tilde{q}}\frac{\partial
G}{\partial p}-\frac{\partial F}{\partial p}\frac{\partial
G}{\partial\tilde{q}}\right)\sqrt{1-\alpha p^{2}}.$ (25)
In particular, the time evolution of the coordinate and momentum with respect
to a given deformed Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}(\tilde{q},p)$, are now specified
by
$\dot{\tilde{q}}=\\{\tilde{q},\mathcal{H}\\}=\frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial
p}\sqrt{1-\alpha
p^{2}},\qquad\dot{p}=\\{p,\mathcal{H}\\}=-\frac{\partial\mathcal{H}}{\partial\tilde{q}}\sqrt{1-\alpha
p^{2}}.$ (26)
Let us apply this framework to the FRW model in the presence of a generic
matter energy density, namely to the Hamiltonian (21). Therefore we assume the
minisuperspace as Snyder-deformed and then the commutator between the
isotropic scale factor $a$ and its conjugate momentum $p_{a}$ is uniquely
fixed by the relation
$\\{a,p_{a}\\}=\sqrt{1-\alpha p_{a}^{2}}\,,$ (27)
while the equations of motion $\dot{N}=\\{N,\mathcal{H}_{E}\\}=\lambda$ and
$\dot{\pi}=\\{\pi,\mathcal{H}_{E}\\}=\mathcal{H}=0$ remain unchanged. In fact,
the Poisson bracket $\\{N,\pi\\}=1$ is not affected by the deformations
induced by the $\alpha$ parameter on the system. On the other hand, the
equations of motion (22) become modified in such an approach via the relation
(27) and read
$\dot{a}=\\{a,\mathcal{H}_{E}\\}=\frac{4\pi
G}{3}N\frac{p_{a}}{a}\sqrt{1-\alpha
p_{a}^{2}},\qquad\dot{p}_{a}=\\{p_{a},\mathcal{H}_{E}\\}=N\left(\frac{2\pi
G}{3}\frac{p_{a}^{2}}{a^{2}}-\frac{3}{8\pi
G}k+3a^{2}\rho+a^{3}\frac{d\rho}{da}\right)\sqrt{1-\alpha p_{a}^{2}}.$ (28)
As in the canonical case, the equation of motion for the Hubble rate can be
obtained solving the constraint (20) with respect to $p_{a}$ and then
considering the first equation of (28). Explicitly it becomes (taking $N=1$)
$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2}=\left(\frac{8\pi
G}{3}\rho-\frac{k}{a^{2}}\right)\left[1-\frac{3\alpha}{2\pi
G}a^{2}\left(a^{2}\rho-\frac{3}{8\pi G}k\right)\right].$ (29)
We refer to this equation as the deformed Friedmann equation as it entails the
modification arising from the Snyder-deformed Heisenberg algebra (6). It is
interesting to consider the flat FRW Universe, i.e. the $k=0$ model. In this
case the deformed equation (29) appears to be
$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2}_{k=0}=\frac{8\pi
G}{3}\rho\left(1-\text{sgn}\,\alpha\frac{\rho}{\rho_{c}}\right),$ (30)
where $\rho_{c}=(2\pi G/3|\alpha|)\rho_{P}$ is the critical energy density,
$\rho_{P}$ being the Planck one. In the last step we have assumed the
existence of a fundamental minimal length. In fact, as widely accepted, one of
the most peculiar consequences of all promising quantum gravity theories is
the existence of a fundamental cut-off length, which should be related to the
Planck one (for a review see gar ). Therefore, although this minimal length
appears differently in distinct contexts, it is reasonable that the scale
factor (the energy density) has a minimum (maximum) at the Planck scale.
The modifications arising from the deformed Heisenberg algebra on the
Friedmann equation (30) are manifested in the form of a $\rho^{2}$-term. Such
factor is relevant in high energy regime and, if $\alpha>0$ and $\rho$ reaches
the critical value $\rho_{c}$, the Hubble rate vanishes and the Universe
experiences a bounce (or more generally a turn-around) in the scale factor.
For energy density much smaller then the critical one the standard Friedmann
dynamics, equation (23) for $k=0$, is recovered. In the same way, when the
deformation parameter $\alpha$ vanishes, the correction term disappears and
the ordinary behavior of the Hubble parameter is obtained.
The interesting feature to be stressed is the equivalence, at phenomenological
level, between the deformed Friedmann equation (30) in the $\alpha>0$ case and
the one obtained considering the effective dynamics of LQC elqc . On the other
hand, the string inspired Randall-Sundrum braneworld scenario leads to a
modified Friedmann equation as in (30) with $\alpha<0$ Roy . The opposite sign
of the $\rho^{2}$-term in such an equation, is the well-known key difference
between the loop cosmology and the Randall-Sundrum framework. In fact, the
former approach leads to a non-singular bouncing cosmology while in the
latter, because of the positive sign, $\dot{a}$ cannot vanish and a
cosmological bounce cannot take place. Of course, to obtain a bounce the
correction should be negative, i.e. make a repulsive contribution. This can
occur also in the Randall-Sundrum scheme as soon as the extra dimension of the
bulk space-time is considered to be time-like sha1 . However, the minus sign
in this approach remains an open question and no definitive answers are given
sha2 .
## IV Physical Considerations on the Model
A peculiar model is investigated in the framework of the Snyder-deformed
minisuperspace with particular attention to the evolution of the relative
fluctuations of the scale factor. Comparison with other similar approaches is
then showed.
### IV.1 Flat isotropic model filled with a scalar field
An isotropic flat Universe filled with a massless scalar field $\phi$ is
analyzed in the context of the previous discussion. Such a model deserves
interest since it is the one most studied in the framework of LQC. The energy
density of this scalar field takes the form $\rho=p_{\phi}^{2}/2a^{6}$, where
$p_{\phi}$ denotes the momentum canonically conjugate to $\phi$, and then the
scalar constrain (20) becomes
$\mathcal{H}=-\frac{2\pi
G}{3}\frac{p_{a}^{2}}{a}+\frac{p_{\phi}^{2}}{2a^{3}}=0.$ (31)
The phase space is $4$-dimensional, with coordinates $(a,p_{a},\phi,p_{\phi})$
and, since $p_{\phi}$ is a constant of motion, each classical trajectory is
specified in the $(a,\phi)$-plane. The scalar field $\phi$ can be then
regarded as an internal clock for the dynamics and this condition can be
imposed requiring the time gauge $\dot{\phi}=1$, i.e. $N=a^{3}/p_{\phi}$. In
this case the deformed Friedmann equation (29) rewrites as
$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^{2}=\frac{4\pi
G}{3}\left(1-\frac{3\alpha}{4\pi G}\frac{p_{\phi}^{2}}{a^{2}}\right),$ (32)
whose solution is given by $a(\phi)\sim e^{-\sqrt{4\pi
G/3}\phi}(\alpha\tilde{p}_{\phi}^{2}+e^{2\sqrt{4\pi G/3}\phi})$, where
$\tilde{p}_{\phi}^{2}=9p_{\phi}^{2}/16\pi^{4}G^{2}$. This equation clearly
predicts a big-bounce if $\alpha>0$ (from now on we consider only this case).
The ordinary solutions $a(\phi)\sim e^{\pm\sqrt{4\pi G/3}\phi}$ are recovered
at late times, i.e. at $|\phi|\rightarrow\infty$. Fixing the lapse function as
before, the (effective) Hamiltonian in the internal time $\phi$ description is
given by $H=\sqrt{4\pi G/3}\,p_{a}a$. The time evolution of any observable
$\mathcal{O}$ can then be realized with respect to such a Hamiltonian, i.e.
the equation of motion for the expectation value
$d\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle/d\phi=-i\langle[\mathcal{O},H]\rangle$ holds. The
equations of motion
$\frac{d}{d\phi}\langle a\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi G}{3}}\left\langle
a\sqrt{1-\frac{3\alpha}{4\pi
G}\frac{p_{\phi}^{2}}{a^{2}}}\right\rangle,\qquad\frac{d}{d\phi}\langle
p_{a}\rangle=-\sqrt{\frac{4\pi G}{3}}\left\langle
p_{a}\sqrt{1-\frac{3\alpha}{4\pi G}\frac{p_{\phi}^{2}}{a^{2}}}\right\rangle$
(33)
are thus immediately obtained and these trajectories are in exact agreement
with the classical ones. We are now interested to investigate the semi-
classical proprieties of such a Snyder-deformed quantum Universe. To be
precise, with semi-classical requirement for an observable $\mathcal{O}$ we
refer to the requirement that its expectation value be close to the classical
one and that the relative fluctuations
$(\Delta\mathcal{O})^{2}/\langle\mathcal{O}\rangle^{2}\ll 1$. We now analyze
the evolution of the scale factor relative fluctuations which are governed by
the equation
$\frac{d}{d\phi}\left(\frac{(\Delta a)^{2}}{\langle
a\rangle^{2}}\right)=\sqrt{\frac{16\pi G}{3}}\frac{1}{\langle
a\rangle^{2}}\left(\left\langle a^{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{3\alpha}{4\pi
G}\frac{p_{\phi}^{2}}{a^{2}}}\right\rangle-\frac{\langle a^{2}\rangle}{\langle
a\rangle}\left\langle a\sqrt{1-\frac{3\alpha}{4\pi
G}\frac{p_{\phi}^{2}}{a^{2}}}\right\rangle\right).$ (34)
As we can see, in the ordinary framework ($\alpha=0$), such a quantity is
conserved during the whole evolution (the only fluctuations $(\Delta a)^{2}$
are not constants and neither bounded) and thus the semi-classicity of an
initial state is preserved. Such a propriety is also valid in the deformed
scheme at late times $|\phi|\rightarrow\infty$, i.e. for large scale factor
$a\gg\sqrt{\alpha}p_{\phi}/l_{P}$. We note that at the bouncing time, i.e.
when the scale factor reaches its minimum value
$a_{\text{min}}=\sqrt{3\alpha/4\pi G}\,p_{\phi}$, the derivative of this
uncertainty vanishes.
Let us consider the deformed Wheeler-DeWitt (WDW) equation for this model.
Regarding the massless scalar field $\phi$ as a relational time for the
evolution and using the representation (8), the constraint (31) takes the form
$\partial_{\phi}^{2}\Psi(p_{a},\phi)=-\Theta\Psi(p_{a},\phi),\qquad\Theta=-\frac{4\pi
G}{3}p_{a}^{2}\left((1-\alpha p_{a}^{2})\partial_{p_{a}}^{2}-\alpha
p_{a}\partial_{p_{a}}\right).$ (35)
As usual the WDW equation has the same form as the Klein-Gordon equation where
$\Theta$ plays the role of the ordinary Laplacian. In order to have an
explicit Hilbert space, we perform the natural frequencies decomposition of
the solution of (35) and focus on the positive frequency sector. The wave
function $\Psi_{\omega}(p_{a},\phi)=e^{i\omega\phi}\psi_{\omega}(p_{a})$ is
thus of positive frequency with respect to $\phi$ and satisfies the positive
frequency (square root) of the quantum constraint (35), i.e. we deal with a
Schödinger-like equation $-i\partial_{\phi}\Psi=\sqrt{\Theta}\Psi$ with a non-
local Hamiltonian $\sqrt{\Theta}$ (here $\omega^{2}$ denotes the spectrum of
$\Theta$ and covers the interval $(0,\pi G/3)$). The wave function
$\psi_{\omega}$ is explicitly expressed in terms of the Gauss hypergeometric
functions $F$ and reads
$\psi_{\omega}(p_{a})=Ap_{a}^{(1-\gamma)/2}F\left(\frac{1}{4}(1-\gamma),\frac{1}{4}(1-\gamma),1-\frac{\gamma}{2};\alpha
p_{a}^{2}\right)+Bp_{a}^{(1+\gamma)/2}F\left(\frac{1}{4}(1+\gamma),\frac{1}{4}(1+\gamma),1+\frac{\gamma}{2};\alpha
p_{a}^{2}\right),$ (36)
where $\gamma=\sqrt{1-3\omega^{2}/\pi G}$. It is worth stressing that this
function is well defined (is not divergent) since we remember the existence of
a cut-off on the momentum, i.e. $p_{a}\in I$. This way, taking a weighting
function $A(\omega)$, we can construct a wave packet which has the general
form
$\Psi(p_{a},\phi)=\int d\omega A(\omega)\psi_{\omega}(p_{a})e^{i\omega\phi}.$
(37)
As last step of our analysis we note that, although the relative fluctuations
$(\Delta a)^{2}/\langle a\rangle^{2}$ are in general not constant during the
evolution (equation (34)), the difference in the asymptotic values
$D=\lim_{\phi\rightarrow\infty}\left|\left(\frac{(\Delta a)^{2}}{\langle
a\rangle^{2}}\right)_{-\phi}-\left(\frac{(\Delta a)^{2}}{\langle
a\rangle^{2}}\right)_{\phi}\right|$ (38)
vanishes. This consideration can be realized since the fluctuations $(\Delta
a)^{2}(\phi)$ and the mean value $\langle a\rangle(\phi)$ are symmetric in
time. In fact, given any real $A(\omega)$ (for example a Gaussian weighting
function $e^{-(\omega-\omega_{0})^{2}/2\sigma^{2}}$), the mean value of any
self-adjoint operator $\mathcal{O}$ with respect to the states (37) is
invariant under time inversion $\phi\rightarrow-\phi$. Therefore, starting
with a Gaussian semi-classical state such that $(\Delta a)^{2}/\langle
a\rangle^{2}\ll 1$ at late times, this propriety is satisfied on the other
side of the bounce when the Universe approaches large scale
($a\gg\sqrt{\alpha}p_{\phi}/l_{P}$).
### IV.2 Comparison with other approaches
Our model can be regarded as an attempt to mimic the original LQC system by a
simpler one and in this respect it has to be compared with analogous existing
approaches. There are essentially two (related) ways to capture the essential
features of the original quantum system by an exactly solvable one and both
these frameworks regard the cosmological model described by (31). The first
approach Boj1 is based on replacing the connection by its sine (the
connection itself cannot be directly implemented as an operator in the loop
Hilbert space) and then rewriting the Hamiltonian in term of non-canonical
variables. This model serves as a perturbative basis for realistic bounce
scenarios and allows a precise analysis of the evolution of dynamical coherent
states. The second approach Cor relies on a reduction of the so-called
improved dynamics and allows to clearly define in which sense the WDW theory
approximates LQC. Both models agree, although this is matter of current debate
Boj2 , with the claim that semi-classicality is preserved across the
cosmological quantum bounce BC . This feature is in agreement with our
approach. However two remarks are in order. (i) The (simplified) LQC theory is
based on a Weyl representation of the canonical commutation relations which
turns out to be inequivalent to the Schödinger representation. On the other
hand, as explained before, the Snyder-deformed algebra cannot be obtained by a
canonical transformation of the ordinary Poisson brackets of the system.
(ii)333I thank Martin Bojowald for stressing me this point. The
$\rho^{2}$-term in the modified Friedmann equation (30) is not the only
correction from LQC unless the only matter source is a massless scalar field.
If it has mass or is self-interacting, there are infinitely many other
correction terms which also involve pressure Boj3 . In our model the form of
(30) is independent of the precise matter content.
## V Concluding remarks
In this paper we have shown that a bouncing cosmology is predicted by a
Snyder-deformed Friedmann dynamics. In particular, we have implemented a
Snyder non-commutative geometry, which can be related to DSR as well as to the
$\kappa$-Poincaré algebra, in the FRW minisuperspace arena. Since we deal with
a one-dimensional system, the deformation is almost uniquely fixed and a
cosmological bounce is then obtained. Our deformed Friedmann equation has the
same form of the LQC one. Notably, also the effective cosmological dynamics of
the Randall-Sundrum braneworld scenario is allowed because of the freedom in
the sign of the deformation term. Such a result is also corroborated by the
analysis of the Snyder-deformed harmonic oscillator. The LQC-like framework is
the one in which a cut-off on the momentum is predicted. On the other hand, in
the braneworld-like one, a minimal observable length arises and the string
theory uncertainty relation is recovered. Summarizing, a non-commutative
(deformed) picture which leads, at phenomenological level, to the predictions
of more general theories can be formulated. The validity of such an approach
in more general, and physically interesting, frameworks will be subject of
future investigations.
Acknowledgments. I thank Giovanni Montani for having encouraged this work.
Francesco Cianfrani and Orchidea Maria Lecian are thanked for several
discussions and for a critical reading of the manuscript.
## References
* (1) S.W.Hawking and G.F.R.Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (CUP, Cambridge, 1973).
* (2) C.Rovelli, arXiv:0808.3505; L.Smolin, arXiv:0808.3765.
* (3) G.Amelino-Camelia, Int.J.Mod.Phys.D 11 (2002) 35; Phys.Lett.B 510 (2001) 255; J.Magueijo and L.Smolin, Phys.Rev.
Lett. 88 (2002) 190403.
* (4) H.S.Snyder, Phys.Rev. 71 (1947) 38.
* (5) J.Kowalski-Glikman, Phys.Lett.B 547 (2002) 291; J.Kowalski-Glikman and S.Nowak, Class.Quant.Grav. 20 (2003) 4799; H.Guo, C.Huang and H.Wu, Phys.Lett.B 663 (2008) 270.
* (6) E.R.Livine and D.Oriti, JHEP 0406 (2004) 050.
* (7) J.M.Romero and A.Zamora, Phys.Rev.D 70 (2004) 105006.
* (8) M.V.Battisti and S.Meljanac, Phys.Rev.D 79 (2009) 067505.
* (9) P.Singh and K.Vandersloot, Phys.Rev.D 72 (2005) 084004; A.Ashtekar, T.Pawlowski and P.Singh, Phys.Rev.D 73 (2006) 124038; P.Singh, K.Vandersloot and G.V.Vereshchagin Phys.Rev.D 74 (2006) 043510.
* (10) R.Maartens, Living Rev.Rel. 7 (2004) 7.
* (11) D.J.Gross and P.F.Mendle, Nucl.Phys.B 303 (1988) 407; K.Konishi, G.Paffuti and P.Provero, Phys.Lett.B 234 (1990) 276.
* (12) M.V.Battisti and G.Montani, Phys.Lett.B 656 (2007) 96; AIP Conf.Proc. 966 (2008) 219.
* (13) M.V.Battisti and G.Montani, Phys.Rev.D 77 (2008) 023518; M.V.Battisti, O.M.Lecian and G.Montani Phys.Rev.D 78 (2008) 103514.
* (14) S.Meljanac, M.Milekovic and S.Pallua, Phys.Lett.B 328 (1994) 55; L.Jonke and S.Meljanac, Phys.Lett.B 526 (2002) 149; T.R.Govindarajan, K.S.Gupta, E.Harikumar, S.Meljanac and D.Meljanac, Phys.Rev.D 77 (2008) 105010.
* (15) A.Kempf, G.Mangano and R.B.Mann, Phys.Rev.D 52 (1995) 1108; A.Kempf, J.Math.Phys. 38 (1997) 1347; A.Kempf, J.Phys.A 30 (1997) 2093.
* (16) M.Abramowitz and I.A.Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions (USGPO, Washington, 1967).
* (17) A.Ashtekar, S.Fairhurst and J.L.Willis, Class.Quant.Grav. 20 (2003) 1031; A.Corichi, T.Vukasinac and J.A.Zapata, Phys.Rev.D 76 (2007) 0440163.
* (18) C.Rovelli, Quantum Gravity (CUP, Cambridge, 2004); T.Thiemann, Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity (CUP, Cambridge, 2007).
* (19) M.Bojowald, Living Rev.Rel. 8 (2005) 11; A.Ashtekar, Nuov.Cim.B 122 (2007) 135.
* (20) M.Maggiore, Phys.Lett.B 304 (1993) 65; Phys.Rev.D 49 (1994) 5182.
* (21) M.Arzano, (2007) arXiv:0711.3222; L.Freidel and J.Kowalski-Glikman, (2007) arXiv:0710.2886.
* (22) S.Hossenfelder, Class.Quant.Grav. 23 (2006) 1815; J.L.Cortes and J.Gamboa, Phys.Rev.D 71 (2005) 065015; H.Calisto and C.Leiva, Int.J.Mod.Phys.D 16 (2007) 927.
* (23) M.Arzano, Phys.Rev.D 77 (2008) 025013; L.Freidel and E.R.Livine, Phys.Rev.Lett. 96 (2006) 221301; G.Amelino-Camelia, L.Smolin and A.Starodubtsev, Class.Quant.Grav. 21 (2004) 3095.
* (24) L.J.Garay, Int.J.Mod.Phys.A 10 (1995) 145.
* (25) Y.Shtanov and V.Sahni, Phys.Lett.B 557 (2003) 1.
* (26) V.Sahni and Y.Shtanov, Int.J.Mod.Phys.D 11 (2002) 1515.
* (27) M.Bojowald, Proc.Roy.Soc.Lond.A 464 (2008) 2135; Phys.Rev.D 74 (2007) 081301.
* (28) A.Ashtekar, A.Corichi and P.Singh, Phys.Rev.D 77 (2008) 024046; A.Corichi and P.Singh, Phys.Rev.Lett. 100 (2008) 161302.
* (29) M.Bojowald, Phys.Rev.Lett. 101 (2008) 209001.
* (30) A.Corichi and P.Singh, Phys.Rev.Lett. 101 (2008) 209002.
* (31) M.Bojowald, Phys.Rev.Lett. 100 (2008) 221301; Gen.Rel.Grav. 40 (2008) 2659.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-08T14:59:39 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.678144 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Marco Valerio Battisti",
"submitter": "Marco Valerio Battisti",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1178"
} |
0805.1230 | # How to Grow a Healthy Merger Tree
Jun Zhang1, Onsi Fakhouri1, Chung-Pei Ma1
1Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
E-mail:jzhang@astro.berkeley.edu
###### Abstract
We investigate seven Monte Carlo algorithms – four old and three new – for
constructing merger histories of dark matter halos using the extended Press-
Schechter (EPS) formalism based on both the spherical and ellipsoidal collapse
models. We compare, side-by-side, the algorithms’ abilities at reproducing the
analytic EPS conditional (or progenitor) mass function over a broad range of
mass and redshift ($z=0$ to 15). Among the four old algorithms (Lacey & Cole
1993, Kauffmann & White 1993, Somerville & Kolatt 1999, Cole et al 2000), we
find that only KW93 produces a progenitor mass function that is consistent
with the EPS prediction for all look-back redshifts. The origins of the
discrepancies in the other three algorithms are discussed. Our three new
algorithms are designed to generate the correct progenitor mass function at
each time-step. We show that this is a necessary and sufficient condition for
consistency with EPS at any look-back time. We illustrate the differences
among the three new algorithms and KW93 by investigating two other conditional
statistics: the mass function of the $i_{\rm th}$ most massive progenitors and
the mass function for descendants with $N_{p}$ progenitors.
###### keywords:
cosmology: theory
††pagerange: How to Grow a Healthy Merger Tree– References††pubyear: 2006
## 1 Introduction
In the hierarchical structure formation scenario, dark matter halos grow by
accreting and merging with other halos. Statistically modeling halo merger
histories is important for understanding a diverse spectrum of astrophysical
processes ranging from galaxy formation, the growth of super-massive black
holes, to cosmic reionization.
Numerical simulations aside, the most frequently used theoretical framework
for studying the build up of dark matter halos is the Press-Schechter (PS)
model (Press & Schechter, 1974). This framework is further developed in the
so-called extended Press-Schechter (EPS) model (Bond et al. 1991; Lacey & Cole
1993; Mo & White 1996; Sheth, Mo & Tormen 2001; Sheth & Tormen 2002). For a
descendant halo of a given mass at redshift $z_{0}$, the EPS model predicts
the average mass spectrum of its progenitors at a higher redshift $z_{1}$ (the
conditional or progenitor mass function).
The EPS model provides only statistical information about halo mergers and
does not specify how progenitor halos are to be grouped into descendant halos.
However, it is often useful, particularly in semi-analytic modeling, to have
actual realizations of the merging history for a large set of haloes. A number
of Monte Carlo algorithms have been proposed for this purpose (see, e.g. ,
Lacey & Cole 1993; Kauffmann & White 1993; Sheth & Pitman 1997; Sheth & Lemson
1999; Somerville & Kolatt 1999; Cole et al. 2000, 2008; Moreno & Sheth 2007;
Neistein & Dekel 2008b). These algorithms allow one to produce realizations of
halo merger trees stretching back to high redshifts in a fraction of the time
that is required for performing and analyzing cosmological $N$-body
simulations of comparable resolution.
Thus far, most of the commonly used Monte Carlo methods are based on the
spherical EPS theory. In Lacey & Cole 1993 (also see Bond et al. 1991), halo
mergers at each time step are assumed to be binary: one of the progenitor
masses is randomly drawn from the conditional mass function, and the other
progenitor mass is defined by the difference between the descendant halo mass
and this first progenitor mass. Though this seems to be the most natural way
to generate halo merger histories, it has been pointed out by several authors
that the binary picture does not reproduce the EPS progenitor abundance at
earlier times (see, e.g. , Somerville & Kolatt 1999). Moreover, this problem
does not disappear when the time step is greatly reduced. This fact has led to
the investigation of alternative Monte Carlo algorithms with different recipes
for building halo merger trees in the spherical EPS framework. For example,
Somerville & Kolatt (1999) find that if the binary assumption is relaxed while
taking into account the contribution of mass from continuous accretion then
the progenitor abundance at large look-back times is better reproduced. Cole
et al. (2000), on the other hand, include diffuse accretion but preserve the
assumption of binary mergers. More recently, partially due to the rapid
advances in N-body simulation, various other algorithms have been proposed
that are either designed to fit N-body results (e.g. , Parkinson, Cole & Helly
2008; Cole et al. 2008; Neistein & Dekel 2008a) or are based on the spherical
(Neistein & Dekel, 2008b) or ellipsoidal (Moreno & Sheth, 2007) excursion set
model. The presence of these numerous Monte Carlo algorithms suggests that
building a Monte Carlo algorithm that is fully consistent with the underlying
EPS model is not unique and can be non-trivial.
We were motivated to write this paper for a number of reasons. First, this is
a sequel to our previous work (Zhang, Ma & Fakhouri, 2008), which presented an
accurate analytic formula for the conditional mass function for small time-
steps in the ellipsoidal EPS model. This formula is particularly useful as an
input for high-resolution Monte Carlo simulations of halo merger trees.
Earlier formulae (e.g. Sheth & Tormen 2002) were accurate only for larger
look-back redshifts ($z_{1}-z_{0}\ga 0.1$). Taking such a large time-step
would limit the dynamic range in both the progenitor mass and redshift that
can be covered in a Monte Carlo simulation. In addition, until recently, all
previous Monte Carlo algorithms were studied in the framework of the spherical
EPS model, which is well known to produce inaccurate total (i.e.
unconditional) halo mass function when compared with simulations. This paper
will investigate the algorithms in the ellipsoidal model using the formula in
Zhang, Ma & Fakhouri (2008).
Second, as we began to investigate the various Monte Carlo algorithms proposed
in the literature, we were frustrated by the lack of direct comparison among
the different methods, each of which has its own range of validity and own set
of assumptions about how to group progenitors into descendants (e.g. binary vs
multiple progenitors; how the mass in progenitors below mass resolution is
treated). Moreover, it was not always clear why a given algorithm succeeded or
failed. In this paper, we examine closely the four most frequently used
algorithms – Lacey & Cole 1993; Kauffmann & White 1993; Somerville & Kolatt
1999; Cole et al. 2000 – and compare their predictions for the conditional
mass function over a wide range of progenitor masses and look-back redshift
(e.g., down to $10^{-6}$ of descendant mass and up to redshift 15, much larger
than those studied previously). We find that only Kauffmann & White (1993) is
fully consistent with the EPS model at all look-back time steps. The
limitations and causes of discrepancies in the other three methods are
discussed.
Third, in light of the discrepancies in earlier algorithms, we investigate
three new Monte Carlo algorithms that are all constructed to reproduce
accurately the EPS predicted conditional mass function at any look-back
redshift. We present a consistency criterion that is useful as a general guide
for building Monte Carlo algorithms: If an algorithm reproduces the EPS
progenitor mass function for a sequence of simulation time-steps between
$z_{i}$ and $z_{i+1}$ (where $i=0,N$), then it is guaranteed to reproduce the
EPS progenitor mass function at any $z_{j}$ for descendants at any later
$z_{k}$ (where $j,k=0,N$). This is a necessary and sufficient condition.
Fourth, the EPS model is an incomplete theory that predicts only a subset of
statistical properties of halo mergers. It therefore leaves one with much
freedom in how to assign progenitors to descendants in a given Monte Carlo
algorithm. For instance, it is possible to construct different consistent
Monte Carlo algorithms that predict different statistical merger quantities
beyond the conditional mass function. Our three new algorithms and KW93 are
four examples that are degenerate in the conditional mass function but are
different in other progenitor statistics. In this paper we illustrate the
differences among the models with two such statistics: the mass function of
the $i^{th}$ most massive progenitors and the mass function of progenitors for
descendant halos with $N_{p}$ progenitors. Results from $N$-body simulations
will be needed to constrain these higher-moment statistics. Since computing
the statistics of progenitor dark matter halos in simulations is by itself a
major independent project, we will focus on the EPS theory and Monte Carlo
algorithms in this paper and leave the comparison with $N$-body results to a
subsequent paper (Zhang, Fakhouri & Ma 2008, in prep).
The paper is structured as follows. The EPS formalism based on both the
spherical and ellipsoidal gravitational collapse models is reviewed in §2. In
§3 we discuss three ingredients for how to grow an accurate Monte Carlo merger
tree: the consistency criterion for reproducing EPS (§3.1), the asymmetry in
the EPS progenitor mass function and the necessity of non-binary mergers in an
algorithm (§3.2), and the role of mass resolution and diffuse accretion for
progenitor mass assignment (§3.3). Details of the four old and three new
algorithms are discussed in §4 and §5, respectively. Whenever possible, the
resulting progenitor mass functions from different algorithms are shown on the
same plots for ease of comparison. §6 compares the two new progenitor
statistics that can be used to discriminate among the Monte Carlo algorithms
that are consistent with EPS. We summarize our findings in §7, with a
discussion of some recent work in this field.
The calculations in this paper assume a $\Lambda$CDM model with
$\Omega_{m}=0.25$, $\Omega_{b}=0.045$, $h=0.73$, $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.75$,
$n=1$, $\sigma_{8}=0.9$. This is the same cosmology used in the Millennium
simulation (Springel et al. 2005).
## 2 An Overview of EPS
In this section we present a brief overview of the EPS theory based on both
the spherical and ellipsoidal gravitational collapse models. We often refer to
the two models in parallel as the spherical and ellipsoidal EPS models, with
the understanding that the ellipsoidal version is based on the excursion set
formalism of Bond et al. (1991). The emphasis here is on the conditional mass
function, which is the main statistical quantity used to generate progenitors
in merger tree algorithms. For a more complete and pedagogical review of EPS,
see Zentner (2007) and references therein.
### 2.1 EPS Based on the Spherical Collapse Model
The Press-Schechter (PS) model provides a framework for identifying virialized
dark matter halos. It is assumed that the seed density perturbations that grow
to form these halos are characterized by an initially Gaussian random density
field with larger fluctuations on smaller spatial scales. This latter
assumption allows one to use $S(R)=\sigma^{2}(R)$, the variance of the linear
density fluctuations111In this paper, the variance of the density fluctuation
is calculated using the fitting formula of the linear mass power spectrum from
Eisenstein & Hu 1998 smoothed over spatial scale $R$, as a proxy for the
spatial scale $R$. Moreover, since a given spatial scale is related to a
unique mass scale $M(R)$ via the mean density of the universe $\bar{\rho}$,
one can use $R$, $M$, and $S$ interchangeably as measures of scale.
The density field smoothed over a given scale $M$ is given by
$\delta_{M}=\rho_{M}/\bar{\rho}-1$ where $\rho_{M}$ is the average density
within the smoothing scale $R$. In the EPS model, the linear density field
centered at a given point in the initial Lagrangian space traces out a random
walk (referring to a Markovian process)222Strictly speaking, this is only true
when the smoothing window function is a top-hat in Fourier space. as the
smoothing scale is reduced. Starting from a large smoothing scale, a
virialized dark matter halo is assumed to form at the given spatial coordinate
when the linear $\delta_{M}$ crosses a critical value for the first time; the
mass of the halo is determined by the smoothing scale at first-crossing. In
the spherical EPS model, the critical over-density is given by the spherical
collapse model and is a constant $\delta_{c}=1.69$ independent of mass scale.
In the above description, as a result of gravitational instability, the
density field grows with time as a linear function of its initial value, i.e.
, $\delta_{M}(z)=\delta_{M}(0)D(z)$, where $D(z)$ is the standard cosmology-
dependent linear growth factor satisfying $D(z=0)=1$. In practice, one usually
fixes the value of $\delta_{M}$ at some reference time (e.g. today:
$\delta_{M}(0)$) and evolves the critical over-density to identify virialized
halos at earlier redshifts. We denote this time-dependent critical over-
density by $\omega(z)=\delta_{c}/D(z)$. Note that a lower redshift corresponds
to a smaller $\omega(z)$, implying that larger halos form at later times, in
accordance with the hierarchical structure formation scenario.
Under the assumption of Gaussian statistics, the EPS framework allows one to
compute the first crossing distribution $f(S(M_{1}),z_{1}|S(M_{0}),z_{0})$. Of
the set of random walks that begin at $\delta_{M_{0}}=\omega(z_{0})$, the
first crossing distribution is the fraction of these random walks that _first_
cross the critical over-density $\omega(z_{1})$ at scale $S(M_{1})$, where
$z_{1}>z_{0}$ and $S(M_{1})>S(M_{0})$ (i.e. $M_{1}<M_{0}$). It can be shown
(Lacey & Cole, 1993) that the first crossing distribution in the spherical EPS
model has the form
$\displaystyle f(S(M_{1}),z_{1}|S(M_{0}),z_{0})d\Delta S$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{\Delta\omega}{{\Delta
S}^{3/2}}\exp\left[-\frac{(\Delta\omega)^{2}}{2\Delta S}\right]d\Delta S$
where $\Delta\omega=\omega(z_{1})-\omega(z_{0})$ and $\Delta
S=S(M_{1})-S(M_{0})$.
The first crossing distribution can be reinterpreted as the conditional mass
function $P(M_{1},z_{1}|M_{0},z_{0})$, which is defined to be the mass
fraction of a descendant halo of mass $M_{0}$ at redshift $z_{0}$ that
originates from a progenitor halo of mass $M_{1}$ at redshift $z_{1}$:
$P(M_{1},z_{1}|M_{0},z_{0})dM_{1}=-f(S(M_{1}),z_{1}|S(M_{0}),z_{0})d\Delta S$
(2)
Note, in particular, that $P(M_{1},z_{1}|M_{0},z_{0})$ is the _mass-weighted_
conditional mass function as it represents the merging history of a unit of
mass. The average number of progenitors of mass $M_{1}$ at $z_{1}$ associated
with the formation of _each_ descendant halo of mass $M_{0}$ at $z_{0}$ is
given by the _number-weighted_ conditional mass function
$\phi(M_{1},z_{1}|M_{0},z_{0})$, which is simply related to the mass-weighted
conditional mass function $P(M_{1},z_{1}|M_{0},z_{0})$ by
$\phi(M_{1},z_{1}|M_{0},z_{0})\equiv\frac{M_{0}}{M_{1}}P(M_{1},z_{1}|M_{0},z_{0})\,.$
(3)
For brevity, we often refer to the number-weighted conditional mass function
$\phi(M_{1},z_{1}|M_{0},z_{0})$ as the _progenitor_ mass function, and denote
it simply as $\phi(M_{1}|M_{0})$ with $z_{0}$ and $z_{1}$ specified elsewhere
in paper. This quantity is sometimes denoted as
$dN(M_{1},z_{1}|M_{0},z_{0})/dM_{1}$ in the literature.
### 2.2 EPS Based on the Ellipsoidal Collapse Model
The original Press-Schechter theory was based on the spherical collapse model.
The unconditional mass function in this model is well known to have an excess
of small halos and a deficit of massive halos in comparison with simulation
results (e.g. , Lacey & Cole 1994; Gelb & Bertschinger 1994; Ma & Bertschinger
1994; Tormen 1998; Sheth & Tormen 1999). This discrepancy arises because halo
collapses are generally triaxial rather than spherical (Doroshkevich 1970;
Bardeen et al. 1986; Sheth, Mo & Tormen 2001; Sheth & Tormen 2002). In the
spherical collapse picture, the virialization of a dark matter halo is purely
determined by the density-contrast on the scale of the halo mass. This
assumption is too simplistic because dark matter halos generally have non-zero
ellipticity and prolateness, and the condition for virialization should be
determined by both the density-contrast and the halo shape parameters.
By assuming that a dark matter halo virializes when its third axis collapses,
Sheth, Mo & Tormen (2001) find a new criterion for virialization that depends
on the ellipticity and prolateness of a dark matter halo in addition to its
density contrast. In practice, this condition can be simplified either by
averaging over its dependence on the shape parameters, or by fixing the shape
parameters at their most likely values for a given over-density. By doing so,
these authors obtain a fitting formula for the scale-_dependent_ critical
over-density, or barrier, in contrast to the scale-independent $\delta_{c}$ of
the spherical collapse model. It is parameterized as (Sheth & Tormen 2002):
$\delta_{c}^{E}[S(M),z]=\sqrt{\gamma}\delta_{c}\left[1+\beta(\gamma\nu)^{-q}\right]$
(4)
where $q=0.615$, $\beta=0.485$, $\gamma=0.75$, $\nu=\omega^{2}(z)/S(M)$, and
$M$ is the halo mass. In this ellipsoidal collapse model, the scale-dependence
is such that the formation of small halos is delayed, thereby reducing their
abundance and providing closer agreement with the unconditional mass function
in simulations than the spherical model.
To compute the conditional mass function in the ellipsoidal EPS model, one
would need the equivalent of the first-crossing distribution eq. (2.1). The
exact analytical form of eq. (2.1), unfortunately, is valid only for the
scale-independent constant barrier $\delta_{c}$ of the spherical EPS model.
Sheth & Tormen (2002) have presented a Taylor-series-like approximation for
the ellipsoidal model, but Zhang, Ma & Fakhouri (2008) show that this form
works well for large $z_{1}-z_{0}$ but is invalid for small $z_{1}-z_{0}$. As
the construction of an accurate ellipsoidal Monte Carlo merger tree algorithm
requires accurate knowledge of the ellipsoidal progenitor mass function at
small time-steps, it is crucial that this matter be resolved.
This was done in Zhang, Ma & Fakhouri (2008). Using the scale-dependent
critical over-density of Sheth & Tormen (2002) and the technique of Zhang &
Hui (2006), Zhang, Ma & Fakhouri (2008) derived an accurate form for the
progenitor mass function of ellipsoidal EPS model for small time steps
($\Delta z\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise
1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;0.1$), which can be written as:
$\displaystyle\phi(M_{1}|M_{0})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{M_{0}}{M_{1}}\frac{dS(M_{1})}{dM_{1}}\frac{A_{0}\Delta\omega}{\Delta
S\sqrt{2\pi\Delta S}}$ $\displaystyle\times$
$\displaystyle\left\\{\exp\left[-\frac{1}{2\Delta
S}\left(A_{0}\Delta\omega+A_{1}\sqrt{\Delta
S\tilde{S}}\right)^{2}\right]\right.$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\left.A_{2}\tilde{S}^{3/2}\exp\left(-\frac{A_{1}^{2}}{2}\tilde{S}\right)\left[1+\frac{A_{1}}{\Gamma(3/2)}\sqrt{\tilde{S}}\right]\right\\}$
where $A_{0}=0.866(1-0.133\nu_{0}^{-0.615})$, $A_{1}=0.308\nu_{0}^{-0.115}$,
$A_{2}=0.0373\nu_{0}^{-0.115}$, $\nu_{0}=\omega^{2}(z_{0})/S(M_{0})$, and
$\tilde{S}=\Delta S/S(M_{0})$. Note that unlike eq. (15) of Zhang, Ma &
Fakhouri (2008), we have not neglected the small $A_{0}\Delta\omega$ term in
the exponent because it is important for tracing the massive progenitors
(small $\Delta S$). Two other features are worth noting. First, unlike in the
spherical EPS model, $\phi(M_{1}|M_{0})$ in eq. (2.2) depends weakly on the
redshift $z_{0}$. Second, due to the intersections of barriers at the low mass
end333see appendix A of Sheth & Tormen 2002 for more details, eq. (2.2) turns
unphysical (i.e. , $A_{0}<0$) when $S(M_{0})\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower
2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$>$}\;30\,\omega^{2}(z_{0})$, i.e. ,
when the descendant mass is much smaller than the typical halo mass at
$z_{0}$. In our Monte Carlo simulations discussed below, whenever the second
feature becomes a problem (which occurs very rarely), we do not generate any
progenitors for the halo in the next time step. As we will show in §5, this
procedure only mildly affects the progenitor abundance at the very low mass
end. Eq. (2.2) provides a closer match to the merger rates determined from
$N$-body simulations (Zhang, Ma & Fakhouri, 2008), but the agreement was not
perfect, perhaps due to the non-Markovian nature of numerical simulations.
## 3 Ingredients for Growing Healthy Monte Carlo Merger Trees
As discussed in the introduction, the EPS model only provides a subset of
_statistical_ information about dark matter halo merger histories. For
example, the EPS progenitor mass function $\phi(M|M_{0})$ (eq. 3 for spherical
and eq. 2.2 for ellipsoidal) gives the average mass spectrum of the
progenitors for the descendant halos. However, it is often useful, especially
in semi-analytical modeling, to have an actual Monte Carlo realization of the
formation history for a large set of halos. Of particular interest is the
merger tree of individual halos, which provides the hierarchical links among
the progenitors and their descendants. Since the EPS model itself does not
specify explicitly how to group progenitors into descendants, in each time-
step in a Monte Carlo algorithm, assumptions must be made about the number of
progenitors and their mass distributions to be assigned to a given descendant.
The earlier Monte Carlo algorithms (e.g., Lacey & Cole 1993; Kauffmann & White
1993; Somerville & Kolatt 1999; Cole et al. 2000) for merger tree
constructions share a similar overall structure: A descendant halo of mass
$M_{0}$ at some redshift $z_{0}$ (typically $z_{0}=0$) is chosen. The EPS
progenitor mass function, $\phi(M|M_{0})$, is then used to generate a set of
progenitors at some earlier redshift, using the rules of the given algorithm.
In the next time-step, these progenitors become descendants, and each is
assigned its own set of progenitors at an earlier redshift using
$\phi(M|M_{0})$. This process is repeated out to some early redshift and for a
(typically large) number of halos of mass $M_{0}$ at the starting $z_{0}$.
The existence of a number of diverse Monte Carlo algorithms (see further
discussion in §4) in the literature implies that the above process is, in
fact, not unique and can be quite subtle. We now explore some of these
subtleties and the key ingredients for constructing a healthy merger tree.
### 3.1 A Criterion for Consistently Reproducing the EPS Progenitor Mass
Function
We consider a Monte Carlo algorithm to be consistent with EPS if the merger
trees it produces can reproduce the EPS progenitor mass function
$\phi(M_{1},z_{1}|M_{0},z_{0})$ exactly for _any_ set of
$\left\\{M_{1},z_{1},M_{0},z_{0}\right\\}$ regardless of the number or size of
the simulation time-steps between $z_{0}$ and $z_{1}$.
Clearly, to be consistent with EPS, a Monte Carlo algorithm must _necessarily_
reproduce the EPS-predicted $\phi(M|M_{0})$ exactly at _adjacent_ time steps.
We now show that this is also a _sufficient_ condition for the Monte Carlo
method to reproduce $\phi(M|M_{0})$ exactly at _any_ look-back time regardless
of the number, or width, of intervening time-steps. This condition is
important because it simplifies the analysis of Monte Carlo algorithms: the
failure of a given algorithm to reproduce faithfully the EPS $\phi(M|M_{0})$
at a particular redshift or mass range necessarily implies that the algorithm
fails to reproduce the progenitor mass function (in either amplitude or shape
or both) across a single time step.
We start with the first crossing distribution eq. (2.1) and note that due to
the continuous nature of the random walk, it obeys the following identity at
different look-back times:
$\displaystyle f(S(M),z|S(M_{0}),z_{0})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{S(M_{0})}^{S(M)}dS^{\prime}f(S(M),z|S(M^{\prime}),z^{\prime})\,f(S(M^{\prime}),z^{\prime}|S(M_{0}),z_{0})$
for any $z_{0}<z^{\prime}<z$. This relationship is true in both spherical and
ellipsoidal EPS models because both variants are based on barrier crossings of
random walks. Note that in the ellipsoidal model, eq. (3.1) is a property of
only the exact first-crossing distribution, which is well represented by eq.
(2.2) for small look-back times but not the Taylor-series-like approximation
of Sheth & Tormen (2002). Also note that eq. (3.1) may not be strictly
satisfied at the very low mass end due to the intersections of barriers in the
ellipsoidal model. As we will show in §5, this only causes a minor problem on
very small mass scales.
Using eqs. (2) and (3) to relate $f$ to the progenitor mass function $\phi$,
we then obtain
$\displaystyle\phi(M,z|M_{0},z_{0})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{M}^{M_{0}}dM^{\prime}\phi(M,z|M^{\prime},z^{\prime})\,\phi(M^{\prime},z^{\prime}|M_{0},z_{0})\,.$
Setting $z^{\prime}=z_{0}+\Delta z$ and $z=z_{0}+2\Delta z$, we see that eq.
(3.1) implies that if a Monte Carlo method generates progenitors _exactly_
according to the progenitor mass function of EPS at each time step $\Delta z$,
then the Monte Carlo progenitor mass function should agree with the EPS
prediction at any look-back time $z-z_{0}$. We stress that $\phi(M|M_{0})$
must be reproduced exactly, that is, in both the overall shape and
normalization of $\phi(M|M_{0})$. This consistency condition is both necessary
and sufficient.
An additional feature to note is that consistency is possible in the presence
of a mass resolution limit $M_{\rm res}$ (discussed further in §3.3). Eq.
(3.1) shows that $\phi(M,z|M_{0},z_{0})$ does not depend on masses outside of
the range $[M,M_{0}]$. Thus if a Monte Carlo algorithm reproduces
$\phi(M|M_{0})$ for all $M>M_{\rm res}$ in single time-steps, it will
consistently reproduce $\phi(M|M_{0})$ at $M>M_{\rm res}$ for any $z-z_{0}$.
### 3.2 The Asymmetry of EPS and Binary Mergers
The simplest way to group progenitors into descendants in a Monte Carlo
algorithm is through binary mergers, i.e. , each descendant halo of mass
$M_{0}$ is composed of two progenitors of mass $M_{1}$ and $M_{0}-M_{1}$. This
assumption is used in, e.g., Lacey & Cole (1993). This simple scenario,
however, will necessarily fail to reproduce both the spherical and ellipsoidal
EPS progenitor mass functions. This is because if all descendants were the
products of binary mergers, then $\phi(M|M_{0})$ would be symmetric about
$M_{0}/2$ for infinitesimal $\Delta z$. This is simply not the case in EPS.
We illustrate the asymmetry of the EPS $\phi(M|M_{0})$ in Fig. 1 for a
descendant halo of mass $10^{13}M_{\odot}$ at $z_{0}=0$ and a look-back time
of $z=0.02$ (which is the typical time-step used in our Monte Carlo
simulations; see Sec. 4). The solid black curve shows the total
$\phi(M|M_{0})$, while the red dashed curve shows the symmetric part
$\phi_{\rm sym}(M|M_{0})$ defined by
$\phi(M|M_{0})=\phi_{\rm sym}(M|M_{0})+\phi_{\rm asym}(M|M_{0})\,,$ (8)
where the left side ($M\leq M_{0}/2$) of $\phi_{\rm sym}(M|M_{0})$ is defined
to be identical to $\phi(M|M_{0})$ and the right side is defined to be simply
the reflection of the left half about the mid point $M_{0}/2$. The second term
$\phi_{\rm asym}(M|M_{0})$ is then the residual of $\phi$ after subtracting
out $\phi_{\rm sym}$. The figure illustrates that it is not possible for all
progenitors with $M>M_{0}/2$ to have binary-paired progenitors of mass
$M_{0}-M<M_{0}/2$. In particular, we find that for sufficiently small look-
back times (e.g. $z=0.02$ used in Fig. 1), $\phi(M|M_{0})>\phi_{\rm
sym}(M|M_{0})$ when $M_{0}/2\leq M\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower
2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;0.97M_{0}$ and
$\phi(M|M_{0})<\phi_{\rm sym}(M|M_{0})$ when $M\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower
2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$>$}\;0.97M_{0}$ (see the pop-up in
Fig. 1). That is, there are slightly fewer progenitors with masses below
$M_{0}/2$ than above, except near the end points (below $0.03M_{0}$ and above
$0.97M_{0}$) where the trend is flipped.
Even though the asymmetry is typically small ( $\phi_{\rm asym}\la
0.1\,\phi_{\rm sym}$ out to $M_{0}-M_{\rm res}$), an accurate algorithm must
include non-binary progenitor events. These can be descendants with either a
single progenitor or multiple ($N_{p}>2$) progenitors, as will be seen in the
new algorithms discussed in §5 below. This fact was emphasized by Neistein &
Dekel (2008b). These authors construct a mass conserving consistent Monte
Carlo algorithm that produces a large number of non-binary descendants.
However, one intuitively expects that more mergers will be binary as
$z_{1}-z_{0}\rightarrow 0$. This intuition is supported by results from the
Millennium simulation (Fakhouri & Ma, 2008), which show that the binary
assumption becomes increasingly valid down to smaller $M_{\rm res}$ as
$z_{1}-z_{0}$ is made smaller. This result suggests that the Markovian nature
of the standard EPS model with a top-hat smoothing window may need to be
modified to account for the correlated sequences of mergers occurring in
simulations (Neistein & Dekel, 2008b; Zentner, 2007).
Figure 1: An illustration of the asymmetry in the number-weighted conditional
(or progenitor) mass function $\phi(M,z|M_{0},z_{0})$ of the spherical EPS
model for a descendant halo of mass $M_{0}=10^{13}M_{\odot}$ at $z_{0}=0$ and
a look-back redshift of $z-z_{0}=0.02$. The red dashed curve shows the
symmetric part of $\phi(M|M_{0})$, $\phi_{\rm sym}(M|M_{0})$, whose right side
is simply the reflection of the left side. The figure indicates that some
progenitors of masses larger than $M_{0}/2$ do not have companions in the
simplest binary scheme. The pop-up is a zoom-in on the right-most part of the
plot and illustrates that the red dashed curve exceeds the solid curve at
$M\approx 0.977M_{0}$.
### 3.3 Mass Resolution, Diffuse Accretion, and Mass Conservation in Monte
Carlo Algorithms
In the EPS model, all the mass in the universe is assumed to be in dark matter
halos444This is not exactly true in the ellipsoidal EPS model. See appendix A
of Sheth & Tormen 2002.. Although the mass-integral of the (unconditional)
mass function in this model is finite, the number-integral is unbounded; that
is, EPS predicts a preponderance of very low mass halos. Thus, any practical
Monte Carlo algorithm must necessarily assume a lower mass cutoff, the mass
resolution $M_{\rm res}$.
For a nonzero $M_{\rm res}$, a halo’s merger history at each time step can be
thought of consisting of mass in the form of resolvable progenitor halos and a
reservoir of mass due to “diffuse” accretion that is the aggregate
contribution from all sub-resolution progenitors. This technical distinction
is introduced for ease of implementing the Monte Carlo methods. It will,
however, play a more physical role when we compare the results with $N$-body
simulations, which has its own mass resolution as well as a possibly physical
diffuse component consisting of tidally stripped dark matter particles. In
this paper we use $\Delta M$ to denote this diffuse accretion component, which
we define to be
$\Delta M=M_{0}-\sum_{i}M_{i}\,,$ (9)
where $M_{i}$ are the masses of the progenitors above $M_{\rm res}$ and
$M_{0}$ is the mass of the descendant.
We call a Monte Carlo algorithm _mass conserving_ if each descendant and its
progenitors produced by the algorithm satisfies $\sum_{i}M_{i}\leq M_{0}$.
Monte Carlo algorithms are generally expected to be mass conserving, but we
note that this is not a necessary condition for reproducing the EPS progenitor
mass function because the latter is a statistical measure of merger
properties. In two of our new algorithms below (methods A and B in §5), a
small fraction of the descendants can have $\sum_{i}M_{i}>M_{0}$. We allow
this to simplify the description and implementation of our algorithms. We have
experimented with redistributing these excess progenitors among other
descendant halos in a mass-conserving manner and found it not to modify
significantly the resulting merger statistics. In addition, it may appear that
$\sum_{i}M_{i}>M_{0}$ is unphysical. We have found, however, that a non-
negligible fraction of halos in $N$-body simulations in fact have $\Delta
M<0$, perhaps as a result of tidal stripping. This point will be discussed in
greater detail in our next paper.
We note that for a Monte Carlo algorithm that is consistent with EPS, the mean
value of $\Delta M$ per descendant halo of mass $M_{0}$ (i.e., averaged over
all descendants in a given time-step) is, by construction, related to the mass
resolution by
$\langle\Delta M\rangle=\int_{0}^{M_{\rm res}}M\phi(M|M_{0})dM\,,$ (10)
For a given $\phi(M|M_{0})$ and $M_{\rm res}$, $\langle\Delta M\rangle$ is
therefore specified. The distribution of $\Delta M$, however, can differ
greatly among different algorithms; that is, there is much freedom in how to
assign the amount of diffuse accretion to individual descendants in a given
time-step. For instance, Cole et al. (2000) assumes a delta-function
distribution for $\Delta M$ (see §4.4 for details), while most of other
methods, including our new methods discussed in §5, have broader
distributions.
## 4 Comparison of Four Previous Monte Carlo Algorithms
In this section we examine four existing Monte Carlo algorithms for generating
merger trees: Lacey & Cole (1993) [LC93], Kauffmann & White (1993) [KW93],
Somerville & Kolatt (1999) [SK99], and Cole et al. (2000) [C00]. This set is
by no means complete, but these are four of the most frequently used
algorithms in the literature. The purpose here is to compare these well known
algorithms side-by-side and to illustrate the mass and redshift ranges for
which each method succeeds and fails in matching the spherical EPS model. This
not only benefits the current users of the methods, but also prepares us for
incorporating the ellipsoidal EPS model into the successful method (KW93),
which will be compared with our new methods in Sec. 5.
We review each algorithm in a subsection below and compare the resulting
progenitor mass functions $\phi(M|M_{0})$ with the spherical EPS prediction
for look-back redshifts ranging from 0.24 to 15. In Figs. 2-4 we plot the
progenitor mass functions produced by all four methods, along with the
analytical EPS prediction, on log-log plots for three descendant masses
($10^{12},10^{13},10^{14}M_{\odot}$) and four look-back times
($z_{1}-z_{0}=0.24,2.07,7$ and $15$). To ease comparison, we also plot the
ratio between each Monte Carlo result and the EPS prediction on a linear-log
plot. As Figs. 2-4 clearly show, of the four algorithms, only KW93 is able to
match the spherical EPS $\phi(M|M_{0})$ for all $z-z_{0}$. We will explore why
each algorithm fails below and discuss the care that must be taken when
implementing KW93. A summary of the four algorithms, their discrepancies, and
the causes of the discrepancies is given in Table 1.
In our Monte Carlo simulations, we generally keep track of all progenitors
down to $0.001M_{0}$ at each time step for a descendant halo of mass $M_{0}$.
This large dynamic range allows us to predict reliably the progenitor
abundance even for a very large look-back time ($z_{1}-z_{0}\sim 15$). To
speed up the algorithm, we take each time step to be a constant difference in
the barrier height $\Delta\omega(z)=\omega(z+\Delta z)-\omega(z)$ (where
$\Delta\omega\approx\Delta z$ at low $z$), which is chosen to be about $0.02$
for LC93, KW93, SK99, and $0.003$ for C00 at $z=0$. The progenitor mass
function of a given descendant halo mass is then identical for each time step
and does not have to be recomputed. Numerical convergence is tested by
changing the time-steps used in the simulation: our results do not change.
Algorithm | Overview | Discrepancy in progenitor mass function $\phi(M|M_{0})$ | Reasons for Discrepancies
---|---|---|---
LC93 | Binary and 1-to-1 | Overestimates $\phi(M|M_{0})$ by large factors when the look-back time is large, i.e. , $z_{1}-z_{0}\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$>$}\;1$ | Binary assumption fails to reproduce EPS $\phi(M|M_{0})$ asymmetry.
$\Delta M\leq M_{\rm res}$
KW93 | Multiple mergers | None |
$\Delta M\neq 0$
SK99 | Multiple mergers | Typically over-predicts the abundances of small progenitors ($\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;10\%$ of the descendant halo mass) by a factor of $\sim 2$ for $z_{1}-z_{0}\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;1$. This discrepancy propagates to smaller mass scales for larger look-back times. | Truncation of $\phi(M|M_{0})$ fails to reproduce its shape exactly.
$\Delta M\neq 0$ (can be bigger or smaller than $M_{\rm res}$)
C00 | Binary and 1-to-1 | Works reasonably well for a large range of the look-back time but significantly underestimates $\phi(M|M_{0})$ at high mass ends, particularly when the look back time is large ($z_{1}-z_{0}\gg 1$). | Binary assumption fails to capture asymmetry of EPS $\phi(M|M_{0})$; fixed $\Delta M$ yields 1-to-1 events that do not accurately reproduce the high mass end of $\phi(M|M_{0})$.
$\Delta M$ is a constant given by equation (12).
Table 1: A scorecard for the four old Monte Carlo algorithms discussed in §4.
We note that the 1-to-1 events in LC93 and C00 are actually binary mergers
involving a secondary progenitor with mass below $M_{\rm res}$. Since these
progenitors are below the resolution limit they are not counted as progenitors
but as diffuse mass $\Delta M$. Figure 2: Comparison of the progenitor (or
conditional) mass functions $\phi(M,z|M_{0},z_{0})$ that we generated using
the four previous Monte Carlo algorithms by LC93 (red solid), KW93 (orange
dot-dashed), SK99 (blue dashed), and C00 (green dotted), and the predictions
of the analytic spherical EPS model (black solid). The four panels show four
look-back redshifts ($z-z_{0}=0.24,2.07,7$ and 15) for a descendant halo of
$M_{0}=10^{12}M_{\odot}$ at $z_{0}=0$. For clarity, we plot in the sub-panel
below each panel the ratios of the Monte Carlo result and the EPS prediction.
One can see that KW93 is the only accurate algorithm for all $z$. Note that
different ranges of $M/M_{0}$ are shown in each panel since the progenitors
have progressively smaller masses at higher redshifts. Figure 3: Same as Fig.
2, but for a descendant halo of $10^{13}{\rm M}_{\odot}$. Figure 4: Same as
Fig. 2, but for a descendant halo of $10^{14}{\rm M}_{\odot}$.
### 4.1 Lacey & Cole (1993)
The algorithm proposed by LC93 makes two important assumptions: all mergers
are binary (before mass resolution is imposed), and the descendant mass
$M_{0}$ is the sum of the two progenitor masses $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ (where
$M_{1}\geq M_{2}$ in our convention). For each small look-back time step and
for each descendant, a progenitor mass is randomly chosen according to the
mass-weighted conditional mass function eq. (2), and the mass of the other
progenitor (which can be larger or smaller) is simply set to be the difference
between $M_{0}$ and the first chosen progenitor mass. If the less massive
progenitor $M_{2}$ falls below a chosen mass resolution $M_{\rm res}$, or
equivalently, $M_{1}>M_{0}-M_{\rm res}$, then $M_{1}$ is kept but $M_{2}$,
being a sub-resolution progenitor, is discarded. This results in single-
progenitor halos which we label as “$1\rightarrow 1$” events. In this
notation, binary mergers are “$2\rightarrow 1$” events. When a smaller time-
step is used in LC93, the ratio of $2\rightarrow 1$ to $1\rightarrow 1$ events
decreases.
We find that random progenitor masses can be easily generated using the
parameter transformation:
$x={\rm erf}\left\\{\Delta\omega/\sqrt{2[S(M_{1})-S(M_{0})]}\right\\}\,.$ (11)
The parameter $x$ has a uniform probability distribution between 0 and 1 and
can be quickly generated using any random-number generator. A simple inversion
then yields progenitors distributed according to the mass-weighted conditional
mass function.
The red solid histograms and curves in Fig. 2 – 4 compare the progenitor mass
functions generated using the LC93 algorithm with the predictions of the
spherical EPS model (solid black curves). For all three descendant halo masses
shown ($10^{12},10^{13}$ and $10^{14}M_{\odot}$), we see close agreement for
small look-back times such as $z_{1}-z_{0}=0.24$, but LC93 produces an excess
of progenitors at larger look-back times, and the discrepancy worsens,
reaching an order of magnitude by $z_{1}-z_{0}=15$. We believe this
discrepancy is due to the binary nature of LC93: the number of progenitors
with mass $M$ is equal to the number of binary companions of mass $M_{0}-M$.
Thus the LC93 Monte Carlo algorithm generates a progenitor mass function after
one time step that is symmetric in the left and right sides, which will not
match the asymmetric nature of the EPS $\phi(M|M_{0})$ discussed in Sec. 3.2
and shown in Fig. 1. This discrepancy is amplified after many time-steps when
the look-back time becomes large.
Finally, we note that the authors of LC93 also consider another way of drawing
the first progenitor mass from the mass-weighted conditional mass function,
which is to draw it from the mass range of $[M_{0}/2,M_{0}]$ instead of
$[0,M_{0}]$. In practice, we find that this slightly modified version of LC93
generates very similar results, and our above discussion is valid.
### 4.2 Kauffmann & White (1993)
For each time-step in the KW93 algorithm, a large number of progenitors are
generated across many progenitor mass bins for a fixed number of descendant
halos of the same mass. The number of progenitors in each mass bin is
determined by the progenitor mass function of the descendant halo mass, and
rounded to the nearest integer value. These progenitors are then assigned to
the descendant halos in order of decreasing progenitor mass. The target
descendant halo is chosen with a probability proportional to its available
mass (i.e. the mass not yet occupied by progenitors), and with the restriction
that the total mass of the progenitors in a descendant halo cannot exceed the
descendant mass. This procedure allows one to work out all the merger
configurations and their frequencies for one time step and for different
descendant halo masses. This information is then stored and used repeatedly
for determining the progenitors of a halo at each time step.
To speed up the implementation of KW93, we divide the look-back time into
steps with equal spacing in the barrier height $\Delta\omega$ as discussed
earlier. The progenitor mass function for a fixed descendant halo mass is then
identical for every time step and only has to be calculated once. We store the
ensemble of progenitors and their merger configurations for each descendant
halo mass bin. In a Monte Carlo simulation, we randomly select one merger
configuration from the many stored ones for a descendant halo at each time
step.
In practice, we find that extreme care must be taken to avoid numerical
problems in KW93. First of all, this algorithm requires a large number of
progenitor mass bins in the neighborhood of $M_{0}$ because $\phi(M|M_{0})$ is
sharply peaked near $M_{1}\sim M_{0}$ for small time-steps. Interestingly, we
find that if the mass range of $[M_{\rm res},M_{0}]$ is simply divided into
evenly-spaced logarithmic bins, this method is not accurate even when the
number of mass bins is as large as 2000, which already requires more than
$\sim 50000$ descendant halos to guarantee that the integer rounding does not
introduce a significant error to the progenitor number in each bin. As a
result, a large amount of computer memory is necessary to repeat this
procedure for descendant halos of different masses. The improved mass bin
configuration that we end up using will be introduced in §5. Using that setup,
we find that only 200 bins are required to reproduce accurately the EPS
progenitor mass function over large look-back times.
The second problem is that KW93’s scheme for assigning progenitors to
descendant halos is somewhat ambiguous and does not guarantee that all the
progenitors can be assigned. Fortunately, we find that this problem usually
does not arise when the ensemble of progenitors is large. For each descendant
halo mass, we use $\sim 8000$ descendant halos to determine the merger
configurations of the progenitors.
The orange dash-dotted curves in Fig. 2 \- 4 compare the progenitor mass
functions generated using the KW93 algorithm with the predictions of the
spherical EPS model (black). The results show very good agreement. Since KW93
reproduces the exact EPS progenitor mass function at every time-step, it is
expected to be consistent with EPS at any $z_{1}-z_{0}$ according to the
discussion in §3.1.
### 4.3 Somerville & Kolatt (1999)
Somerville & Kolatt (1999) [SK99] point out that the assumptions of binary
mergers and $M_{0}=M_{1}+M_{2}$ made in LC93 lead to an overestimate of the
progenitor abundance at high redshift. They first attempt to remedy this
problem by preserving the binary assumption while allowing the mass below the
resolution limit $M_{\rm res}$ to be counted as diffusely accreted mass
$\Delta M$ (see §3.3). They show, however, that this “binary tree with
accretion” method fails in the opposite direction, under-producing the
progenitor mass function relative to the spherical EPS prediction. This
discrepancy arises partly because whenever two progenitors are chosen in this
method, the remaining mass is assigned to $\Delta M$ regardless of whether it
is above or below $M_{\rm res}$. Thus the EPS $\phi(M|M_{0})$ is not
faithfully reproduced: the binary tree with accretion method yields an excess
of accreted mass and a corresponding shortage of low-mass halos.
SK99 then consider a natural extension of this method, in which both
assumptions made in LC93 are relaxed. In this “N-branch tree with accretion”
algorithm, each descendant halo is allowed to have more than two progenitors
for every simulation time-step. To guarantee that the total mass of the
progenitors does not exceed that of the descendant, each subsequent progenitor
mass is randomly chosen from the mass-weighted conditional mass function
truncated to the maximally possible progenitor mass. This procedure is
repeated until the descendant halo cannot contain any more progenitors with
masses above $M_{\rm res}$, and the remaining mass deficit is assigned to
diffuse accretion $\Delta M$.
The parameter transformation of eq. (11) is also applicable for SK99. The
probability distribution of $x$ is still uniform, but the upper limit of $x$
can now take on any value between 0 and 1 depending on where the conditional
mass function is truncated.
The blue dashed curves in Fig. 2 \- 4 compare the progenitor mass functions
generated using the N-branch tree algorithm of SK99 with the predictions of
the spherical EPS model (black). It is interesting to note that the sign of
the discrepancy is now opposite to that of LC93: SK99 produces an excess of
low-mass ($\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise
1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;0.1M_{0}$) progenitors by up to a factor of $\sim 2$ for
small look-back times, but it does a better job than LC93 at high redshifts.
However, it is noteworthy that even at high redshifts, discrepancies of up to
a factor of $\sim 2$ are still present for small progenitor masses.
We believe that the use of a truncated progenitor mass function in SK99 is at
least a partial cause for the over-prediction of small progenitors. Since the
distribution of progenitors (in particular, the upper limit for the progenitor
mass) depends on the sum of the masses of the progenitors already picked out
for the current halo, the _order_ in which progenitor halos are randomly
pulled out matters in this method. Halos more massive than the truncation
limit are effectively discarded instead of being randomly selected and placed
in, for example, new descendant halos. This procedure tends to preferentially
skew the progenitor mass function at small time steps towards more low mass
progenitors and fewer high mass progenitors.
### 4.4 Cole et al. (2000)
Similar to SK99, Cole et al. (2000) [C00] treats the mass in progenitors
smaller than the mass resolution $M_{\rm res}$ in the Monte Carlo simulation
as accreted mass, but unlike the N-branch tree model in SK99, only a maximum
of two progenitors are allowed per descendant. The amount of accreted mass
gained in one time-step, $\Delta M$, is fixed to a single value and is
calculated by integrating the mass-weighted conditional mass function from 0
to $M_{\rm res}$:
$\Delta M=\int_{0}^{M_{\rm res}}M\phi(M|M_{0})dM\,,$ (12)
where $M_{0}$ is the descendant mass. The progenitors are drawn from the lower
half of the progenitor mass function between $M_{\rm res}$ and $M_{0}/2$
according to the average number of progenitors in that range:
$p=\int_{M_{\rm res}}^{M_{0}/2}\phi(M|M_{0})dM\,.$ (13)
The simulation time-step is chosen to be small enough so that $p\ll 1$ (note
that it is for this reason that we use $\Delta z=0.003$ when implementing
C00).
The C00 merger tree is generated with the following steps: A random number $x$
between 0 and 1 determines whether a descendant halo has one progenitor (if
$x>p$) or two progenitors (if $x\leq p$). In the case of a single progenitor,
its mass is $M_{1}=M_{0}-\Delta M$. In the case of two progenitors, the mass
of the smaller progenitor, $M_{2}$, is chosen randomly between $M_{\rm res}$
and $M_{0}/2$ according to the progenitor mass function. The larger progenitor
is then assigned a mass of $M_{1}=M_{0}-M_{2}-\Delta M$. Since $p\ll 1$, most
descendants form via $1\rightarrow 1$ events rather than $2\rightarrow 1$
events. To improve the speed of this algorithm, we precompute and store the
binary merger rates and diffuse accretion mass fractions for a single time
step for different descendant mass bins.
The green dotted curves in Fig. 2 \- 4 compare the progenitor mass functions
generated using the C00 algorithm with the predictions of the spherical EPS
model (black). The agreement is noticeably better than LC93 and SK99. The
largest discrepancy occurs at the high mass end at large $z_{1}-z_{0}$, where
C00 under-predicts the progenitor number at $z_{1}$ by more than a factor of
two for group-to-cluster size descendants at $z_{0}$ with $M_{0}\ga
10^{13}M_{\odot}$.
At least two problems contribute to this discrepancy: (i) Since $\Delta M$ is
fixed to one value (eq. 12), the mass of the progenitor for $1\rightarrow 1$
descendants is also a fixed value: $M_{1}=M_{0}-\Delta M$. This is an over-
simplification that compresses the high mass end of $\phi(M|M_{0})$ into a
delta function. (ii) For descendants with binary progenitors, C00 uses the
spherical EPS conditional mass function only in the lower mass range
$[0,M_{0}/2]$ to generate the progenitor abundance. By construction, then, the
shape of the progenitor mass function in the upper mass range,
$[M_{0}/2,M_{0}]$, is symmetric with the lower half and fails to match
accurately the asymmetric EPS $\phi(M|M_{0})$.
## 5 Three Consistent Monte Carlo Algorithms
In this section, we present three Monte Carlo algorithms that all satisfy the
criterion for consistency discussed in §3.1 and will therefore accurately
reproduce the EPS progenitor mass function $\phi(M|M_{0})$. We introduce the
common setup for our methods in §5.1 and discuss in detail how each method
assigns the ensemble of progenitors to descendants in §5.2 – 5.4.
To help the reader follow our discussions, we provide a summary of the
breakdown of the merger configurations for the three new algorithms in Table 3
and the accompanying Fig. 6.
Although the standard practice in the community has been to generate merger
trees using the spherical EPS model, we emphasize that the Monte Carlo
algorithms can be applied to the ellipsoidal EPS model as well. In fact, since
the ellipsoidal model matches the unconditional mass function in simulations
better than the spherical model, we would expect the ellipsoidal EPS to also
match better the progenitor statistics in simulations. We will therefore
present our results for both the spherical and ellipsoidal EPS models in
parallel below.
### 5.1 The Common Setup
#### 5.1.1 Basic Features
Our Monte Carlo algorithms for growing consistent merger trees all share the
following implementation framework. We begin at redshift 0 and build the
merger tree backwards in cosmic time. We typically choose a large descendant
halo mass range ($M_{0}=[10^{6}M_{\odot},10^{15}M_{\odot}]$) and a small
simulation time-step ($\Delta z\approx 0.02$ at low $z$; see discussion below)
to achieve a high resolution tree and a large dynamic range in the progenitor
mass. For a given descendant halo, we first compute which mass bin it belongs
to, and then obtain its progenitors across a single time-step using the
distribution of merger configurations specific to each algorithm (described in
the next three subsections). The progenitors then become descendants in the
next time-step, and this process is repeated to build up the higher tree
branches.
To be specific, a merger configuration here is defined as a set of progenitor
masses that form a descendant halo of a given mass in one time-step. For
example, for a descendant halo of mass $M_{0}$, one merger configurations may
include only two progenitors of mass $0.6M_{0}$ and $0.4M_{0}$, while another
may contain three progenitors of mass $0.4M_{0}$, $0.3M_{0}$, and $0.2M_{0}$.
Note that the sum of the progenitor mass in each configuration need not equal
the descendant mass, and the deficit, $\Delta M$, is implicitly attributed to
sub-resolution progenitors (see §3.3). Different Monte Carlo algorithms have
different distributions of merger configurations and progenitor multiplicities
for each descendant bin. For convenience, we call the most massive progenitor
in a merger configuration the primary progenitor, and the rest of the
progenitors the secondary progenitors.
Our basic implementation is applicable to both the spherical and ellipsoidal
EPS models. We find a particularly efficient choice of time-step to be the one
corresponding to a constant difference in the barrier height
$\Delta\omega(z)=\omega(z+\Delta z)-\omega(z)$, as is used in §4 for the four
old algorithms. For the spherical case, the progenitor mass function eq. (3)
depends on time only through $\Delta\omega(z)$ and is therefore identical for
all redshifts when the same $\Delta\omega(z)$ is used. Thus we only have to
generate the merger configurations in the spherical case across a single time-
step once. For the ellipsoidal case, however, the progenitor mass function eq.
(2.2) not only is a function of $\Delta\omega(z)$ but also depends explicitly
on $z$. For each Monte Carlo algorithm, it is therefore necessary to generate
and store the merger configurations and their probabilities for both
descendant halos of different masses and several redshift bins. In practice,
since the redshift dependence of eq. (2.2) is weak, typically fewer than $\sim
20$ redshift bins are required.
#### 5.1.2 Important Progenitor Mass Scales
A number of natural mass boundaries play critical roles in the construction of
our algorithms. These mass scales demarcate the regions with different
progenitor multiplicities, as illustrated in Fig. 6 and discussed in detail in
the next three subsections.
(i) The resolution scale $M_{\rm res}$ and its complement $M_{0}-M_{\rm res}$
are two obvious boundaries, as is the half descendant mass $M_{0}/2$ discussed
in the context of binary mergers in Sec. 3.2. We generally choose a small
$M_{\rm res}$ (typically $M_{\rm res}=0.001M_{0}$) for numerical precision and
keep track of all the progenitors down to this limit at each time-step.
(ii) The mass $\alpha M_{0}$ given by
$\int_{\alpha M_{0}}^{M_{0}}\phi(M|M_{0})\,dM=1\,$ (14)
defines the range of progenitor mass over which every descendant halo is
guaranteed to have one progenitor with $M\in[\alpha M_{0},M_{0}]$. Table 2
lists the values of $\alpha$ for both the spherical and ellipsoidal progenitor
mass functions for three descendant masses; $\alpha$ is seen to range from
0.361 to 0.448.
(iii) The mass $\mu M_{0}$ demarcates where the asymmetric progenitor mass
function self-intersects: $\phi(\mu M_{0}|M_{0})=\phi(M_{0}-\mu M_{0}|M_{0})$
with $\mu>0.5$. For binary merger configurations of the form
$M_{0}=M_{1}+M_{2}$, $\phi(M_{1}|M_{0})>\phi(M_{2}|M_{0})$ when $M_{1}<\mu
M_{0}$ and $\phi(M_{2}|M_{0})>\phi(M_{1}|M_{0})$ when $M_{1}>\mu M_{0}$. This
mass scale is illustrated in the pop-up in Fig. 1. Table 2 shows that
$\mu\approx 0.956$ to 0.977.
Fig. 5 shows $\alpha$ and $\mu$ as functions of the look-back time $\Delta z$
for three descendant halo masses ($10^{12}M_{\odot}$, $10^{13}M_{\odot}$,
$10^{14}M_{\odot}$) at redshift zero. According to the figure, $\alpha$ and
$\mu$ have well defined constant values when $\Delta z$ is less than about
$0.05$, a natural upper limit of time step-size for a Monte Carlo simulation
to achieve convergence in both the spherical and ellipsoidal EPS models.
Figure 5: $\alpha$ and $\mu$ as functions of the look-back time $\Delta z$ at
redshift zero. The red solid, blue dotted, and black dashed curves are for
descendant halos of $10^{12}M_{\odot}$, $10^{13}M_{\odot}$, and
$10^{14}M_{\odot}$ respectively. The label in each plot indicates the quantity
($\alpha$ or $\mu$) shown and the EPS model (spherical or ellipsoidal) used.
Figure 6: A schematic summary of how the three new algorithms proposed in this
paper assign progenitors to descendants in a single time-step (see §5). The
regions are shaded according to the progenitor multiplicity (marked by
$N_{p}\rightarrow 1$) and the mass ranges. See Table 3 for a description of
each shaded region and the fraction of descendants that belongs to each
region. The numbers quoted in this plot are from the ellipsoidal EPS model.
The axes are in arbitrary units, though the horizontal axis is drawn to be
symmetric about $M_{0}/2$ and the vertical axis is assumed to be logarithmic.
Important characteristic progenitor masses are labeled on the horizontal axis
(see §5.1.2 for discussion). The dashed line in panel A plots $\phi_{\rm
sym}$, the reflection of the left side of $\phi(M|M_{0})$.
#### 5.1.3 Mass Bins
To help the reader reproduce our Monte Carlo algorithms, we discuss our
distribution of mass bins.
We divide the descendant mass range $10^{6}\leq M_{0}\leq 10^{15}M_{\odot}$
into $\sim 100$ logarithmic descendant bins. Halos that fall into the same
descendant bin are assumed to have the same distribution of single-time-step
merger configurations that are computed using the central (in logarithmic
scale) value of the bin as the descendant mass. The progenitor masses in a
merger configuration are recorded in the form of ratios to the descendant halo
mass, instead of their absolute masses. This allows us to correct for the
(small) difference between the descendant halo in question and the central
mass of its bin.
For a given descendant mass $M_{0}$, its progenitor mass range $[M_{\rm
res},M_{0}]$ is divided into a certain number of mass bins to facilitate the
process of forming merger configurations. Interestingly, we note that simply
dividing the whole progenitor mass range into evenly spaced logarithmic bins
is not accurate, as discussed in §4.2. This is because the simplest
logarithmic binning assigns very few bins to the mass range of
$[M_{0}/2,M_{0}]$, which requires many mass bins to sample accurately the
shape of the sharply peaked (at around $M_{0}$) progenitor mass function for a
small time-step. To give the peaked region more fine structures, we find a
simple way: the mass range of $[M_{\rm res},M_{0}/2]$ is divided into evenly
spaced logarithmic bins, and its reflection about the mid point $M_{0}/2$
determines the binning on the right side of the mid point. Mathematically, it
can be stated as follows: The progenitor mass range $[M_{\rm res},M_{0}]$ is
divided into $2N+1$ logarithmic mass bins. The $i^{th}$ ($i=0,1,2,...,2N$) bin
spans $[M^{i+1},M^{i}]$, where $M^{i}$ is defined as follows:
$M^{i}=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}M_{0}&\mbox{if $i=0$};\\\ \exp\left[\ln
M_{\rm res}+\Delta\times(2N+1-i)\right]&\mbox{if $i\geq N+1$};\\\
M_{0}-M^{2N+2-i}&\mbox{if $1\leq i\leq N$}.\end{array}\right.$
and $\Delta=(\ln(M_{0}/2)-\ln M_{\rm res})/N$.
The average number of progenitors (per descendant halo) in the $i^{th}$ bin is
called $N^{i}$, which is equal to $\int_{M^{i+1}}^{M^{i}}\phi(M|M_{0})dM$.
Note that $N^{i}$ is not an integer. For $i\geq 1$, we choose the mean mass
$\bar{M}^{i}$ of the $i^{th}$ bin to be $\sqrt{M^{i}M^{i+1}}$. The progenitor
mass function often changes rapidly across the $0^{th}$ bin so we do not
assign it a mean mass. Instead, whenever a progenitor of the $0^{th}$ bin is
needed, we generate a probabilistic progenitor mass according to the
progenitor mass function inside this bin.
| Spherical EPS | Ellipsoidal EPS (z=0)
---|---|---
$M_{0}$ ($M_{\odot}$) | $10^{12}$ | $10^{13}$ | $10^{14}$ | $10^{12}$ | $10^{13}$ | $10^{14}$
$\alpha$ | 0.421 | 0.448 | 0.435 | 0.361 | 0.384 | 0.372
$\mu$ | 0.977 | 0.977 | 0.970 | 0.974 | 0.970 | 0.956
Table 2: Values of the progenitor mass scales $\alpha$ and $\mu$ discussed in §5.1.2 for the spherical and ellipsoidal EPS models for three descendant masses ($10^{12}$, $10^{13}$, and $10^{14}M_{\odot}$) and $\Delta z=0.02$, where $\alpha M_{0}$ is defined such that $\int_{\alpha M_{0}}^{M_{0}}\phi(M|M_{0})\,dM=1$ and $\mu M_{0}$ is defined such that $\phi(\mu M_{0}|M_{0})=\phi(M_{0}-\mu M_{0}|M_{0})$ with $\mu\neq 0.5$. Method | $N_{p}$ | $\%$ Desc. | $\%$ Desc. | Description | Key
---|---|---|---|---|---
| | (spher.) | (ellip.) | |
A | $0\rightarrow 1$ | 0.3% | 0.4% | Descendants with no progenitors because $\int_{M_{0}/2}^{M_{0}}\phi\,dM<1$ | N/A
| $1\rightarrow 1$ | 60% | 69% | $M_{1}\in[M_{0}-M_{\rm res},M_{0}]$: binary-turned-singles due to $M_{2}<M_{\rm res}$ |
| $1\rightarrow 1$ | 0.8% | 0.4% | $M_{1}\in[M_{0}/2,\mu M_{0}]$: $\phi_{\rm sym}<\phi$ results in unpaired primary progenitors: $\Delta M>M_{\rm res}$ |
| $2\rightarrow 1$ | 21% | 12% | $M_{1}\in[M_{0}/2,\mu M_{0}]$ and $M_{0}=M_{1}+M_{2}$: binary pairs generated from $\phi_{\rm sym}$ |
| $3+\\!\rightarrow 1$ | 18% | 18% | $M_{1}\in[\mu M_{0},M_{0}-M_{\rm res}]$: $\phi_{\rm sym}>\phi$ results in excess secondary progenitors. $M_{0}<M_{1}+M_{2}+M_{3}+...$ |
B | $1\rightarrow 1$ | 60% | 69% | $M_{1}\in[M_{0}-M_{\rm res},M_{0}]$: binary-turned-singles due to $M_{2}<M_{\rm res}$ |
| $2\rightarrow 1$ | 20% | 14% | Binary paired progenitors generated by the iterative algorithm of §5.3: $M_{0}\geq M_{1}+M_{2}$ |
| $3+\rightarrow 1$ | 20% | 17% | $M_{1}\in[\mu M_{0},M_{0}-M_{\rm res}]$: identical to $3+\\!\rightarrow 1$ configuration in method A |
C | $1\rightarrow 1$ | 60% | 69% | $M_{1}\in[M_{0}-M_{\rm res},M_{0}]$: binary-turned-singles due to $M_{2}<M_{\rm res}$ |
| $1\rightarrow 1$ | 35% | 29% | All secondary progenitors have already been assigned to smaller primary progenitors: these remaining primary progenitors have $\Delta M>M_{\rm res}$ |
| $3\rightarrow 1$ | 0.1% | 0.01% | Merger configurations with 3 progenitors |
| $4\rightarrow 1$ | 2% | 0.3% | Merger configurations with 4 progenitors |
| $5+\rightarrow 1$ | 2.9% | 1.7% | Merger configurations with 5 or more progenitors |
KW93 | $1\rightarrow 1$ | 60% | 69% | $M_{1}\in[M_{0}-M_{\rm res},M_{0}]$: binary-turned-singles due to $M_{2}<M_{\rm res}$ | N/A
| $1\rightarrow 1$ | 15% | 9% | Merger configurations with a single progenitor with $M_{1}<M_{0}-M_{\rm res}$ | N/A
| $2\rightarrow 1$ | 11% | 9% | Merger configurations with 2 progenitors | N/A
| $3+\rightarrow 1$ | 14% | 13% | Merger configurations with 3 or more progenitors | N/A
Table 3: A summary of our three new Monte Carlo methods discussed in §5 and
the method of KW93. The percentages indicate the fractions of descendants with
$N_{p}$ progenitors in a given method, computed for $M_{0}=10^{13}M_{\odot}$
and $M_{\rm res}=0.001M_{0}$ for a single time-step $\Delta z=0.02$ in both
the spherical and ellipsoidal EPS models. They are representative of the
merger configuration distributions for other descendant halo masses $M_{0}$.
Figure 7: Comparison of the progenitor (or conditional) mass functions
$\phi(M,z|M_{0},z_{0})$ generated using the three new Monte Carlo algorithms
introduced in §5: A (red solid), B (green dashed), and C (blue dotted), and
the predictions of the spherical EPS model (black solid). The four panels show
four look-back redshifts ($z-z_{0}=0.24,2.07,7,15$) for a descendant halo of
mass $10^{13}M_{\odot}$ at $z_{0}=0$. For clarity, we plot in the sub-panel
below each panel the ratios of the Monte Carlo result and the EPS prediction.
All three algorithms are seen to match very closely the spherical EPS
prediction at all redshifts. At $z=7$ and 15, the slight underestimates of the
progenitor abundances at $M/M_{0}\la 10^{-4}$ are primarily due to the fact
that we trace a halo’s progenitors only down to 0.001 of the halo mass in each
small time-step in our Monte Carlo simulations. Figure 8: Same as Fig. 7
except both the Monte Carlo and analytic results are now generated from the
ellipsoidal instead of the standard spherical EPS model. The Monte Carlo
methods use eq. (2.2) as the progenitor mass function for each time step. The
analytic results are calculated using the integral equation proposed by Zhang
& Hui (2006). The agreement is again excellent, indicating that our new Monte
Carlo algorithms work well in reproducing the EPS progenitor mass function
regardless if the EPS model is based on constant (i.e. spherical collapse) or
moving barrier (ellipsoidal) random walks. For completeness, we include the
results from the ellipsoidal version of the KW93 method (orange dash-dotted).
At z=0.24, the slight progenitor overabundance at the low mass end is due to
the approximate nature of eq. 2.2. At z=7 and 15, the slight underestimates of
the progenitor abundances are due to both the mass resolution issue as stated
in the caption of Fig. 7 and the barrier intersection problem of the
ellipsoidal EPS model, which prevents us from tracing progenitors that are
much smaller than the typical halo mass of the same redshift.
### 5.2 Method A
We first attempt to resolve the asymmetry problem in the EPS progenitor mass
function $\phi(M|M_{0})$ by assuming that the primary progenitors in the
symmetric part $\phi_{\rm sym}$ in eq. (8) are paired up with secondary
progenitors to form binary mergers such that $M_{0}=M_{1}+M_{2}$. This is done
so long as the smaller progenitor is above the mass resolution of the Monte
Carlo simulation, i.e. $M_{2}\geq M_{\rm res}$ and $M_{1}\leq M_{0}-M_{\rm
res}$. If $M_{2}<M_{\rm res}$, then the second progenitor is discarded and
$M_{1}$ is assumed to be a single progenitor (the darkest grey region marked
$1\rightarrow 1$ in Fig. 6 A). The remaining primary progenitors in the
asymmetric part $\phi_{\rm asym}$ are assumed not to pair up, i.e. each
descendant halo has a single progenitor (the lightest grey region marked
$1\rightarrow 1$ in Fig. 6 A).
In practice, we generate the merger configurations of a descendant halo of
mass $M_{0}$ at each time step by repeating these two simple steps:
(i) Draw the primary progenitor mass $M_{1}$ from the mass range
$[M_{0}/2,M_{0}]$ of the progenitor mass function.
(ii) If $M_{1}>M_{0}-M_{\rm res}$, no more progenitors are generated; if
$M_{1}\leq M_{0}-M_{\rm res}$, the probability of having a second progenitor
of mass $M_{2}=M_{0}-M_{1}$ is set to
$r=\frac{\phi_{\rm
sym}(M_{1}|M_{0})}{\phi(M_{1}|M_{0})}=\frac{\phi(M_{0}-M_{1}|M_{0})}{\phi(M_{1}|M_{0})}\,.$
(15)
Then, drawing a random number $x$ between 0 and 1 allows us to determine
whether a secondary progenitor should be generated. If $x<r$, $M_{2}$ is
assigned as a secondary progenitor; otherwise $M_{1}$ is left as the sole
progenitor.
We point out two subtleties with this algorithm. First, $r$ is not always
$\leq 1$. It is true that $r$ is below 1 for most of the relevant mass range
$M_{1}\in[M_{0}/2,\mu M_{0}]$ (see Fig. 6 A and Table 2) since the left side
of $\phi(M|M_{0})$ is slightly lower than the right side. But when $M_{1}>\mu
M_{0}$, we find that $r\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise
1.5pt\hbox{$>$}\;1$, implying that on average more than one secondary
progenitors should be generated to couple with the primary progenitor $M_{1}$,
and we must generate merger configurations with multiple progenitors. To
accommodate this feature, for each $M_{1}$ that satisfies $M_{1}\in[\mu
M_{0},M_{0}-M_{\rm res}]$, we generate555Here $\mathrm{int}(r)$ is defined to
be the largest integer $n$ that satisfies $n\leq r$. either $\mathrm{int}(r)$
or $\mathrm{int}(r)+1$ secondary progenitors of mass $M_{0}-M_{1}$ according
to whether a random number between 0 and 1 is larger or smaller than
$r-\mathrm{int}(r)$. Note that the resulting merger configurations do not
conserve mass exactly because the sum of the progenitor masses is slightly
larger than the descendant mass. Typically most of these configurations only
end up with 3 or 4 progenitors as $r\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower
2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;2$ for $M_{1}\;\hbox
to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;0.999M_{0}$ and
$\Delta z\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise
1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;0.02$.
The second subtlety with method A is that since the total number of
progenitors in the mass range of $[M_{0}/2,M_{0}]$ (which is equal to
$\int_{M_{0}/2}^{M_{0}}\phi(M|M_{0})dM$) is always slightly smaller than one
(typically by 0.2% to 0.4% for $\Delta z=0.02$; recall from Table 2 that
$\alpha M_{0}<M_{0}/2$), it is possible that we sometimes cannot assign any
progenitors to a given descendant halo. When this happens, the descendant halo
does not have any progenitor halos and is a ”$0\rightarrow 1$ event”.
For a thorough description of our algorithm A, we list below all the possible
merger configurations and their frequencies of occurrence for descendant halos
at $z=0$ over a single simulation time-step $\Delta z=0.02$ and mass
resolution $M_{\rm res}=0.001M_{0}$. This information is also summarized in
Table 3 and Fig. 6. In general, the relative frequencies of different merger
configurations are insensitive to the descendant mass $M_{0}$ but do depend on
the $\Delta z$ and $M_{\rm res}$ used in the Monte Carlo simulation. For
example, the fraction of $1\rightarrow 1$ events increases as $\Delta z$
decreases; and if $M_{\rm res}$ is chosen to be larger than $(1-\mu)M_{0}\sim
0.03M_{0}$, then there are no $3\rightarrow 1$ or $4\rightarrow 1$ mergers at
each time-step and mass conservation is exactly respected.
I. About 12% in the ellipsoidal model (21% for spherical) of descendant halos
have two progenitors each. These are binary pairs drawn from the symmetric
part of the progenitor mass function $\phi_{\rm sym}$, where
$M_{1}\in[M_{0}/2,\mu M_{0}]$ and $M_{0}=M_{1}+M_{2}$ (Fig. 6 ).
II. About 69% (60%) of descendant halos have only one progenitor each. The
majority ($\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise
1.5pt\hbox{$>$}\;99\%$) of these descendants originally have binary
progenitors but the smaller progenitor is discarded since $M_{2}<M_{\rm res}$
(i.e. $M_{1}\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise
1.5pt\hbox{$>$}\;M_{0}-M_{\rm res}$) (Fig. 6 ). The rest ($\;\hbox
to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;1\%$) of these
descendant have progenitors with $M_{1}\in[M_{0}/2,\mu M_{0}]$ and originate
from the small asymmetric part $\phi_{\rm asym}$ of the progenitor mass
function where $r<1$ (Fig. 6 ).
III. About 18% of descendant halos have three or four progenitors each,
typically consisting of one massive progenitor and two or three very small
secondary progenitors ($\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower 2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise
1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;(1-\mu)M_{0}\sim 0.03M_{0}$). These have $M_{1}\in[\mu
M_{0},M_{0}-M_{\rm res}]$ (Fig. 6 ).
IV. About 0.4% (0.3%) of the descendants have no progenitors due to the sharp
cutoff of the primary progenitor mass at $M_{0}/2$ discussed above.
The red solid curves in Fig. 7 compare the progenitor mass functions from this
Monte Carlo algorithm with the analytic eq. (3) of the spherical EPS model.
Fig. 8 shows the same thing except everything is for the ellipsoidal EPS
model, where we use eq. (2.2) to compute the progenitor mass function for each
small simulation time-step. Both figures show excellent agreement ($<10\%$
deviation) at $z_{1}-z_{0}=0.24$, 2.07, 7, and 15 for a descendant halo of
mass $10^{13}M_{\odot}$ at $z_{0}=0$. We have tested other descendant masses
($10^{12}M_{\odot}\la M_{0}\la 10^{14}M_{\odot}$) and found equally good
agreement. This agreement also provides numerical verification of the
criterion introduced in §3.1.
### 5.3 Method B
Two features in method A may seem unnatural. First, as shown in Table 3 and
discussed in the previous section, a small fraction ($\sim 0.3\%$ to 0.4%) of
the descendant halos in method A are not assigned any progenitors in one time-
step because $\int_{M_{0}/2}^{M_{0}}\phi(M|M_{0})dM\approx 0.997$ (for $\Delta
z=0.02$ and a large range of $M_{0}$) and is not exactly unity. It is
important to note that though these descendants are rare, one cannot remove
them from method A by modifying the normalization of $\phi(M|M_{0})$ in the
mass range of $[M_{0}/2,M_{0}]$, as such a modification is amplified with
iterations and leads to a large error in $\phi(M|M_{0})$ after many time-
steps.
Second, due to the asymmetry in the EPS $\phi(M|M_{0})$, we have assigned a
small fraction (0.4% to 0.8% for parameters used in Table 3) of the descendant
halos to $1\rightarrow 1$ events. There is therefore a small chance that a
progenitor of mass comparable to half of the descendant mass does not have any
companions, corresponding to a large deficit between the mass of the
descendant halo and the total mass of its progenitors.
The first feature can be avoided by decreasing the lower limit of the mass
range from which the primary progenitor is drawn from $M_{0}/2$ to $\alpha
M_{0}$, where $\alpha$ is defined in eq. (14) and ranges from $\alpha\approx
0.36$ to $0.45$ in Table 2. The second feature can be altered by distributing
the secondary progenitors in a slightly different way. These options motivate
us to invent Method B with the following set up:
1. We assume the primary progenitor mass lies in the mass range $[\alpha M_{0},M_{0}]$. This condition guarantees that every descendant halo has a primary progenitor of mass $>\alpha M_{0}$ due to the definition of $\alpha$.
2. We then assign secondary progenitors to primary progenitors from the left side of $\alpha M_{0}$. For simplicity, whenever possible, we make only binary configurations, each of which contains one primary and one secondary progenitor. We start with the primary and secondary progenitor bins that share the $\alpha M_{0}$ boundary (i.e. nearly equal-mass pairs) and work our way outwards to the $M_{1}\gg M_{2}$ pairs. This is a natural decision as this way of pairing the primary and secondary masses minimizes the difference between $M_{0}$ and $M_{1}+M_{2}$. Specifically, for a given $M_{1}$ bin, we determine its binary companion’s mass $M_{2}$ from
$\int_{M_{2}}^{\alpha M_{0}}\phi(M|M_{0})\,dM=\int_{\alpha
M_{0}}^{M_{1}}\phi(M|M_{0})\,dM\,,$ (16)
which guarantees that we always have an equal number of secondary progenitors
to pair up with the primary halos. Note that since $\alpha<0.5$ it is
generally true that $M_{0}>M_{1}+M_{2}$.
3. One caveat with step 2 above is that this simple binary pairing scheme works for a large range of masses but needs to be modified near the end points when $M_{1}$ is close to $M_{0}$ and $M_{2}\ll M_{1}$. This is because the scheme starts out with nearly equal-mass pairs at $M_{1}\sim M_{2}\sim\alpha M_{0}$ and $M_{1}+M_{2}<M_{0}$, and the asymmetric shape of the progenitor mass function is such that the method produces pairs with increasing $M_{1}+M_{2}$ as we move outward from $\alpha M_{0}$. The equality $M_{1}+M_{2}=M_{0}$ is reached when $M_{1}$ is slightly larger than $\mu M_{0}$ (typically at $0.99M_{0}$), beyond which there are more secondary progenitors left to be paired than the primary ones. We therefore stop the binary pairing when $M_{1}+M_{2}=M_{0}$ is reached. From this point on, we instead use the same multiple merger configurations as in method A. For simplicity in the following few paragraphs, we denote this transitional $M_{1}$ as $\mu^{\prime}M_{0}$.
In summary, methods A and B are closely related and are compared side-by-side
in Table 3 and Fig. 6. They have identical merger configurations in the
following regions:
I. The high-$M_{1}$ region $M_{1}\in[M_{0}-M_{\rm res},M_{0}]$, where 60% to
70% of descendant halos belong. The secondary progenitor is below $M_{\rm
res}$, so $M_{1}$ is effectively the sole progenitor (i.e. $N_{p}=1$) for
these descendants
II. The region $M_{1}\in[\mu^{\prime}M_{0},M_{0}-M_{\rm res}]$ ($\mu^{\prime}$
replaced by $\mu$ in method A), where 17% to 20% of descendant halos belong.
These descendants all each have 3 or more progenitors ($N_{p}=3+$).
Methods A and B differ in the following regions:
III. The binary pairing algorithm used in method B removes the sliver of
$1\rightarrow 1$ configurations in the $M_{1}\in[M_{0}/2,\mu M_{0}]$ region in
method A () and redistributes the binary merger configurations in this region
() to yield a robust set of binary configurations between $\alpha M_{0}\leq
M_{1}\leq\mu^{\prime}M_{0}$ (). This affects $\sim 20$% of the descendant
halos.
IV. Since the primary progenitor mass range extends down to $\alpha M_{0}$
instead of $M_{0}/2$, method B does not have any of the $0\rightarrow 1$
configurations that are present in method A.
The green dashed curves in Figs. 7 and 8 compare the progenitor mass functions
from method B with the analytic predictions of the spherical and ellipsoidal
EPS models, respectively. The agreement is again excellent ($<10\%$ deviation)
at $z_{1}-z_{0}=0.24$, 2.07, 7, and 15 for a descendant halo of mass
$10^{13}M_{\odot}$ at $z_{0}=0$.
Finally, we note that mass is not strictly conserved for the multiple merger
configurations generated in the $M_{1}\in[\mu M_{0},M_{0}-M_{\rm res}]$ region
of method A and the $M_{1}\in[\mu^{\prime}M_{0},M_{0}-M_{\rm res}]$ region of
method B (Fig. 6 , ). These configurations have more than one companion of
mass $M_{0}-M_{1}$, making the total mass of the progenitors slightly above
the descendant halo mass. This issue is due to the rapid rise of the
progenitor number as the secondary progenitor mass approaches zero. In
principle, the small progenitors ($\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower
2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$<$}\;(1-\mu)M_{0}$) that are causing
this problem can be re-distributed and combined, e.g. , with progenitors in
some of the $1\rightarrow 1$ and $0\rightarrow 1$ merger configurations in
method A, or with some binary configurations of total masses smaller than the
descendant mass in method B, to form multiple merger configurations that obey
mass conservation (this, in fact, is what happens in method C below, where
mass conservation is strictly respected). We have checked that this can be
done successfully without violating mass conservation down to very small
$M_{\rm res}$ and find that in practice, these modifications do not introduce
significant changes to the statistical properties of the halo merger
histories. We have therefore chosen to present the simpler version of each
model. It is also worth noting that in the EPS theory, mass conservation only
has to be obeyed statistically and is not required for individual merger
configurations.
### 5.4 Method C (Multiple Mergers)
As shown in Table 3, methods A and B both produce comparable number of
descendants with binary ($N_{p}=2$) and multiple ($N_{p}=3+$) progenitors in a
single time-step. The importance of multiple merger configurations have been
emphasized by a number of authors (e.g., Kauffmann & White 1993; Somerville &
Kolatt 1999; Neistein & Dekel 2008b). It is therefore interesting to explore
the relative importance of binary vs multiple mergers by relaxing the binary
assumption. Our method C is designed for this purpose. More specifically, this
method does not have any restrictions on the number of progenitors in each
merger configuration. We only require that the total progenitor mass of every
merger configuration be smaller than (or equal to) the descendant halo mass.
We now describe method C:
1. To prevent the formation of $0\rightarrow 1$ merger configurations we mimic the setup of method B and choose to draw primary progenitors from the mass range $M_{1}\in[\alpha M_{0},M_{0}]$. Thus methods B and C share the same distribution of primary and secondary progenitor mass bins.
2. As with method B, we form merger configurations by assigning secondary progenitors to progenitors in primary bins. Every primary bin starts with one merger configuration: that which contains only the primary progenitor itself, and has a probability $N_{\rm conf}$ equal to the number of primary progenitors in the bin. The assignment of secondary progenitors to primary bins is done in order of decreasing secondary progenitor mass. For each secondary bin, we scan the primary bins in order of increasing primary progenitor mass to find configurations with room to hold _at least_ one secondary progenitor from the bin in question (recall that we require the sum of progenitor masses to never exceed the descendant mass).
3. When a valid configuration is found, we always assign the _maximal_ number of secondary progenitors to that configuration. For example, suppose we start to assign secondary progenitors from a bin with central mass $M_{2}$ (say there are $N_{2}$ such progenitors in this bin), and find a valid configuration of probability $N_{\rm conf}$ and total progenitor mass $M_{tot}$. The maximum number $n_{max}$ of secondary progenitors that can be added into each realization of this configuration is equal to $\mathrm{int}[(M_{0}-M_{tot})/M_{2}]$. Therefore, we can maximally assign $N_{max}=n_{max}\times N_{\rm conf}$ secondary progenitors to this configuration.
I. If $N_{max}>N_{2}$, we break the configuration into two: one contains the
original set of progenitors, with a probability equal to
$(1-N_{2}/N_{max})\times N_{\rm conf}$; the other contains the original set of
progenitors plus $n_{max}$ secondary progenitors of mass $M_{2}$, with a
probability equal to $(N_{2}/N_{max})\times N_{\rm conf}$. In this case all
the secondary progenitors of the current secondary bin are assigned.
II. If $N_{max}\leq N_{2}$ we simply add the $n_{max}$ secondary progenitors
of mass $M_{2}$ to the configuration, and update the list of progenitors in
the configuration. $N_{\rm conf}$, the configuration’s probability does not
change. The number of remaining secondary progenitors to be matched is now
$N_{2}-N_{max}$, and we continue our search across merger configurations (in
order of increasing primary progenitor mass) until all of them have been
assigned.
Once a secondary bin is fully assigned, we move on to the next secondary bin
(of a slightly smaller mass) and repeat the same assignment procedure. As this
process goes on all configurations are gradually filled with secondary
progenitors of smaller and smaller mass. For technical convenience, the number
of configurations in each primary bin and the number of unique progenitor
masses in each configuration are both limited to be fewer than 6. In practice,
we find that this setup allows us to successfully assign all secondary
progenitors in the mass range $[M_{\rm res},\alpha M_{0}]$, even when the mass
resolution of each time step is as low as $M_{\rm res}=0.001M_{0}$.
In fact this dense packing of secondary progenitors into primary bin
configurations manages to distribute efficiently all secondary progenitors in
$[M_{\rm res},\alpha M_{0}]$ in only a fraction of the available primary
progenitors. As seen in Fig. 6 C, only $2\%$ ($5\%$ for spherical) of the
primary progenitors (at the low mass end) are grouped with secondary
progenitors and the remaining $98\%$ ($95\%$) are $1\rightarrow 1$ events. We
note that even though there are far more secondary progenitors than primary
progenitors, this is possible because many secondary progenitors have
exceedingly small masses and can be efficiently distributed into the mass
reservoirs of relatively few primary progenitors.
The execution of method C is as follows:
(i) Generate a primary progenitor $M_{1}$ from the mass range $[\alpha
M_{0},M_{0}]$ of the EPS progenitor mass function. Determine which primary bin
contains $M_{1}$.
(ii) If $M_{1}>M_{0}-M_{\rm res}$, no more progenitors are generated; if
$M_{1}\leq M_{0}-M_{\rm res}$, a random number determines which merger
configuration to choose according to the probability distribution of all
possible configurations associated with the given primary bin. The progenitors
of the chosen configuration are then generated.
For a better understanding of method C, we show in Table 3 and discuss below
all the possible merger configurations and their frequencies of occurrence for
descendant halos (regardless of their masses) at $z=0$, assuming time-step
$\Delta z=0.02$ and mass resolution $M_{\rm res}=0.001M_{0}$:
I. About $98\%$ ($95\%$ for spherical) of the descendant halos have only one
progenitor each.
A) About $2/3$ of these descendants’ progenitors are within the resolution
limit of the descendant mass (i.e. $M_{1}\;\hbox to0.0pt{\lower
2.5pt\hbox{$\sim$}\hss}\raise 1.5pt\hbox{$>$}\;M_{0}-M_{\rm res}$, see figure
6 ).
B) The remaining $1/3$ of these descendant halos’ progenitors have masses
below $M_{0}-M_{\rm res}$. As discussed above, these massive primary
progenitors are not assigned any secondary companions because all the
available secondary progenitors are maximally assigned to the less massive
primary bins. Note that this region extends to masses below $\mu M_{0}$ ( ).
II. For the remaining primary progenitor bins, there are no configurations
having only two progenitors. All in all, $0.01\%$ ($0.1\%$ for spherical) of
all descendants have three progenitors (); $0.3\%$ ($2\%$) have four
progenitors (); $1.7\%$ ($2.9\%$) have five or more progenitors (). The
progenitor count for a given configuration can be rather large reaching values
of more than 100.
As in methods A and B, the values quoted above depend on $\Delta z$ and
$M_{\rm res}$. They also depend on the maximal number of configurations
allowed in each primary bin and the maximal number of unique progenitor masses
allowed in each configuration.
The blue dotted curves in Figs. 7 and 8 compare the progenitor mass functions
from this Monte Carlo algorithm with the analytic predictions of the spherical
and ellipsoidal EPS models, respectively. They again show excellent agreement
($<10\%$ deviation) at $z_{1}-z_{0}=0.24$, 2.07, 7, and 15 for a descendant
halo of mass $10^{13}M_{\odot}$ at $z_{0}=0$.
## 6 Comparison of Higher-Moment Statistics in Algorithms A, B, C, and KW93
We have designed Monte Carlo algorithms A, B, and C for constructing merger
trees that can accurately reproduce the EPS prediction for the progenitor mass
function $\phi(M|M_{0})$ across each individual time-step. According to the
discussion in §3.1, these methods should then accurately generate the
progenitor mass function at any look-back time in any number of time-steps.
Figs. 7 and 8 show that this is indeed the case for both the spherical and
ellipsoidal EPS models. Including KW93, there are now four methods that are
completely consistent with the EPS $\phi(M|M_{0})$. The results of the
ellipsoidal version of KW93 have been shown in Fig. 8 as well.
Despite this agreement, we recall that the progenitor mass function is only
one of many statistical properties of a halo merger tree. Even though all four
algorithms are degenerate in $\phi(M|M_{0})$, they are likely to (and should)
differ in their predictions for other statistical quantities. Here we
investigate two such quantities as an illustration: (i)
$\phi^{(N_{p})}(M|M_{0})$, the progenitor mass function for the subset of
descendant halos that have $N_{p}$ progenitors. The sum of
$\phi^{(N_{p})}(M|M_{0})$ over all $N_{p}$ is equal to $\phi(M|M_{0})$. (ii)
$\phi^{(i_{th})}(M|M_{0})$, the distribution of the $i_{th}$ most massive
progenitor of each descendant halo. Again, the sum of
$\phi^{(i_{th})}(M|M_{0})$ over all $i$ is equal to $\phi(M|M_{0})$. These two
statistics are two obvious ways of decomposing the total $\phi(M|M_{0})$ into
individual moments: $\phi^{(N_{p})}$ separates flourishing trees from
quiescent trees, while $\phi^{(i_{th})}$ compares the individual distributions
of the primary, secondary and more minor progenitors, which are relevant for
modeling galaxy formation through mergers (see also Parkinson, Cole & Helly
2008). Other statistics such as the distributions of halo formation time and
last major merger time (e.g., Parkinson, Cole & Helly 2008; Cole et al. 2008;
Moreno & Sheth 2007) and the factorial moments of the partition function
(e.g., Sheth & Pitman 1997; Sheth & Lemson 1999) are also useful. Some of
these will be examined in our next paper.
To compute these moments, we set the descendant halo at redshift zero to be
$10^{13}M_{\odot}$, and the mass resolution to be $4\times 10^{10}M_{\odot}$.
The results are plotted at two look-back times ($z_{1}-z_{0}=0.51,2.07$) in
Figs. 9-12, where Figs. 9 and 10 show $\phi^{(N_{p})}(M|M_{0})$ for the
spherical and ellipsoidal EPS models, respectively, while Figs. 11 and 12 show
$\phi^{(i_{th})}(M|M_{0})$. In each figure, results from our three methods
(red solid for A, green dashed for B, blue dotted for C) and from our
implementation of KW93 (orange dash-dotted) are shown for comparison. These
figures clearly indicate that methods A, B, C, and KW93 generate distinct
predictions for these specific moments of the progenitor mass distribution.
Some of the notable differences are:
1. Method C produces a much lower amplitude for the $N_{p}=2$ and 3 moments than methods A and B. This is because C is designed to be a multiple-merger algorithm that effectively does not generate any binary configuration in one individual time-step (note the absence of the $N_{p}=2$ entry for method C in Table 3). This feature can been seen by the absence of blue short-dashed curves in the $N_{p}=2$ and 3 panels in Figs. 9 and 10, i.e., there are almost no descendant halos having only two or three progenitors in method C at $z=0.51$. By contrast, methods A and B have a wealth of descendants with binary progenitors at these redshifts.
2. The removal of the binary assumption in method C leads to many features in the moments of the progenitor distributions. By contrast, the predictions from A and B are mostly power-laws, or at least smooth functions, in the progenitor mass. This difference is due to the fact that the merger configurations in the binary methods are much more regulated than those in the non-binary method: a binary configuration contains only two progenitors, the total mass of which is always quite close (if not equal) to the descendant mass, whereas the distribution of progenitor masses in a multiple configuration can have various forms, which can easily affect, e.g. , the ranking of the progenitor masses and the number of progenitors. It is interesting to note that the predictions of KW93 are fairly smooth functions in spite of the fact that it does not assume binary. This is likely because the way progenitors are assigned in KW93 effectively suppresses the probability of mergers involving multiple progenitors.
3. The differences between method A and B are more subtle because they are both mostly binary methods. The main feature that distinguishes A from B is in the distribution of the most massive progenitor (i.e. $i_{th}=1$) shown in the first columns of Figs. 11 and 12. At the high mass end, method B has a slightly broader shape for the primary progenitor mass than method A. This is expected, because it is the case across every time step by construction (the primary bins in method B extend down to $\alpha M_{0}$ as opposed to $M_{0}/2$ for method A). At the low mass end, however, there is a long tail in the distribution of primary progenitor masses in method A, which is not present in other methods. This tail is caused by the fact that in method A, there is a small chance ($\sim 0.3\%$) at every time-step that a primary progenitor completely disappears, transferring the rank of “primary” to one of the much smaller secondary progenitors. Over several time-steps this rare occurrence affects more and more branches of the merger tree and can significantly modify the primary progenitor statistics.
In summary, we have constructed three Monte Carlo algorithms that can all
reproduce closely the progenitor mass function of the EPS model (both
spherical and ellipsoidal). The methods, however, produce significantly
different higher moments of the progenitor distributions. They are also very
different from KW93. Either a theoretical model more complete than the EPS or
direct $N$-body results will be needed to determine which, if any, of the
thus-far successful algorithms is the winner. We will turn to this subject in
the next paper (Zhang, Fakhouri & Ma, in preparation).
Figure 9: Predictions of algorithms A (red solid), B (green dashed), C (blue
dotted), and KW93 (orange dash-dotted) for $\phi^{(N_{p})}(M,z|M_{0},z_{0})$,
the mass function of progenitors for descendant halos that have a total of
$N_{p}$ progenitors. Two look-back redshifts are shown: $z-z_{0}=0.51$ (left)
and 2.07 (right). For each redshift, four representative values of $N_{p}$ are
shown (from top down). The simulations are for the spherical EPS model and
assume a descendant halo mass of $10^{13}M_{\odot}$ at $z_{0}=0$ and mass
resolution of $M_{\rm res}=4\times 10^{10}M_{\odot}$. Figure 10: Same as Fig.
9 except the Monte Carlo results are generated from the ellipsoidal instead of
the standard spherical EPS model. Figure 11: Same as Fig. 9 except for a
different progenitor statistic: $\phi^{(i_{\rm th})}(M,z|M_{0},z_{0})$, the
mass function of the $i_{th}$ most massive progenitor. Figure 12: Same as
Fig. 11 except the Monte Carlo results are generated from the ellipsoidal
instead of the spherical EPS model.
## 7 Conclusions and Discussion
Monte Carlo algorithms based on the spherical EPS model have been an essential
tool for many studies of galaxy and structure formation. These algorithms
allow one to generate realizations of actual halo merger histories starting
from a limited set of statistical information about dark matter halo
properties provided by the EPS model. Since the EPS model does not uniquely
determine many statistical quantities of halo mergers beyond the progenitor
mass function, there is considerable freedom in how to combine progenitors to
form descendant halos in each time step in a Monte Carlo algorithm.
The emphasis of this paper is on elucidating and quantifying the ability of a
Monte Carlo algorithm to construct merger trees that match the analytic
progenitor mass function of the EPS model (both the spherical and ellipsoidal
versions). Four main conclusions can be drawn:
1. We have shown rigorously that to match the EPS progenitor mass function accurately at any look-back time, it is necessary and sufficient for a Monte Carlo algorithm to reproduce the exact progenitor mass function at each time step.
2. We have reviewed and compared the four most frequently used Monte Carlo algorithms based on the spherical EPS model in the literature: Lacey & Cole 1993, Kauffmann & White 1993, Somerville & Kolatt 1999, and Cole et al. 2000. As seen in Figs. 2-4, all but KW93 only approximately reproduce the spherical EPS progenitor mass function at each time step, resulting in large deviations from the spherical EPS predictions after the accumulation of small errors over many time steps.
Their problems (see Table 1 for details) can be summarized as: (i) SK99
generally over-estimates the abundances of small progenitors by about a factor
of two; (ii) LC93 over-produces progenitors by a factor of a few when the
look-back time is large ($\Delta z\gg 1$); (iii) C00 under-predicts the
progenitor abundance at the high mass end when the look-back time is large.
The origin of these discrepancies frequently comes from the incompatibility
between the binary merger assumption used in the Monte Carlo algorithm (e.g.
LC93, C00) and the asymmetric progenitor mass function of the EPS model.
3. We have designed three new Monte Carlo algorithms that all reproduce closely the EPS progenitor mass function over a broad range of redshift ($z_{1}-z_{0}$ up to at least 15) and halo mass. Our methods A and B assign binary pairs to the symmetric part of $\phi(M|M_{0})$ and non-binaries to the asymmetric part; the two differ in the mass ranges for the most massive progenitors. Our method C, on the other hand, completely relaxes the binary merger assumption. The algorithms are tested for both the spherical and ellipsoidal EPS models and the results are shown in Figs.7 and 8. We see that all three methods perform equally well at reproducing the respective progenitor mass function at higher redshifts, regardless of whether the spherical progenitor mass function eq. (3) or ellipsoidal progenitor mass function eq. (2.2) is used as input.
4. As emphasized throughout the paper, the EPS model only provides a partial statistical description of dark matter halo properties; it does not tell us explicitly how to group progenitors into descendants in a Monte Carlo realization. Therefore, there are different ways to combine progenitors into descendant halos in consistent Monte Carlo algorithms.
We have used our three new algorithms to illustrate this exact point. Despite
their success in generating merger trees that accurately reproduce the EPS
progenitor mass function, Figs. 9-12 show that the three algorithms make
significantly different predictions for quantities such as the distribution of
the most (or the $2_{nd}$ or $3_{rd}$ most) massive progenitor masses, and the
mass function of progenitors in descendant halos with $N_{p}$ ($=1,2,3...$)
progenitors. A theory more complete than EPS would be needed to predict these
higher-order merger statistics and break the degeneracies in the progenitor
mass function. Alternatively, comparisons with $N$-body simulations should
determine which, if any, of the three new algorithms is viable. We view the
EPS models (spherical or ellipsoidal), Monte Carlo algorithms, and $N$-body
simulations as three major components in the general study of the formation,
growth, and clustering of dark matter halos. In this paper we have focused on
the first two areas, comparing various Monte Carlo algorithms for generating
halo merger trees and quantifying their abilities to consistently match the
analytical EPS progenitor mass functions over a broad range of mass and
redshift. In our next paper (Zhang, Fakhouri, Ma 2008b), we will turn to
comparisons with the Millennium simulation.
Several recent papers have investigated other Monte Carlo methods (see, e.g.,
Parkinson, Cole & Helly 2008; Neistein & Dekel 2008a; Moreno & Sheth 2007;
Neistein & Dekel 2008b. Although a complete review of these methods is beyond
the scope of this paper, it is worth pointing out some of their features. The
method of Moreno & Sheth (2007) is essentially equivalent to LC93 but is based
on the ellipsoidal collapse model666They use a square-root approximation for
the moving barrier form, which avoids the barrier crossing problem at the low
mass end. and is discretized in mass instead of redshift. The two progenitor
masses for each time step are assigned using computer-generated random walks
and moving barriers. Since the asymmetry problem of the progenitor mass
function is also present in the ellipsoidal model, this method does not
accurately reproduce the theory-predicted progenitor mass function at each
time step. Such a discrepancy is amplified with increasing redshift and is
indeed shown in Fig. 5, 6, and 7 of Moreno & Sheth (2007).
Neistein & Dekel (2008b) have proposed a method that exactly reproduces the
progenitor mass function of the spherical EPS model at each time step. This
feature alone guarantees it to be consistent with EPS at any look-back time
according to our discussion in §3.1. However, since the method requires
solving several differential equations with nontrivial boundary conditions for
the progenitor masses, it is technically harder to implement it.
Finally, the methods described in Parkinson, Cole & Helly (2008) and Neistein
& Dekel (2008a) are proposed to mimic N-body results. They are based on
fitting to N-body data rather than the EPS theory. It will be interesting to
compare the predictions for the various merger statistics discussed in this
paper from these methods with those from our ellipsoidal EPS-based methods and
from N-body simulations. This will be done in the next paper.
## Acknowledgments
We thank Michael Boylan-Kolchin, Lam Hui, Ravi Sheth, and Simon White for
discussions, and Eyal Neistein and Jorge Moreno for useful comments on an
earlier version of this paper. JZ is supported by NASA and by the TAC
Fellowship of UC Berkeley. OF and CPM are supported in part by NSF grant AST
0407351.
## References
* Bardeen et al. (1986) Bardeen J., Bond J., Kaiser N., Szalay A., 1986, ApJ, 304, 15
* Bond et al. (1991) Bond J., Cole S., Efstathiou G., Kaiser N., 1991, ApJ, 379, 440B
* Cole et al. (2000) Cole S., Lacey C., Baugh C., Frenk C., 2000, MNRAS, 319, 168 [C00]
* Cole et al. (2008) Cole S., Helly J., Frenk C., Parkinson H., 2008, MNRAS, 383, 546
* Doroshkevich (1970) Doroshkevich A., 1970, Astrofizika, 3, 175
* Eisenstein & Hu (1998) Eisenstein D. & Hu W., 1998, ApJ, 496, 605
* Fakhouri & Ma (2008) Fakhouri O. & Ma C.-P., 2008, MNRAS, 386, 577
* Gelb & Bertschinger (1994) Gelb J. & Bertschinger, 1994, ApJ, 436, 467
* Kauffmann & White (1993) Kauffmann G. & White S., 1993, MNRAS, 261, 921 [KW93]
* Lacey & Cole (1993) Lacey C. & Cole S., 1993, MNRAS, 262, 627 [LC93]
* Lacey & Cole (1994) Lacey C. & Cole S., 1994, MNRAS, 271, 676
* Ma & Bertschinger (1994) Ma C.-P. & Bertschinger E. 1994, ApJ, 434, L5
* Mo & White (1996) Mo H. & White S., 1996, MNRAS, 282, 347
* Moreno & Sheth (2007) Moreno J. & Sheth R., 2007, astro-ph/0712.3800
* Neistein & Dekel (2008a) Neistein E. & Dekel A., 2008(a), MNRAS, 383, 615
* Neistein & Dekel (2008b) Neistein E. & Dekel A., 2008(b), astro-ph/0802.0198
* Parkinson, Cole & Helly (2008) Parkinson H., Cole S., Helly J., 2008, MNRAS, 383, 557
* Press & Schechter (1974) Press W. & Schechter P., 1974, ApJ, 187, 425
* Sheth, Mo & Tormen (2001) Sheth R., Mo H., Tormen G., 2001, MNRAS, 323, 1
* Sheth & Pitman (1997) Sheth R. & Pitman J., 1997, MNRAS, 289, 66
* Sheth & Lemson (1999) Sheth R. & Lemson G., 1999, MNRAS, 305, 946
* Sheth & Tormen (1999) Sheth R. & Tormen G., 1999, MNRAS, 308, 119
* Sheth & Tormen (2002) Sheth R. & Tormen G., 2002, MNRAS, 329, 61
* Somerville & Kolatt (1999) Somerville R. & Kolatt T., 1999, MNRAS, 305, 1 [SK99]
* Springel et al. (2005) Springel V. et al., 2005, Nature, 435, 629
* Tormen (1998) Tormen G., 1998, MNRAS, 297, 648
* Zentner (2007) Zentner A., 2007, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 16, 763
* Zhang & Hui (2006) Zhang J. & Hui L., 2006, ApJ, 641, 641
* Zhang, Ma & Fakhouri (2008) Zhang J., Ma C.-P., Fakhouri O., 2008, MNRAS, 387L, 13
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-09T00:29:11 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.685131 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Jun Zhang, Onsi Fakhouri, Chung-Pei Ma (UC Berkeley)",
"submitter": "Jun Zhang",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1230"
} |
0805.1234 | # Twisted Alexander polynomials detect fibered 3–manifolds
Stefan Friedl University of Warwick, Coventry, UK s.k.friedl@warwick.ac.uk
and Stefano Vidussi Department of Mathematics, University of California,
Riverside, CA 92521, USA svidussi@math.ucr.edu
###### Abstract.
A classical result in knot theory says that for a fibered knot the Alexander
polynomial is monic and that the degree equals twice the genus of the knot.
This result has been generalized by various authors to twisted Alexander
polynomials and fibered 3–manifolds. In this paper we show that the conditions
on twisted Alexander polynomials are not only necessary but also sufficient
for a 3–manifold to be fibered. By previous work of the authors this result
implies that if a manifold of the form $S^{1}\times N^{3}$ admits a symplectic
structure, then $N$ fibers over $S^{1}$. In fact we will completely determine
the symplectic cone of $S^{1}\times N$ in terms of the fibered faces of the
Thurston norm ball of $N$.
S. Friedl was supported by a CRM–ISM Fellowship and by CIRGET
S. Vidussi was partially supported by a University of California Regents’
Faculty Fellowships and by NSF grant #0906281.
## 1\. Introduction
### 1.1. Twisted Alexander polynomials and fibered 3–manifolds
Let $N$ be a compact, connected, oriented $3$–manifold with empty or toroidal
boundary. Given a nontrivial class $\phi\in
H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})=\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(N),\mathbb{Z})$ we say that $(N,\phi)$
fibers over $S^{1}$ if there exists a fibration $f:N\to S^{1}$ such that the
induced map $f_{*}:\pi_{1}(N)\to\pi_{1}(S^{1})=\mathbb{Z}$ agrees with $\phi$.
Stated otherwise, the homotopy class in $[N,S^{1}]=H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$
identified by $\phi$ can be represented by a fibration.
It is a classical result in knot theory that if a knot $K\subset S^{3}$ is
fibered, then the Alexander polynomial is monic (i.e. the top coefficient
equals $\pm 1$), and the degree of the Alexander polynomial equals twice the
genus of the knot. This result has been generalized in various directions by
several authors (e.g. [McM02, Ch03, GKM05, FK06, Ki07]) to show that twisted
Alexander polynomials give necessary conditions for $(N,\phi)$ to fiber.
To formulate this kind of result more precisely we have to introduce some
definitions. Let $N$ be a 3–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary and let
$\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$. Given $(N,\phi)$ the _Thurston norm_ of $\phi$
(cf. [Th86]) is defined as
$||\phi||_{T}=\min\\{\chi_{-}(S)\,|\,S\subset N\mbox{ properly embedded
surface dual to }\phi\\}.$
Here, given a surface $S$ with connected components $S_{1}\cup\dots\cup
S_{k}$, we define $\chi_{-}(S)=\sum_{i=1}^{k}\max\\{-\chi(S_{i}),0\\}$.
In the following we assume that $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ is non–trivial.
Let $\alpha:\pi_{1}(N)\to G$ be a homomorphism to a finite group. We have the
permutation representation $\pi_{1}(N)\to\mbox{Aut}(\mathbb{Z}[G])$ given by
left multiplication, which we also denote by $\alpha$. We can therefore
consider the twisted Alexander polynomial
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$, whose definition is
detailed in Section 2.3. We denote by $\phi_{\alpha}$ the restriction of
$\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})=\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(N),\mathbb{Z})$ to
$\mbox{Ker}(\alpha)$. Note that $\phi_{\alpha}$ is necessarily non–trivial. We
denote by $\mbox{div}\phi_{\alpha}\in\mathbb{N}$ the divisibility of
$\phi_{\alpha}$, i.e.
$\mbox{div}\phi_{\alpha}=\max\\{n\in\mathbb{N}\,|\,\phi_{\alpha}=n\psi\mbox{
for some }\psi:\mbox{Ker}(\alpha)\to\mathbb{Z}\\}.$
We can now formulate the following theorem which appears as [FK06, Theorem 1.3
and Remark p. 938].
###### Theorem 1.1.
Let $N\neq S^{1}\times S^{2},S^{1}\times D^{2}$ be a $3$–manifold with empty
or toroidal boundary. Let $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ a nontrivial class. If
$(N,\phi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$, then for any homomorphism
$\alpha:\pi_{1}(N)\to G$ to a finite group the twisted Alexander polynomial
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$ is monic and
$\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha})=|G|\,\|\phi\|_{T}+(1+b_{3}(N))\mbox{div}\phi_{\alpha}.$
It is well known that in general the constraint of monicness and degree for
the ordinary Alexander polynomial falls short from characterizing fibered
3–manifolds. The main result of this paper is to show that on the other hand
the collection of all twisted Alexander polynomials does detect fiberedness,
i.e. the converse of Theorem 1.1 holds true:
###### Theorem 1.2.
Let $N$ be a $3$–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary. Let $\phi\in
H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ a nontrivial class. If for any homomorphism
$\alpha:\pi_{1}(N)\to G$ to a finite group the twisted Alexander polynomial
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$ is monic and
$\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha})=|G|\,\|\phi\|_{T}+(1+b_{3}(N))\mbox{div}\phi_{\alpha}$
holds, then $(N,\phi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$.
Note that alternatively it is possible to rephrase this statement in terms of
Alexander polynomials of the finite regular covers of $N$, using the fact that
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}=\Delta_{{\tilde{N}},p^{*}(\phi)}$ (cf. [FV08a]),
where $p:{\tilde{N}}\to N$ is the cover of $N$ determined by
$\mbox{Ker}(\alpha)$.
Note that this theorem asserts that twisted Alexander polynomials detect
whether $(N,\phi)$ fibers under the assumption that $||\phi||_{T}$ is known;
while it is known that twisted Alexander polynomials give lower bounds (cf.
[FK06, Theorem 1.1]), it is still an open question whether twisted Alexander
polynomials determine the Thurston norm.
In the case where $\phi$ has trivial Thurston norm, this result is proven in
[FV08b], using subgroup separability. Here, following a different route (see
Section 1.3 for a summary of the proof), we prove the general case.
### 1.2. Symplectic $4$–manifolds and twisted Alexander polynomials
In 1976 Thurston [Th76] showed that if a closed $3$–manifold $N$ admits a
fibration over $S^{1}$, then $S^{1}\times N$ admits a symplectic structure,
i.e. a closed, nondegenerate $2$–form $\omega$. It is natural to ask whether
the converse to this statement holds true. In its simplest form, we can state
this problem in the following way:
###### Conjecture 1.3.
Let $N$ be a closed $3$–manifold. If $S^{1}\times N$ is symplectic, then there
exists a $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ such that $(N,\phi)$ fibers over
$S^{1}$.
Interest in this question was motivated by Taubes’ results in the study of
Seiberg-Witten invariants of symplectic $4$–manifolds (see [Ta94, Ta95]), that
gave initial evidence to an affirmative solution of this conjecture. In the
special case where $N$ is obtained via $0$–surgery along a knot in $S^{3}$,
this question appears also in [Kr98, Question 7.11]. Over the last ten years
evidence for this conjecture was given by various authors [Kr98, CM00, Et01,
McC01, Vi03].
In [FV08a] the authors initiated a project relating Conjecture 1.3 to the
study of twisted Alexander polynomials. The outcome of that investigation is
that if $S^{1}\times N$ is symplectic, then the twisted Alexander polynomials
of $N$ behave like twisted Alexander polynomials of a fibered $3$–manifold.
More precisely, the following holds (cf. [FV08a, Theorem 4.4]):
###### Theorem 1.4.
Let $N$ be an irreducible closed $3$–manifold and $\omega$ a symplectic
structure on $S^{1}\times N$ such that $\omega$ represents an integral
cohomology class. Let $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ be the Künneth component
of $[\omega]\in H^{2}(S^{1}\times N;\mathbb{Z})$. Then for any homomorphism
$\alpha:\pi_{1}(N)\to G$ to a finite group the twisted Alexander polynomial
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$ is monic and
$\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha})=|G|\,\|\phi\|_{T}+2\mbox{div}\phi_{\alpha}.$
Note that it follows from McCarthy’s work [McC01] (see also Lemma 7.1) and
Perelman’s proof of the geometrization conjecture (cf. e.g. [MT07]) that if
$S^{1}\times N$ is symplectic, then $N$ is prime, i.e. either irreducible or
$S^{1}\times S^{2}$. The proof of Theorem 1.4 relies heavily on the results of
[Kr98] and [Vi03], which in turn build on results of Taubes [Ta94, Ta95] and
Donaldson [Do96].
As the symplectic condition is open, the assumption that a symplectic manifold
admits an integral symplectic form is not restrictive. Therefore, combining
Theorem 1.2 with Theorem 1.4, we deduce that Conjecture 1.3 holds true. In
fact, in light of [FV07, Theorems 7.1 and 7.2], we have the following more
refined statement:
###### Theorem 1.5.
Let $N$ be a closed oriented 3–manifold. Then given $\Omega\in
H^{2}(S^{1}\times N;\mathbb{R})$ the following are equivalent:
1. (1)
$\Omega$ can be represented by a symplectic structure;
2. (2)
$\Omega$ can be represented by a symplectic structure which is
$S^{1}$–invariant;
3. (3)
$\Omega^{2}>0$ and the Künneth component $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{R})$ of
$\Omega$ lies in the open cone on a fibered face of the Thurston norm ball of
$N$.
Note that the theorem allows us in particular to completely determine the
symplectic cone of a manifold of the form $S^{1}\times N$ in terms of the
fibered cones of $N$.
Combined with the results of [FV07, FV08a], Theorem 1.2 shows in particular
that the collection of the Seiberg-Witten invariants of all finite covers of
$S^{1}\times N$ determines whether $S^{1}\times N$ is symplectic or not. In
particular, we have the following corollary (we refer to [Vi99, Vi03] for the
notation and the formulation in the case that $b_{1}(N)=1$).
###### Corollary 1.6.
Let $N$ be a closed 3–manifold with $b_{1}(N)>1$. Then given a spinc structure
$K\in H^{2}(S^{1}\times N;\mathbb{Z})$ there exists a symplectic structure
representing a cohomology class $\Omega\in H^{2}(S^{1}\times N;\mathbb{R})$
with canonical class $K$ if and only if the following conditions hold:
1. (1)
$K\cdot\phi=\|\phi\|_{T}$, where $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{R})$ is the Künneth
component of $\Omega$,
and for any regular finite cover $p:{\tilde{N}}\to N$
1. (2)
$SW_{S^{1}\times{\tilde{N}}}(p^{*}(K))=1$,
2. (3)
for any Seiberg–Witten basic class $\kappa\in
H^{2}(S^{1}\times{\tilde{N}};\mathbb{Z})$ we have
$|p_{*}(\kappa)\cdot\phi|\leq\mbox{deg}(p)~{}K\cdot\phi,$
(where $p_{*}$ is the transfer map) and the latter equality holds if and only
if $\kappa=\pm p^{*}K$.
(Note that, under the hypotheses of the Corollary, all basic classes of
$S^{1}\times{\tilde{N}}$ are the pull–back of elements of
$H^{2}({\tilde{N}};\mathbb{Z})$.)
Remark. A different approach to Conjecture 1.3 involves a deeper investigation
of the consequence of the symplectic condition on $S^{1}\times N$, that goes
beyond the information encoded in Theorem 1.4. A major breakthrough in this
direction has recently been obtained by Kutluhan and Taubes ([KT09]). They
show that if $N$ is a 3–manifold such that $S^{1}\times N$ is symplectic,
under some cohomological assumption on the symplectic form, then the Monopole
Floer homology of $N$ behaves like the Monopole Floer homology of a fibered
3–manifold. On the other hand it is known, due to the work of Ghiggini,
Kronheimer and Mrowka, and Ni that Monopole Floer homology detects fibered
3–manifolds ([Gh08, Ni09, KM08, Ni08]). The combination of the above results
proves in particular Conjecture 1.3 in the case that $b_{1}(N)=1$.
### 1.3. Fibered 3–manifolds and finite solvable groups: outline of the proof
In this subsection we will outline the strategy of the proof of Theorem 1.2.
It is useful to introduce the following definition.
###### Definition.
Let $N$ be a $3$–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary, and let $\phi\in
H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ be a nontrivial class. We say that $(N,\phi)$ satisfies
Condition ($*$) if for any homomorphism $\alpha:\pi_{1}(N)\to G$ to a finite
group the twisted Alexander polynomial
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$ is monic and
$\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha})=|G|\,\|\phi\|_{T}+(1+b_{3}(N))\mbox{div}\phi_{\alpha}.$
It is well–known (see [McC01] for the closed case, and 7.1 for the general
case) that Condition ($*$) implies, using geometrization, that $N$ is prime,
so we can restrict ourself to the case where $N$ is irreducible.
Note that McMullen [McM02] showed that, when the class $\phi$ is primitive,
the condition $\Delta_{N,\phi}\neq 0$ implies that there exists a connected
Thurston norm minimizing surface $\Sigma$ dual to $\phi$. It is well–known
that to prove Theorem 1.2 it is sufficient to consider a primitive $\phi$, and
we will assume that in the following. Denote $M=N\setminus\nu\Sigma$; the
boundary of $M$ contains two copies $\Sigma^{\pm}$ of $\Sigma$ and throughout
the paper we denote the inclusion induced maps $\Sigma\to\Sigma^{\pm}\to M$ by
$\iota_{\pm}$.
By Stallings’ theorem [St62] the surface $\Sigma$ is a fiber of a fibration
$N\to S^{1}$ if and only if $\iota_{\pm}:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\pi_{1}(M)$ are
isomorphisms. Hence to prove Theorem 1.2 we need to show that if $(N,\phi)$
satisfies Condition ($*$), then the monomorphisms
$\iota_{\pm}:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\pi_{1}(M)$ are in fact isomorphisms. Using
purely group theoretic arguments we are not able to show directly that
Condition ($*$) implies the desired isomorphism; however, we have the
following result:
###### Proposition 1.7.
Assume that $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition $(*)$ and that $\phi$ is primitive.
Let $\Sigma\subset N$ be a connected Thurston norm minimizing surface dual to
$\phi$ and let $\iota$ be either of the two inclusion maps of $\Sigma$ into
$M=N\setminus\nu\Sigma$. Then $\iota:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\pi_{1}(M)$ induces an
isomorphism of the prosolvable completions.
We refer to Section 2.4 for information regarding group completions.
Proposition 1.7 translates the information from Condition ($*$) into
information regarding the maps $\iota_{\pm}:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\pi_{1}(M)$.
From a purely group theoretic point of view it is a difficult problem to
decide whether a homomorphism which gives rise to an isomorphism of
prosolvable completions has to be an isomorphism itself (cf. [Gr70], [BG04],
[AHKS07] and also Lemma 4.7). But in our 3–dimensional setting we can use a
recent result of Agol [Ag08] to prove the following theorem.
###### Theorem 1.8.
Let $N$ be an irreducible 3–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary. Let
$\Sigma\subset N$ be a connected Thurston norm minimizing surface. We write
$M=N\setminus\nu\Sigma$. Assume the following hold:
1. (1)
the inclusion induced maps $\iota_{\pm}:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\pi_{1}(M)$ give
rise to isomorphisms of the respective prosolvable completions, and
2. (2)
$\pi_{1}(M)$ is residually finite solvable,
then $\iota_{\pm}:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\pi_{1}(M)$ are isomorphisms, hence
$M=\Sigma\times I$.
In light of Proposition 1.7, the remaining obstacle for the proof of Theorem
1.2 is the condition in Theorem 1.8 that $\pi_{1}(M)$ has to be residually
finite solvable. It is well–known that linear groups (and hence in particular
hyperbolic 3–manifolds groups) are virtually residually $p$ for all but
finitely many primes $p$ (cf. e.g. [We73, Theorem 4.7] or [LS03, Window 7,
Proposition 9]), in particular they are residually finite solvable. Thurston
conjectured that 3–manifold groups in general are linear (cf. [Ki, Problem
3.33]), but this is still an open problem. Using the recent proof of the
geometrization conjecture (cf. e.g. [MT07]) we will prove the following
result, which will be enough for our purposes.
###### Theorem 1.9.
Let $N$ be a closed prime 3–manifold. Then for all but finitely many primes
$p$ there exists a finite cover $N^{\prime}$ of $N$ such that the fundamental
group of any component of the JSJ decomposition of $N^{\prime}$ is residually
a $p$–group.
We can now deduce Theorem 1.2 as follows: We first show in Lemmas 7.1 and 7.2
that it suffices to show Theorem 1.2 for closed prime 3–manifolds. Theorem 1.2
in that situation now follows from combining Theorems 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 with a
more technical theorem which allows us to treat the various JSJ pieces
separately (cf. Theorem 6.4).
Added in proof: In a very recent paper ([AF10]) Matthias Aschenbrenner and the
first author showed that any 3–manifold group is virtually residually $p$.
This simplifies the proof of Theorem 1.2 as outlined in [FV10].
This paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 we recall the definition of
twisted Alexander polynomials and some basics regarding completions of groups.
In Section 3 we will prove Proposition 1.7 and in Section 4 we give the proof
of Theorem 1.8. In Section 5 we prove Theorem 1.9 and in Section 6 we provide
the proof for Theorem 6.4. Finally in Section 7 we complete the proof of
Theorem 1.2.
Conventions and notations. Throughout the paper, unless otherwise stated, we
will assume that all manifolds are oriented and connected, and all homology
and cohomology groups have integer coefficients. Furthermore all surfaces are
assumed to be properly embedded and all spaces are compact and connected,
unless it says explicitly otherwise. The derived series of a group $G$ is
defined inductively by $G^{(0)}=G$ and $G^{(n+1)}=[G^{(n)},G^{(n)}]$.
Acknowledgments. We would like to thank Ian Agol, Matthias Aschenbrenner,
Steve Boyer, Paolo Ghiggini, Taehee Kim, Marc Lackenby, Alexander Lubotzky,
Kent Orr, Saul Schleimer, Jeremy van Horn–Morris and Genevieve Walsh for many
helpful comments and conversations. We also would like to thank the referee
for suggesting several improvements to the paper and pointing out various
inaccuracies.
## 2\. Preliminaries: Twisted invariants and completions of groups
### 2.1. Twisted homology
Let $X$ be a CW–complex with base point $x_{0}$. Let $R$ be a commutative
ring, $V$ a module over $R$ and $\alpha:\pi_{1}(X,x_{0})\to\mbox{Aut}_{R}(V)$
a representation. Let $\tilde{X}$ be the universal cover of $X$. Note that
$\pi_{1}(X,x_{0})$ acts on the left on $\tilde{X}$ as group of deck
transformations. The cellular chain groups $C_{*}(\tilde{X})$ are in a natural
way right $\pi_{1}(X)$–modules, with the right action on $C_{*}(\tilde{X})$
defined via $\sigma\cdot g:=g^{-1}\sigma$, for $\sigma\in C_{*}(\tilde{X})$.
We can form by tensoring the chain complex
$C_{*}(\tilde{X})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[\pi_{1}(X,x_{0})]}V$, which is a complex
of $R$–modules. Now define
$H_{i}(X;V):=H_{i}(C_{*}(\tilde{X})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[\pi_{1}(X,x_{0})]}V)$.
The isomorphism type of the $R$–module $H_{i}(X;V)$ does not depend on the
choice of the base point, in fact it only depends on the homotopy type of $X$
and the isomorphism type of the representation.
In this paper we will also frequently consider twisted homology for a finitely
generated group $\Gamma$; its definition can be reduced to the one above by
looking at the twisted homology of the Eilenberg-Maclane space $K(\Gamma,1)$.
The most common type of presentation we consider in this paper is as follows:
Let $X$ be a topological space, $\alpha:\pi_{1}(X)\to G$ a homomorphism to a
group $G$ and $H\subset G$ a subgroup of finite index. Then we get a natural
action of $\pi_{1}(X)$ on $\mbox{Aut}_{\mathbb{Z}}(\mathbb{Z}[G/H])$ by
left–multiplication, which gives rise to the homology groups
$H_{i}(X;\mathbb{Z}[G/H])$.
We will now study the $\mathbb{Z}[\pi_{1}(X)]$–module $\mathbb{Z}[G/H]$ in
more detail. We write $C:=\alpha(\pi_{1}(X))$. Consider the set of double
cosets $C\backslash G/H$. By definition $g,g^{\prime}\in G$ represent the same
equivalence class if and only if there exist $c,c^{\prime}\in C$ and
$h,h^{\prime}\in H$ such that $cgh=c^{\prime}g^{\prime}h^{\prime}$. Note that
$g_{1},\dots,g_{k}\in G$ are a complete set of representatives of $C\backslash
G/H$ if and only if $G$ is the disjoint union of $Cg_{1}H,\dots,Cg_{k}H$. The
first part of the following lemma is an immediate consequence of [Br94,
II.5.2.], the second part follows either from Shapiro’s lemma or a
straightforward calculation.
###### Lemma 2.1.
Let $g_{1},\dots,g_{k}\in G$ be a set of representatives for the equivalence
classes $C\backslash G/H$. For $i=1,\dots,k$ write ${\tilde{C}}_{i}=C\cap
g_{i}Hg_{i}^{-1}$. We then have the following isomorphisms of left
$\mathbb{Z}[C]$–modules:
$\mathbb{Z}[G/H]\cong\bigoplus_{i=1}^{k}\mathbb{Z}[C/{\tilde{C}}_{i}].$
In particular $H_{0}(X;\mathbb{Z}[G/H])$ is a free abelian group of rank
$k=|C\backslash G/H|$.
### 2.2. Induced maps on low dimensional homology groups
In this section we will give criteria when maps between groups give rise to
isomorphisms between low dimensional twisted homology groups. We start out
with a study of the induced maps on 0–th twisted homology groups.
###### Lemma 2.2.
Let $\varphi:A\to B$ be a monomorphism of finitely generated groups. Suppose
that $B$ is a subgroup of a group $\pi$ and let $\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi$ be a
subgroup of finite index. Let $g_{1},\dots,g_{k}\in\pi$ be a set of
representatives for the equivalence classes $B\backslash\pi/\tilde{\pi}$. For
$i=1,\dots,k$ we write $\tilde{B}_{i}=B\cap g_{i}\tilde{\pi}g_{i}^{-1}$ and
$\tilde{A}_{i}=\varphi^{-1}(\tilde{B}_{i})$. Then
$\varphi_{*}:H_{0}(A;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])\to
H_{0}(B;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])$
is an epimorphism of free abelian groups and it is an isomorphism if and only
if $\varphi:A/\tilde{A}_{i}\to B/\tilde{B}_{i}$ is a bijection for any $i$.
###### Proof.
It is well–known that the induced map on 0–th twisted homology groups is
always surjective (cf. e.g. [HS97, Section 6]) and by Lemma 2.1 both groups
are free abelian groups. Now note that without loss of generality we can
assume that $A\subset B$ and that $\varphi$ is the inclusion map. It follows
from Lemma 2.1 that $H_{0}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ is a free abelian
group of rank $k=|B\backslash\pi/\tilde{\pi}|$. By the same Lemma we also have
$\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}]\cong\bigoplus_{i=1}^{k}\mathbb{Z}[B/{\tilde{B}}_{i}]$
as left $\mathbb{Z}[B]$–modules and hence also as left
$\mathbb{Z}[A]$–modules. By applying Lemma 2.1 to the $\mathbb{Z}[A]$–modules
$\mathbb{Z}[B/{\tilde{B}}_{i}]$ we see that
$H_{0}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ is a free abelian group of rank $k$ if
and only if $|A\backslash B/\tilde{B}_{i}|=1$ for any $i$. It is
straightforward to see that this is equivalent to $A/\tilde{A}_{i}\to
B/\tilde{B}_{i}$ being a bijection for any $i$. ∎
We will several times make use of the following corollary.
###### Corollary 2.3.
Let $\varphi:A\to B$ be a monomorphism of finitely generated groups. Let
$\beta:B\to G$ be a homomorphism to a finite group. Then
$\varphi_{*}:H_{0}(A;\mathbb{Z}[G])\to H_{0}(B;\mathbb{Z}[G])$
is an epimorphism of free abelian groups and it is an isomorphism if and only
if
$\mbox{Im}\\{A\to B\to G\\}=\mbox{Im}\\{B\to G\\}.$
###### Proof.
Let $\pi^{\prime}=B\times G$ and $\tilde{\pi}^{\prime}=B$. We can then apply
Lemma 2.2 to $A^{\prime}=A,B^{\prime}=\\{(g,\beta(g))\,|\,g\in
B\\}\subset\pi^{\prime}$ and
$\varphi^{\prime}(a)=(\varphi(a),\beta(\varphi(a)),a\in A^{\prime}$. It is
straightforward to verify that the desired equivalence of statements follows.
∎
We now turn to the question when group homomorphisms induce isomorphisms of
the 0–th and the first twisted homology groups at the same time.
###### Lemma 2.4.
Let $\varphi:A\to B$ be a monomorphism of finitely generated groups. Suppose
that $B$ is a subgroup of a group $\pi$ and let $\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi$ be a
subgroup of finite index. Let $g_{1},\dots,g_{k}\in\pi$ be a set of
representatives for the equivalence classes $B\backslash\pi/\tilde{\pi}$. For
$i=1,\dots,k$ we write $\tilde{B}_{i}=B\cap g_{i}\tilde{\pi}g_{i}^{-1}$ and
$\tilde{A}_{i}=\varphi^{-1}(\tilde{B}_{i})$. Then
$\varphi_{*}:H_{i}(A;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])\to
H_{i}(B;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])$
is an isomorphism for $i=0$ and $i=1$ if and only if the following two
conditions are satisfied:
1. (1)
$\varphi:A/\tilde{A}_{i}\to B/\tilde{B}_{i}$ is a bijection for any $i$,
2. (2)
$\varphi:A/[\tilde{A}_{i},\tilde{A}_{i}]\to B/[\tilde{B}_{i},\tilde{B}_{i}]$
is a bijection for any $i$.
###### Proof.
Without loss of generality we can assume that $A\subset B$ and that $\varphi$
is the inclusion map. By Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 it suffices to show for any $i$
the following: If $A/\tilde{A}_{i}\to B/\tilde{B}_{i}$ is a bijection, then
the map $H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[{B/\tilde{B}_{i}}])\to
H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[{B/\tilde{B}_{i}}])$ is an isomorphism if and only if
$\varphi:A/[\tilde{A}_{i},\tilde{A}_{i}]\to B/[\tilde{B}_{i},\tilde{B}_{i}]$
is a bijection.
Using the above and using Shapiro’s Lemma we can identify
$\begin{array}[]{rcl}H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[B/\tilde{B}_{i}])=H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[A/\tilde{A}_{i}])&=&\tilde{A}_{i}/[\tilde{A}_{i},\tilde{A}_{i}]\hskip
28.45274pt\mbox{and}\\\
H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[{B/\tilde{B}_{i}}])&=&\tilde{B}_{i}/[\tilde{B}_{i},\tilde{B}_{i}].\end{array}$
Note that $A/\tilde{A}_{i},B/\tilde{B}_{i},A/[\tilde{A}_{i},\tilde{A}_{i}]$
and $B/[\tilde{B}_{i},\tilde{B}_{i}]$ are in general not groups, but we can
view them as pointed sets. We now consider the following commutative diagram
of exact sequences of pointed sets:
$\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[{B/\tilde{B}_{i}}])\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\varphi}$$\textstyle{{A}/[\tilde{A}_{i},\tilde{A}_{i}]\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\varphi}$$\textstyle{{A/\tilde{A}_{i}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\varphi}$$\textstyle{1}$$\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[{B/\tilde{B}_{i}}])\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{{B}/[\tilde{B}_{i},\tilde{B}_{i}]\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{{B/\tilde{B}_{i}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{1.}$
Recall that the map on the right is a bijection. It now follows from the
5–lemma for exact sequences of pointed sets that the middle map is a bijection
if and only if the left hand map is a bijection. ∎
We will several times make use of the following corollary which can be deduced
from Lemma 2.4 the same way as Corollary 2.3 is deduced from Lemma 2.2.
###### Corollary 2.5.
Let $\varphi:A\to B$ be a monomorphism of finitely generated groups, and
assume we are given a homomorphism $\beta:B\to G$ to a finite group $G$. Then
$\varphi_{*}:H_{i}(A;\mathbb{Z}[G])\to H_{i}(B;\mathbb{Z}[G]),\ \ i=0,1$
is an isomorphism if and only if the following two conditions hold:
1. (1)
$\mbox{Im}\\{A\to B\to G\\}=\mbox{Im}\\{B\to G\\}$,
2. (2)
$\varphi$ induces an isomorphism
$A/[\mbox{Ker}(\beta\circ\varphi),\mbox{Ker}(\beta\circ\varphi)]\to
B/[\mbox{Ker}(\beta),\mbox{Ker}(\beta)].$
Under extra conditions we can also give a criterion for a map between groups
to induce an isomorphism of second homology groups.
###### Lemma 2.6.
Let $\varphi:A\to B$ be a homomorphism between two groups such that $X=K(A,1)$
and $Y=K(B,1)$ are finite 2–complexes with vanishing Euler characteristic. Let
$\beta:B\to G$ be a homomorphism to a finite group such that
$\varphi_{*}:H_{i}(A;\mathbb{Z}[G])\to H_{i}(B;\mathbb{Z}[G]),\ \ i=0,1$
is an isomorphism, then
$\varphi_{*}:H_{2}(A;\mathbb{Z}[G])\to H_{2}(B;\mathbb{Z}[G])$
is also an isomorphism.
###### Proof.
We can and will view $X$ as a subcomplex of $Y$. It suffices to show that
$H_{2}(Y,X;\mathbb{Z}[G])=0$. Note that our assumption implies that
$H_{i}(Y,X;\mathbb{Z}[G])=0$ for $i=0,1$. Now note that
$H_{2}(Y,X;\mathbb{Z}[G])$ is a submodule of $C_{2}(Y,X;\mathbb{Z}[G])$, in
particular $H_{2}(Y,X;\mathbb{Z}[G])$ is a free $\mathbb{Z}$–module. We
therefore only have to show that $\mbox{rank}H_{2}(Y,X;\mathbb{Z}[G])=0$. Now
note that
$\begin{array}[]{rcl}\mbox{rank}H_{2}(Y,X;\mathbb{Z}[G])&=&\mbox{rank}H_{2}(Y,X;\mathbb{Z}[G])-\mbox{rank}H_{1}(Y,X;\mathbb{Z}[G])+\mbox{rank}H_{0}(Y,X;\mathbb{Z}[G])\\\
&=&|G|\chi(Y,X)\\\ &=&|G|(\chi(Y)-\chi(X))\\\ &=&0.\end{array}$
∎
We conclude this section with the following lemma.
###### Lemma 2.7.
Let $\varphi:A\to B$ be a homomorphism. Let $\hat{B}\subset\tilde{B}\subset B$
be two subgroups. Suppose that $\hat{B}\subset B$ is normal. We write
$\hat{A}:=\varphi^{-1}(\hat{B})$ and $\tilde{A}:=\varphi^{-1}(\tilde{B})$.
Assume that
$\varphi:A/\hat{A}\to B/\hat{B}\mbox{ and }\varphi:A/[\hat{A},\hat{A}]\to
B/[\hat{B},\hat{B}]$
are bijections, then
$\varphi:A/\tilde{A}\to B/\tilde{B}\mbox{ and
}\varphi:A/[\tilde{A},\tilde{A}]\to B/[\tilde{B},\tilde{B}]$
are also bijections.
###### Proof.
In the following let $n=0$ or $n=1$. Suppose that $\varphi:A/\hat{A}^{(n)}\to
B/\hat{B}^{(n)}$ is a bijection. Note that $\hat{A}^{(n)}\subset A$ and
$\hat{B}^{(n)}\subset B$ are normal, in particular $\varphi:A/\hat{A}^{(n)}\to
B/\hat{B}^{(n)}$ is in fact an isomorphism. We have to show that
$\varphi:A/\tilde{A}^{(n)}\to B/\tilde{B}^{(n)}$ is a bijection.
###### Claim.
The map $\varphi$ induces a bijection
$\tilde{A}^{(n)}/\hat{A}^{(n)}\to\tilde{B}^{(n)}/\hat{B}^{(n)}$.
We write $\overline{A}:=A/\hat{A}^{(n)}$, $\overline{B}:=B/\hat{B}^{(n)}$ and
we denote by $\overline{\varphi}:\overline{A}\to\overline{B}$ the induced map
which by assumption is an isomorphism. We denote by $\overline{H}$ the
subgroup $\tilde{B}/\hat{B}^{(n)}\subset\overline{B}$. Note that
$\overline{\varphi}$ restricts to isomorphisms
$\overline{\varphi}^{-1}(\overline{H})\to\overline{H}$ and
$\overline{\varphi}^{-1}(\overline{H}^{(n)})\to\overline{H}^{(n)}$. Since
$\overline{\varphi}^{-1}$ is an isomorphism it follows that
$\left(\overline{\varphi}^{-1}(\overline{H})\right)^{(n)}=\overline{\varphi}^{-1}\big{(}\overline{H}^{(n)}\big{)}$.
Now recall that $\overline{H}=\tilde{B}/\hat{B}^{(n)}$, hence
$\overline{H}^{(n)}=\tilde{B}^{(n)}/\hat{B}^{(n)}$. We clearly have
$\overline{\varphi}^{-1}(\overline{H})=\tilde{A}/\hat{A}^{(n)}$ and therefore
$\overline{\varphi}^{-1}(\overline{H})^{(n)}=\tilde{A}^{(n)}/\hat{A}^{(n)}$.
This shows that the isomorphism
$\overline{\varphi}:\overline{\varphi}^{-1}\big{(}\overline{H}^{(n)}\big{)}\to\overline{H}^{(n)}$
is precisely the desired isomorphism
$\tilde{A}^{(n)}/\hat{A}^{(n)}\to\tilde{B}^{(n)}/\hat{B}^{(n)}$. This
concludes the proof of the claim.
Now consider the following commutative diagram of short exact sequences of
pointed sets:
$\textstyle{1\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\tilde{A}^{(n)}/\hat{A}^{(n)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\varphi}$$\textstyle{A/\hat{A}^{(n)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\varphi}$$\textstyle{A/\tilde{A}^{(n)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\varphi}$$\textstyle{1}$$\textstyle{1\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\tilde{B}^{(n)}/\hat{B}^{(n)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{B/\hat{B}^{(n)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{B/\tilde{B}^{(n)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{1.}$
The middle vertical map is a bijection by assumption and we just verified that
the vertical map on the left is a bijection. It now follows from the 5–Lemma
for exact sequences of pointed sets that the vertical map on the right is also
a bijection. ∎
### 2.3. Twisted Alexander polynomials
In this section we are going to recall the definition of twisted Alexander
polynomials. These were introduced, for the case of knots, by Xiao-Song Lin in
1990 (published in [Li01]), and his definition was later generalized to
$3$–manifolds by Wada [Wa94], Kirk–Livingston [KL99] and Cha [Ch03].
Let $N$ be a compact manifold. Let $R$ be a commutative, Noetherian unique
factorization domain (in our applications $R=\mathbb{Z}$ or
$R=\mathbb{F}_{p}$, the finite field with $p$ elements) and $V$ a finite free
$R$–module Let $\alpha:\pi_{1}(N)\to\mbox{Aut}_{R}(V)$ a representation and
let $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})=\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(N),\mathbb{Z})$ a
nontrivial element. We write $V\otimes_{R}R[t^{\pm 1}]=:V[t^{\pm 1}]$. Then
$\alpha$ and $\phi$ give rise to a representation
$\alpha\otimes\phi:\pi_{1}(N)\to\mbox{Aut}_{R[t^{\pm 1}]}(V[t^{\pm 1}])$ as
follows:
$\big{(}(\alpha\otimes\phi)(g)\big{)}(v\otimes p):=(\alpha(g)\cdot
v)\otimes(\phi(g)\cdot p)=(\alpha(g)\cdot v)\otimes(t^{\phi(g)}p),$
where $g\in\pi_{1}(N),v\otimes p\in V\otimes_{R}R[t^{\pm 1}]=V[t^{\pm 1}]$.
Note that $N$ is homotopy equivalent to a finite CW–complex, which, by abuse
of notation, we also denote by $N$. Then we consider
$C_{*}(\tilde{N})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[\pi_{1}(N)]}V[t^{\pm 1}]$ which is a
complex of finitely generated $R[t^{\pm 1}]$–modules. Since $R[t^{\pm 1}]$ is
Noetherian it follows that for any $i$ the $R[t^{\pm 1}]$–module
$H_{i}(N;V[t^{\pm 1}])$ is a finitely presented $R[t^{\pm 1}]$–module. This
means $H_{i}(N;V[t^{\pm 1}])$ has a free $R[t^{\pm 1}]$–resolution
$R[t^{\pm 1}]^{r_{i}}\xrightarrow{S_{i}}R[t^{\pm 1}]^{s_{i}}\to
H_{i}(N;V[t^{\pm 1}])\to 0.$
Without loss of generality we can assume that $r_{i}\geq s_{i}$.
###### Definition.
The _$i$ –th twisted Alexander polynomial_ of $(N,\alpha,\phi)$ is defined to
be the order of the $R[t^{\pm 1}]$–module $H_{i}(N;V[t^{\pm 1}])$, i.e. the
greatest common divisor (which exists since $R[t^{\pm 1}]$ is a UFD as well)
of the $s_{i}\times s_{i}$ minors of the $s_{i}\times r_{i}$–matrix $S_{i}$.
It is denoted by $\Delta_{N,\phi,i}^{\alpha}\in R[t^{\pm 1}]$.
Note that $\Delta_{N,\phi,i}^{\alpha}\in R[t^{\pm 1}]$ is well–defined up to a
unit in $R[t^{\pm 1}]$, i.e. up to an element of the form $rt^{i}$ where $r$
is a unit in $R$ and $i\in\mathbb{Z}$. We say that $f\in R[t^{\pm 1}]$ is
monic if its top coefficient is a unit in $R$. Given a nontrivial
$f=\sum_{i=r}^{s}a_{s}t^{i}$ with $a_{r}\neq 0,a_{s}\neq 0$ we write
$\mbox{deg}f=s-r$. For $f=0$ we write $\mbox{deg}(f)=-\infty$. Note that
$\mbox{deg}\Delta_{N,\phi,i}^{\alpha}$ is well–defined.
We now write $\pi=\pi_{1}(N)$. If we are given a homomorphism $\alpha:\pi\to
G$ to a finite group, then this gives rise to a finite dimensional
representation of $\pi$, that we will denote by
$\alpha:\pi\to\mbox{Aut}_{R}(R[G])$ as well. In the case that we have a finite
index subgroup $\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi$ we get a finite dimensional
representation $\pi\to\mbox{Aut}_{R}(R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ given by
left–multiplication. When $R=\mathbb{Z}$, the resulting twisted Alexander
polynomials will be denoted by
$\Delta_{N,\phi,i}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$, while for
$R=\mathbb{F}_{p}$ we will use the notation
$\Delta_{N,\phi,i}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi},p}\in\mathbb{F}_{p}[t^{\pm 1}]$. See
[FV08a] for the relation between these polynomials.
Finally, in the case that $\alpha:\pi\to\mbox{GL}(1,\mathbb{Z})$ is the
trivial representation we drop the $\alpha$ from the notation, and in the case
that $i=1$ we drop the subscript “$,1$” from the notation.
We summarize some of the main properties of twisted Alexander polynomials in
the following lemma. It is a consequence of [FV08a, Lemma 3.3 and 3.4] and
[FK06, Proposition 2.5].
###### Lemma 2.8.
Let $N$ be a 3–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary. Let $\phi\in
H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ nontrivial and $\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi:=\pi_{1}(N)$ a
finite index subgroup. Denote by $\phi_{\tilde{\pi}}$ the restriction of
$\phi$ to $\tilde{\pi}$, then the following hold:
1. (1)
$\Delta_{N,\phi,0}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}=(1-t^{div\,{\phi}_{\tilde{\pi}}})$,
2. (2)
if $\Delta_{N,\phi,1}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}\neq 0$, then
$\Delta_{N,\phi,2}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}=(1-t^{div\,\phi_{\tilde{\pi}}})^{b_{3}(N)}$,
3. (3)
$\Delta_{N,\phi,i}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}=1$ for any $i\geq 3$.
Assume we also have a subgroup $\pi^{\prime}$ with
$\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi^{\prime}\subset\pi$. Denote the covering of $N$
corresponding to $\pi^{\prime}$ by $N^{\prime}$ and denote by $\phi^{\prime}$
the restriction of $\phi$ to $\pi^{\prime}$, then
$\Delta_{N,\phi,i}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}=\Delta_{N^{\prime},\phi^{\prime},i}^{\pi^{\prime}/\tilde{\pi}}$
for any $i$. Finally note that the statements of the lemma also hold for the
polynomial $\Delta_{N,\phi,i}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi},p}\in\mathbb{F}_{p}[t^{\pm
1}]$.
We also recall the following well–known result (cf. e.g. [Tu01]).
###### Lemma 2.9.
Let $N$ be a 3–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary. Let $\phi\in
H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ nontrivial and $\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi:=\pi_{1}(N)$ a
finite index subgroup. Then given $i$ the following are equivalent:
1. (1)
$\Delta_{N,\phi,i}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}\neq 0$,
2. (2)
$H_{i}(N;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])$ is $\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm
1}]$–torsion,
3. (3)
$H_{i}(N;\mathbb{Q}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])$ is $\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm
1}]$–torsion,
4. (4)
the rank of the abelian group $H_{i}(N;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm
1}])$ is finite.
In fact if any of the four conditions holds, then
$\mbox{deg}\Delta_{N,\phi,i}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}=\mbox{rank}\,H_{i}(N;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm
1}])=\mbox{dim}\,H_{i}(N;\mathbb{Q}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}]).$
### 2.4. Completions of groups
Throughout the paper it is convenient to use the language of completions of
groups. Although the proof of Theorem 1.2 does not explicitly require this
terminology, group completions are the natural framework for these results. We
recall here the definitions and some basic facts, we refer to [LS03, Window 4]
and [Wi98, RZ00] for proofs and for more information.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a variety of groups (cf. [RZ00, p. 20] for the
definition). Examples of varieties of pertinence to this paper are given by
any one of the following:
1. (1)
finite groups;
2. (2)
$p$–groups for a prime $p$;
3. (3)
the variety $\mathcal{FS}(n)$ of finite solvable groups of derived length at
most $n$;
4. (4)
the variety $\mathcal{FS}$ of finite solvable groups.
In the following we equip a finitely generated group $A$ with its _pro–
$\mathcal{C}$ topology_, this topology is the translation invariant topology
uniquely defined by taking as a fundamental system of neighborhoods of the
identity the collection of all normal subgroups of $A$ such that the quotient
lies in $\mathcal{C}$. Note that in particular all groups in $\mathcal{C}$ are
endowed with the discrete topology.
Given a group $A$ denote by $\hat{A}_{\mathcal{C}}$ its pro–$\mathcal{C}$
completion, i.e. the inverse limit
$\hat{A}_{\mathcal{C}}=\underleftarrow{\lim}\,A\,/A_{i}$
where $A_{i}$ runs through the inverse system determined by the collection of
all normal subgroups of $A$ such that $A/A_{i}\in\mathcal{C}$. Then
$\hat{A}_{\mathcal{C}}$, which we can view as a subgroup of the direct product
of all $A/A_{i}$, inherits a natural topology. Henceforth by homomorphisms
between groups we will mean a homomorphism which is continuous with respect to
the above topologies. Using the standard convention we refer to the
pro–$\mathcal{FS}$ completion of a group as the prosolvable completion.
Note that by the assumption that $\mathcal{C}$ is a variety, the
pro–$\mathcal{C}$ completion is a covariant functor, i.e. given $\varphi:A\to
B$ we get an induced homomorphism
$\hat{\varphi}:\hat{A}_{\mathcal{C}}\to\hat{B}_{\mathcal{C}}$.
A group $A$ is called residually $\mathcal{C}$ if for any nontrivial $g\in A$
there exists a homomorphism $\alpha:A\to G$ where $G\in\mathcal{C}$ such that
$\alpha(g)\neq e$. It is easily seen that $A$ is residually $\mathcal{C}$ if
and only if the map $A\to\hat{A}_{\mathcal{C}}$ is injective. In particular,
if we are given a homomorphism $\varphi:A\to B$ between residually
${\mathcal{C}}$ groups $A,B$ such that
$\hat{\varphi}:\hat{A}_{\mathcal{C}}\to\hat{B}_{\mathcal{C}}$ is an injection,
then it follows from the following commutative diagram
$\textstyle{A\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\varphi}$$\textstyle{B\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\hat{A}_{\mathcal{C}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\hat{\varphi}}$$\textstyle{\hat{B}_{\mathcal{C}}}$
that $\varphi$ is injective as well.
The following well–known lemma gives sufficient and necessary conditions for a
homomorphism $\varphi:A\to B$ to induce an isomorphism of pro–$\mathcal{C}$
completions.
###### Lemma 2.10.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a variety of groups and assume that there is a
homomorphism $\varphi:A\to B$. Then the following are equivalent:
1. (1)
$\hat{\varphi}:\hat{A}_{\mathcal{C}}\to\hat{B}_{\mathcal{C}}$ is an
isomorphism,
2. (2)
for any $G\in\mathcal{C}$ the induced map
$\varphi^{*}:\mbox{Hom}(B,G)\to\mbox{Hom}(A,G)$
is a bijection.
We also note the following well–known lemma.
###### Lemma 2.11.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be an extension–closed variety and let $\varphi:A\to B$ a
homomorphism of finitely generated groups which induces an isomorphism of
pro–$\mathcal{C}$ completions. Then for any homomorphism $\beta:B\to G$ to a
$\mathcal{C}$–group the restriction of $\varphi$ to
$\mbox{Ker}(\beta\circ\varphi)\to\mbox{Ker}(\beta)$ induces an isomorphism of
pro–$\mathcal{C}$ completions.
When a homomorphism $\varphi:A\to B$ of finitely generated groups induces an
isomorphism of their pro–$\mathcal{C}$ completions, then we have a relation of
the twisted homology with coefficients determined by ${\mathcal{C}}$–groups.
More precisely, we have the following.
###### Lemma 2.12.
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a variety of groups and let $\varphi:A\to B$ be a
homomorphism of finitely generated groups which induces an isomorphism of
pro–$\mathcal{C}$ completions. Then for any homomorphism $\beta:B\to G$ to a
$\mathcal{C}$–group the map $\varphi_{*}:H_{0}(A;\mathbb{Z}[G])\to
H_{0}(B;\mathbb{Z}[G])$ is an isomorphism. Furthermore, if $\mathcal{C}$ is an
extension–closed variety containing all finite abelian groups, the map
$\varphi_{*}:H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[G])\to H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[G])$ is an
isomorphism.
###### Proof.
Observe that, by Corollary 2.3, the first part of the statement is equivalent
to the assertion that, for any element $\beta\in\mbox{Hom}(B,G)$,
$\mbox{Im}\\{\beta\circ\varphi:A\to G\\}=\mbox{Im}\\{\beta:B\to G\\}.$
Without loss of generality, we can reduce the proof of this isomorphism to the
case where $\beta$ is surjective. Denote
$\alpha=\beta\circ\varphi\in\mbox{Hom}(A,G)$. Assume to the contrary that
$\alpha(A)\subsetneq G$; then
$\alpha\in\mbox{Hom}(A,\alpha(A))\subset\mbox{Hom}(A,G)$ and as
$\alpha(A)\in\mathcal{C}$ there exists by hypothesis a map
$\beta^{\prime}\in\mbox{Hom}(B,\alpha(A))\subset\mbox{Hom}(B,G)$ such that
$\alpha=\beta^{\prime}\circ\varphi$. Now the two maps
$\beta,\beta^{\prime}\in\mbox{Hom}(B,G)$ (that must differ as they have
different image) induce the same map $\alpha\in\mbox{Hom}(A,G)$, contradicting
the bijectivity of $\mbox{Hom}(B,G)$ and $\mbox{Hom}(A,G)$.
We now turn to the proof of the second part of the statement. Let $\beta:B\to
G$ a homomorphism to a $\mathcal{C}$–group. Again, without loss of generality,
we can assume that $\beta:B\to G$ is surjective. Note that by the above the
homomorphism $\beta\circ\varphi:A\to G$ is surjective as well. We now write
$B^{\prime}=\mbox{Ker}(\beta)$ and $A^{\prime}=\mbox{Ker}(\beta\circ\varphi)$.
By Shapiro’s Lemma, we have the commutative diagram
$\textstyle{H_{1}(A^{\prime};\mathbb{Z})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\cong}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[G])\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(B^{\prime};\mathbb{Z})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\cong}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[G]).}$
The claim amounts therefore to showing that the map
$\varphi_{*}:H_{1}(A^{\prime};\mathbb{Z})\to H_{1}(B^{\prime};\mathbb{Z})$ is
an isomorphism. As $A$ and $B$ are finitely generated, $A^{\prime}$ and
$B^{\prime}$ are finitely generated as well. When $\mathcal{C}$ is extension
closed, and contains all finite abelian groups, Lemma 2.11 asserts that the
map $\varphi$ induces a bijection between $\mbox{Hom}(B^{\prime},\Gamma)$ and
$\mbox{Hom}(A^{\prime},\Gamma)$ for any finite abelian group $\Gamma$; the
desired isomorphism easily follows.∎
## 3\. Monic twisted Alexander polynomials and solvable groups
The aim of this section is to prove Proposition 1.7.
### 3.1. Preliminary results
We will often make use of the following proposition (cf. [McM02, Section 4 and
Proposition 6.1]).
###### Proposition 3.1.
Let $N$ be a $3$–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary and let $\phi\in
H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ a primitive class. If $\Delta_{N,\phi}\neq 0$, then there
exists a connected Thurston norm minimizing surface $\Sigma$ dual to $\phi$.
Given a connected oriented surface $\Sigma\subset N$ we will adopt the
following conventions for the rest of the paper. We choose a neighborhood
$\Sigma\times[-1,1]\subset N$ and write $\nu\Sigma=\Sigma\times(-1,1)$. Let
$M:=N\setminus\nu\Sigma$; we will write $\Sigma^{\pm}=\Sigma\times\\{\pm
1\\}\subset\partial M$, and we will denote the inclusion induced maps
$\Sigma\to\Sigma^{\pm}\subset M$ by $\iota_{\pm}$.
We pick a base point in $M$ and endow $N$ with the same base point. Also, we
pick a base point for $\Sigma$ and endow $\Sigma^{\pm}$ with the corresponding
base points. With these choices made, we will write $A=\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$ and
$B=\pi_{1}(M)$. We also pick paths in $M$ connecting the base point of $M$
with the base points of $\Sigma^{-}$ and $\Sigma^{+}$. We now have inclusion
induced maps $\iota_{\pm}:A\to B$ for either inclusion of $\Sigma$ in $M$ and,
using the constant path, a map $\pi_{1}(M)\to\pi_{1}(N)$. Under the assumption
that $\Sigma$ is incompressible (in particular, whenever $\Sigma$ is Thurston
norm minimizing) these maps are injective. Since $M$ and $N$ have the same
base point we can view $B$ canonically as a subgroup of $\pi_{1}(N)$.
Before we state the first proposition we have to introduce a few more
definitions. Let $N$ be a $3$–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary and let
$\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ a nontrivial class. Let $\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi$
be a finite index subgroup. We denote by $\phi_{\tilde{\pi}}$ the restriction
of $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})=\mbox{Hom}(\pi,\mathbb{Z})$ to $\tilde{\pi}$.
Note that $\phi_{\tilde{\pi}}$ is necessarily non–trivial. We say that
$\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi$ has Property (M) if the twisted Alexander polynomial
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$ is monic and if
$\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}})=[\pi:\tilde{\pi}]\,\|\phi\|_{T}+(1+b_{3}(N))\mbox{div}\phi_{\tilde{\pi}}$
holds. Note that a pair $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition ($*$) if and only if
Property (M) is satisfied by all normal subgroups of $\pi_{1}(N)$.
The following proposition is the key tool for translating information on
twisted Alexander polynomials into information on the maps $\iota_{\pm}:A\to
B$. The proposition is well known in the classical case. In the case of normal
subgroups a proof for the ‘only if’ direction of the proposition is given by
combining [FV08a, Section 8] with [FV08b, Section 4].
###### Proposition 3.2.
Let $N$ be a 3–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary with $N\neq
S^{1}\times D^{2},N\neq S^{1}\times S^{2}$. Let $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$
a primitive class which is dual to a connected Thurston norm minimizing
surface $\Sigma$. Let $\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi$ be a finite index subgroup. Then
$\tilde{\pi}$ has Property (M) if and only if the maps
$\iota_{\pm}:H_{i}(A;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])\to
H_{i}(B;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])$ are isomorphisms for $i=0,1$.
###### Proof.
Let $R=\mathbb{Z}$ or $R=\mathbb{F}_{p}$ with $p$ a prime. We have canonical
isomorphisms $H_{i}(\Sigma;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\cong
H_{i}(A;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ and $H_{i}(M;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\cong
H_{i}(B;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ for $i=0,1$. It follows from [FK06, Proposition
3.2] that splitting $N$ along $\Sigma$ gives rise to the following
Mayer–Vietoris type exact sequence
$\begin{array}[]{cccccccccccccc}&&&\dots&\to&H_{2}(N;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm
1}])\\\\[2.84544pt] \to&H_{1}(A;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes R[t^{\pm
1}]&\xrightarrow{t\iota_{+}-\iota_{-}}&H_{1}(B;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes
R[t^{\pm 1}]&\to&H_{1}(N;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])&\to&\\\\[2.84544pt]
\to&H_{0}(A;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes R[t^{\pm
1}]&\xrightarrow{t\iota_{+}-\iota_{-}}&H_{0}(B;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes
R[t^{\pm 1}]&\to&H_{0}(N;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])&\to&0.\end{array}$
which we refer to as the Mayer–Vietoris sequence of $(N,\Sigma)$ with
$R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}]$–coefficients. First note that by Shapiro’s
lemma the groups $H_{i}(A;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ are the $i$–th homology with
$R$–coefficients of a (possibly) disconnected surface. It follows that
$H_{i}(A;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ is a free $R$–module, in particular the
$R[t^{\pm 1}]$–modules $H_{i}(A;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes R[t^{\pm 1}]$ are
free $R[t^{\pm 1}]$–modules. We will several times make use of the observation
that if $H_{i}(N;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])$ is $R[t^{\pm 1}]$–torsion,
then the map $H_{i}(N;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])\to
H_{i-1}(A;R[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes R[t^{\pm 1}]$ is necessarily zero.
We first assume that $\tilde{\pi}$ has Property (M). Since
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}\neq 0$ we have that the module
$H_{1}(N;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm
1}]}\mathbb{Q}(t)$ is trivial. Note that by Lemma 2.9 we have that
$H_{0}(N;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])$ is also $\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm
1}]$–torsion. We now consider the Mayer–Vietoris sequence of $(N,\Sigma)$ with
$\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}]$–coefficients. Tensoring the exact
sequence with $\mathbb{Q}(t)$ we see that
$\begin{array}[]{rcl}\mbox{rank}_{\mathbb{Z}}(H_{0}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}]))&=&\mbox{rank}_{\mathbb{Q}(t)}(H_{0}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{Q}(t))\\\
&=&\mbox{rank}_{\mathbb{Q}(t)}(H_{0}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{Q}(t))=\mbox{rank}_{\mathbb{Z}}(H_{0}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])).\end{array}$
Using this observation and using Lemma 2.2 we see that the maps
$\iota_{\pm}:H_{0}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\to
H_{0}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ are epimorphism between free abelian
groups of the same rank. Hence the maps are in fact isomorphisms.
In order to prove that the maps
$\iota_{\pm}:H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\to
H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ are isomorphisms we first consider the
following claim.
###### Claim.
$H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ and
$H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ are free abelian groups of the same
rank.
Let $p$ be a prime. We consider the Mayer–Vietoris sequence of $(N,\Sigma)$
with $\mathbb{F}_{p}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}]$–coefficients. Denote by
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{{\pi/\tilde{\pi},p}}\in\mathbb{F}_{p}[t^{\pm 1}]$ the
twisted Alexander polynomial with coefficients in $\mathbb{F}_{p}$. It follows
from $\Delta^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}_{N,\phi}$ monic and from [FV08a, Proposition
6.1] that $\Delta_{N,\phi}^{{\pi/\tilde{\pi},p}}\neq 0\in\mathbb{F}_{p}[t^{\pm
1}]$. Furthermore by Lemma 2.8 we have that
$\Delta_{N,\phi,2}^{{\pi/\tilde{\pi},p}}\neq 0\in\mathbb{F}_{p}[t^{\pm 1}]$.
In particular $H_{i}(N;\mathbb{F}_{p}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])$ is
$\mathbb{F}_{p}[t^{\pm 1}]$–torsion for $i=1,2$. It follows from the fact that
$H_{i}(A;\mathbb{F}_{p}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes_{\mathbb{F}_{p}}\mathbb{F}_{p}[t^{\pm
1}]$ is a free $\mathbb{F}_{p}[t^{\pm 1}]$–module and the above observation
that $H_{i}(N;\mathbb{F}_{p}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])$ is
$\mathbb{F}_{p}[t^{\pm 1}]$–torsion for $i=1,2$ that the Mayer–Vietoris
sequence gives rise to the following short exact sequence
$0\to H_{1}(A;\mathbb{F}_{p}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes\mathbb{F}_{p}[t^{\pm
1}]\xrightarrow{t\iota_{+}-\iota_{-}}H_{1}(B;\mathbb{F}_{p}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes\mathbb{F}_{p}[t^{\pm
1}]\to H_{1}(N;\mathbb{F}_{p}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])\to 0.$
Tensoring with $\mathbb{F}_{p}(t)$ we see that in particular
$H_{1}(A;\mathbb{F}_{p}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\cong
H_{1}(B;\mathbb{F}_{p}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ as $\mathbb{F}_{p}$–vector spaces.
The homology group $H_{0}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ is
$\mathbb{Z}$–torsion free. It follows from the universal coefficient theorem
applied to the complex of $\mathbb{Z}$–modules
$C_{*}(\tilde{\Sigma})\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}[A]}{\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}]}$
that
$H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{F}_{p}\cong
H_{1}(A;\mathbb{F}_{p}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$
for every prime $p$. The same statement holds for $B$. Combining our results
we see that
$H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{F}_{p}$ and
$H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{F}_{p}$ are
isomorphic for any prime $p$. Since $H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ is
free abelian it follows that $H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\cong
H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$. This completes the proof of the claim.
In the following we equip the free $\mathbb{Z}$–modules
$H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ and
$H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ with a choice of basis. We now study
the Mayer–Vietoris sequence for $(N,\Sigma)$ with
$\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}]$–coefficients. Using an argument
similar to the above we see that it gives rise to the following exact sequence
$H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm
1}]\xrightarrow{t\iota_{+}-\iota_{-}}H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm
1}]\to H_{1}(N;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])\to 0.$
Since $H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ and
$H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ are free abelian groups of the same
rank it follows that the above exact sequence is a resolution of
$H_{1}(N;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])$ by free $\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm
1}]$–modules and that
$\Delta^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}_{N,\phi}=\det(t\iota_{+}-\iota_{-})$. Recall that
Property (M) states in particular that
(1)
$\mbox{deg}\Delta_{N,\phi}^{{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}}=|\pi/\tilde{\pi}|\,\|\phi\|_{T}+(1+b_{3}(N))\mbox{div}\phi_{\tilde{\pi}}.$
Recall that we assumed that $N\neq S^{1}\times D^{2}$ and $N\neq S^{1}\times
S^{2}$, in particular $\chi(\Sigma)\leq 0$ and therefore
$-\chi(\Sigma)=||\phi||_{T}$. Writing
$b_{i}=\mbox{rank}_{\mathbb{Z}}(H_{i}(\Sigma;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}]))=\mbox{rank}_{\mathbb{Z}}(H_{i}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}]))$
a standard Euler characteristic argument now shows that
$-b_{0}+b_{1}-b_{2}=-|\pi/\tilde{\pi}|\chi(\Sigma)=|\pi/\tilde{\pi}|\cdot||\phi||_{T}.$
By [FK06, Lemma 2.2] we have
$b_{i}=\mbox{deg}\Delta^{{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}}_{N,\phi,i}$ for $i=0$ and $i=2$.
We also have
$\mbox{deg}\Delta^{{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}}_{N,{\phi},0}=\mbox{div}\phi_{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}$
and
$\mbox{deg}\Delta^{{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}}_{N,{\phi},2}=b_{3}(N)\mbox{div}\phi_{\tilde{\pi}}$
by Lemma 2.8. Combining these facts with (1) we conclude that
$\mbox{deg}\Delta^{{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}}_{N,\phi}=b_{1}$. So we now have
$\mbox{deg}(\det(t\iota_{+}-\iota_{-}))=b_{1}$. Since $\iota_{+}$ and
$\iota_{-}$ are $b_{1}\times b_{1}$ matrices over $\mathbb{Z}$ it now follows
that $\det(\iota_{+})$ equals the top coefficient of
$\Delta^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}_{N,\phi}$, which by Property (M) equals $\pm 1$. By
the symmetry of twisted Alexander polynomials we have that the bottom
coefficient of $\Delta^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}_{N,\phi}$ also equals $\pm 1$, we
deduce that $\det(\iota_{-})=\pm 1$. This shows that
$\iota_{+},\iota_{-}:H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\to
H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ are isomorphisms. We thus showed that if
$\tilde{\pi}$ has Property (M), then the maps
$\iota:H_{i}(A;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])\to
H_{i}(B;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])$ are isomorphisms for $i=0,1$.
Now assume that we are given a finite index subgroup $\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi$
such that the maps $\iota_{\pm}:H_{i}(A;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])\to
H_{i}(B;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])$ are isomorphisms for $i=0,1$. It
follows from the assumption that
$\iota_{\pm}:H_{0}(A;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])\to
H_{0}(B;\mathbb{Z}[{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}])$ are isomorphisms that the map
$H_{0}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm
1}]\xrightarrow{t\iota_{+}-\iota_{-}}H_{0}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$
is injective. In particular the Mayer–Vietoris sequence of $(N,\Sigma)$ with
$\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}]$–coefficients gives rise to the
following exact sequence
$H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm
1}]\xrightarrow{t\iota_{+}-\iota_{-}}H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\otimes\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm
1}]\to H_{1}(N;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])\to 0.$
As above $H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ is a free abelian group and by
our assumption $H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\cong
H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$ is also free abelian. In particular the
above exact sequence defines a presentation for
$H_{1}(N;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}][t^{\pm 1}])$ and we deduce that
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}=\det(t\iota_{+}-\iota_{-}).$
Since $\iota_{-}$ and $\iota_{+}$ are isomorphisms it follows that
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}$ is monic of degree $b_{1}$. An argument
similar to the above now shows that
$\mbox{deg}\Delta_{N,\phi}^{{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}}=|\pi/\tilde{\pi}|\,\|\phi\|_{T}+(1+b_{3}(N))\mbox{div}\phi_{\tilde{\pi}}.$
∎
### 3.2. Finite solvable quotients
Given a solvable group $S$ we denote by $\ell(S)$ its derived length, i.e. the
length of the shortest decomposition into abelian groups. Put differently,
$\ell(S)$ is the minimal number such that $S^{(\ell(S))}=\\{e\\}$. Note that
$\ell(S)=0$ if and only if $S=\\{e\\}$.
For sake of comprehension, we briefly recall the notation. We are considering
a $3$–manifold $N$ with empty or toroidal boundary, and we fix a primitive
class $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$. We denote by $\Sigma$ a connected
Thurston norm minimizing surface dual to $\phi$, and write $A=\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$
and $B=\pi_{1}(M)$ (with $M=N\setminus\nu\Sigma$) and we denote the two
inclusion induced maps $A\to B$ with $\iota_{\pm}$. We also write
$\pi=\pi_{1}(N)$. Note that $\pi=\langle
B,t|\iota_{-}(A)=t\iota_{+}(A)t^{-1}\rangle$.
Given $n\in\mathbb{N}\cup\\{0\\}$ we denote by $\mathcal{S}(n)$ the statement
that for any finite solvable group $S$ with $\ell(S)\leq n$ we have that for
$\iota=\iota_{-},\iota_{+}$ the map
$\iota^{*}:\mbox{Hom}(B,S)\to\mbox{Hom}(A,S)$
is a bijection. This is equivalent by Lemma 2.10 to assert that $\iota:A\to B$
induces an isomorphism of pro–$\mathcal{FS}(n)$ completions. Recall that by
Corollary 2.3 and Lemma 2.12 statement $\mathcal{S}(n)$ implies then that for
any homomorphism $\beta:B\to S$ to a finite solvable group $S$ with
$\ell(S)\leq n$ we have $\mbox{Im}\\{\beta\circ\iota:A\to B\to
S\\}=\mbox{Im}\\{\beta:B\to S\\}$.
Our goal is to show that $\mathcal{S}(n)$ holds for all $n$. We will show this
by induction on $n$. For the induction argument we use the following auxiliary
statement: Given $n\in\mathbb{N}\cup\\{0\\}$ we denote by $\mathcal{H}(n)$ the
statement that for any homomorphism $\beta:B\to S$ where $S$ is finite
solvable with $\ell(S)\leq n$ we have that for $\iota=\iota_{-},\iota_{+}$ the
homomorphism
$\iota_{*}:H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[S])\to H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[S])$
is an isomorphism.
In the next two sections we will prove the following two propositions:
###### Proposition 3.3.
If $\mathcal{H}(n)$ and $\mathcal{S}(n)$ hold, then $\mathcal{S}(n+1)$ holds
as well.
###### Proposition 3.4.
Assume that $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition $(*)$. If $\mathcal{S}(n)$ holds,
then $\mathcal{H}(n)$ holds as well.
We can now prove the following corollary, which amounts to Proposition 1.7.
###### Corollary 3.5.
Assume that $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition $(*)$ and that $\phi$ is primitive.
Let $\Sigma\subset N$ be a connected Thurston norm minimizing surface dual to
$\phi$ and let $\iota:A\to B$ be one of the two injections. Then for any
finite solvable group $G$ the map
$\mbox{Hom}(B,G)\xrightarrow{\iota^{*}}\mbox{Hom}(A,G)$
is a bijection, i.e. $\iota:A\to B$ induces an isomorphism of prosolvable
completions.
###### Proof.
The condition $\mathcal{S}(0)$ holds by fiat. It follows from Proposition 3.2
applied to the trivial group that if $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition ($*$),
then $\iota_{\pm}:H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z})\to H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z})$ are
isomorphisms, i.e. $\mathcal{H}(0)$ holds. The combination of Propositions 3.3
and 3.4 then shows that $\mathcal{H}(n)$ and $\mathcal{S}(n)$ hold for all
$n$. The corollary is now immediate. ∎
### 3.3. Proof of Proposition 3.3
In this section we will prove Proposition 3.3. Let $\iota=\iota_{-}$ or
$\iota=\iota_{+}$. Since $\mathcal{S}(n)$ holds we only have to consider the
case of $G$ a finite solvable group with $\ell(G)=n+1$. By definition $G$ fits
into a short exact sequence
$1\to I\to G\to S\to 1,$
where $I=G^{(n)}$ is finite abelian and $S=G/G^{(n)}$ finite solvable with
$\ell(S)=n$.
We will construct a map $\Phi:\mbox{Hom}(A,G)\to\mbox{Hom}(B,G)$ which is an
inverse to $\iota^{*}:\mbox{Hom}(B,G)\to\mbox{Hom}(A,G)$. Let $\alpha:A\to G$
be a homomorphism. Without loss of generality we can assume that $\alpha$ is
an epimorphism. Denote $A\xrightarrow{\alpha}G\to S$ by $\alpha^{\prime}$ and
denote the map $A\to A/\mbox{Ker}(\alpha^{\prime})^{(1)}$ by $\rho$. Note that
$\alpha$ sends $\mbox{Ker}(\alpha^{\prime})$ to the abelian group $I$, hence
$\alpha$ vanishes on $\mbox{Ker}(\alpha^{\prime})^{(1)}$. This shows that
$\alpha$ factors through $\rho$, in particular $\alpha=\psi\circ\rho$ for some
$\psi:A/\mbox{Ker}(\alpha^{\prime})^{(1)}\to G$.
Recall that $\ell(S)=n$, therefore by $\mathcal{S}(n)$ we have that
$\alpha^{\prime}:A\to S$ equals $\iota^{*}(\beta^{\prime})$ for some
$\beta^{\prime}:B\to S$. By Lemma 2.12, $\mathcal{S}(n)$ guarantees that
$i_{*}:H_{0}(A;\mathbb{Z}[S])\to H_{0}(B;\mathbb{Z}[S])$ is an isomorphism; on
the other hand $\mathcal{H}(n)$ asserts that $i_{*}:H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[S])\to
H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[S])$ is an isomorphism as well. By Corollary 2.5 this
implies that $\iota$ induces an isomorphism
$\iota:A/\mbox{Ker}(\alpha^{\prime})^{(1)}\xrightarrow{\cong}B/\mbox{Ker}(\beta^{\prime})^{(1)}.$
The various homomorphisms can be summarized in the following commutative
diagram:
$\textstyle{A\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\alpha}$$\scriptstyle{\iota}$$\scriptstyle{\alpha^{\prime}}$$\scriptstyle{\rho}$$\textstyle{B\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\beta^{\prime}}$$\textstyle{S\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{=}$$\textstyle{S}$$\textstyle{A/\mbox{Ker}(\alpha^{\prime})^{(1)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\cong}$$\scriptstyle{\iota}$$\scriptstyle{\psi}$$\scriptstyle{\alpha^{\prime}}$$\textstyle{B/\mbox{Ker}(\beta^{\prime})^{(1)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\beta^{\prime}}$$\textstyle{G.}$
Now we define $\Phi(\alpha)\in\mbox{Hom}(B,G)$ to be the homomorphism
$B\to
B/\mbox{Ker}(\beta^{\prime})^{(1)}\xrightarrow{\iota^{-1}}A/\mbox{Ker}(\alpha^{\prime})^{(1)}\xrightarrow{\psi}G.$
It is now straightforward to check that $\Phi$ and $\iota^{*}$ are inverses to
each other.
### 3.4. Proof of Proposition 3.4
In this section we will prove Proposition 3.4. So let $\beta:B\to S$ be a
homomorphism to a finite solvable group $S$ with $\ell(S)\leq n$. If $\beta$
extends to $\pi_{1}(N)$, $\mathcal{H}(n)$ will follow immediately from
Proposition 3.2. In general $\beta$ though will not extend; however using
$\mathcal{S}(n)$ we will construct a homomorphism $\pi=\langle
B,t|\iota_{-}(A)=t\iota_{+}(A)t^{-1}\rangle\to G$ to a finite group $G$ ‘which
contains $\beta:B\to S$’ to get the required isomorphism.
We first need some notation. Given groups $C$ and $H$ we define
$C(H)=\bigcap\limits_{\gamma\in Hom(C,H)}\mbox{Ker}(\gamma).$
We summarize a few properties of $C(H)\subset C$ in the following lemma.
###### Lemma 3.6.
Let $C$ be a finitely generated group. Then the subgroup $C(H)\subset C$ has
the following properties:
1. (1)
$C(H)\subset C$ is normal and characteristic.
2. (2)
If $H$ is finite and solvable, then $C/C(H)$ is finite and solvable with
$\ell(C/C(H))\leq\ell(H)$.
###### Proof.
Statement (1) is immediate. To prove the rest, consider the injection
$C/C(H)=C/\bigcap\limits_{\gamma\in
Hom(C,H)}\mbox{Ker}(\gamma)\to\prod\limits_{\gamma\in
Hom(C,H)}C/\mbox{Ker}(\gamma).$
If $H$ is finite, then $\mbox{Hom}(C,H)$ is a finite set (since $C$ is
finitely generated), hence $C/C(H)$ is finite. If $H$ is furthermore solvable,
then for any $\gamma\in\mbox{Hom}(C,H)$ the groups $C/\mbox{Ker}(\gamma)$ are
solvable, hence $C/C(H)$ is solvable as well. Moreover for any
$\gamma\in\mbox{Hom}(C,H)$ we have $\ell(C/\mbox{Ker}(\gamma))\leq\ell(H)$. We
therefore get
$\ell(C/C(H))\leq\max_{\gamma\in
Hom(C,H)}\ell(C/\mbox{Ker}(\gamma))\leq\ell(H).$
∎
We will also need the following group homomorphism extension lemma.
###### Lemma 3.7.
Assume that $\mathcal{S}(n)$ holds and that $S$ is a finite solvable group
with $\ell(S)\leq n$. Let $\beta:B\to S$ be a homomorphism.
Then there exists a $k\in\mathbb{N}$, a semidirect product
$\mathbb{Z}/k\ltimes B/B(S)$ and a homomorphism
$\pi=\langle B,t|\iota_{-}(A)=t\iota_{+}(A)t^{-1}\rangle\to\mathbb{Z}/k\ltimes
B/B(S)$
which extends $B\to B/B(S)$, i.e. we have the following commutative diagram:
$\textstyle{1\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{B/B(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\mathbb{Z}/{k}\ltimes
B/B(S)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\mathbb{Z}/{k}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{1}$$\textstyle{B\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi.\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$
###### Proof.
Assume that $\mathcal{S}(n)$ holds and that $S$ is a finite solvable group
with $\ell(S)\leq n$. Let $\beta:B\to S$ be a homomorphism. We denote the
projection map $B\to B/B(S)$ by $\rho$.
###### Claim.
There exists an automorphism $\gamma:B/B(S)\to B/B(S)$ such that
$\rho(\iota_{+}(a))=\gamma(\rho(\iota_{-}(a)))$ for all $a\in A$.
Let $\iota=\iota_{-}$ or $\iota=\iota_{+}$. By Lemma 3.6 we know that $B/B(S)$
is finite solvable with $\ell(B/B(S))\leq n$. It follows from $\mathcal{S}(n)$
that
$\iota_{*}:A/\mbox{Ker}\\{A\xrightarrow{\iota}B\xrightarrow{\rho}B/B(S)\\}\to
B/B(S)$
is an isomorphism. On the other hand it is also a straightforward consequence
of $\mathcal{S}(n)$ that
$\mbox{Ker}\\{A\xrightarrow{\iota}B\xrightarrow{\rho}B/B(S)\\}=A(S).$
Combining these two observations we see that $\iota$ gives rise to an
isomorphism $\iota_{*}:A/A(S)\to B/B(S)$. We now take
$\gamma:=\iota_{+*}\circ(\iota_{-*})^{-1}$. This concludes the proof of the
claim.
We now write $H=B/B(S)$. It is now straightforward to verify that
$\begin{array}[]{rcl}\pi=\langle
B,t|\iota_{-}(A)=t\iota_{+}(A)t^{-1}\rangle&\to&\mathbb{Z}\ltimes H=\langle
H,t|H=t\gamma(H)t^{-1}\rangle\\\ b&\mapsto&\rho(b),\,\,\,b\in B,\\\
t&\mapsto&t\end{array}$
defines a homomorphism. Since $H=B/B(S)$ is a finite group it follows that the
automorphism $\gamma$ has finite order $k$, in particular the projection map
$\mathbb{Z}\ltimes B/B(S)\to\mathbb{Z}/k\ltimes B/B(S)$ is a homomorphism.
Clearly the resulting homomorphism $\pi\to\mathbb{Z}/k\ltimes B/B(S)$ has all
the required properties. ∎
We are in position now to prove Proposition 3.4.
###### Proof of Proposition 3.4.
Recall that we assume that $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition $(*)$ and that
$\mathcal{S}(n)$ holds. We have to show that $\mathcal{H}(n)$ holds as well.
So let $\beta:B\to S$ be a homomorphism to a finite solvable group $S$ with
$\ell(S)\leq n$. We have to show that for $\iota=\iota_{-},\iota_{+}$ the
homomorphism
$\iota_{*}:H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[S])\to H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[S])$
is an isomorphism. Without loss of generality we can assume that $\beta$ is
surjective. Recall that $\mathcal{S}(n)$ implies that $\beta\circ\iota:A\to S$
is surjective as well.
We now apply Lemma 3.7 to find a homomorphism
$\pi=\langle B,t|\iota_{-}(A)=t\iota_{+}(A)t^{-1}\rangle\to\mathbb{Z}/k\ltimes
B/B(S)$
which extends $B\to B/B(S)$. Note that
(2) $\begin{array}[]{rcl}\mbox{Ker}\\{\gamma:B\to\pi\to\mathbb{Z}/k\ltimes
B/B(S)\\}&=&\mbox{Ker}\\{B\to B/B(S)\\}\\\ \mbox{Ker}\\{\gamma\circ\iota:A\to
B\to\pi\to\mathbb{Z}/k\ltimes B/B(S)\\}&=&\mbox{Ker}\\{\iota:A\to B\to
B/B(S)\\}.\end{array}$
We let
$\begin{array}[]{rclcl}\hat{B}&=&\mbox{Ker}\\{B\to B/B(S)\\},\\\
\tilde{B}&=&\mbox{Ker}(\beta).\end{array}$
Clearly $\hat{B}\subset\tilde{B}$ by the definition of $B/B(S)$. We also write
$\hat{A}=\iota^{-1}(\hat{B})$ and $\tilde{A}=\iota^{-1}(\tilde{B})$. We now
consider the epimorphism $\pi_{1}(N)=\pi\to\mathbb{Z}/k\ltimes B/B(S)$. By
Condition ($*$), Equation (2), Proposition 3.2 and Corollaries 2.5 and 2.5 it
follows that the maps
$\iota:A/\hat{A}\to B/\hat{B}\mbox{ and }\iota:A/[\hat{A},\hat{A}]\to
B/[\hat{B},\hat{B}]$
are isomorphisms. It now follows from Lemma 2.7 and Corollary 2.5 that the
maps
$\iota:A/\tilde{A}\to B/\tilde{B}\mbox{ and }\iota:A/[\tilde{A},\tilde{A}]\to
B/[\tilde{B},\tilde{B}]$
are also isomorphisms. ∎
## 4\. A product criterion
In this section we will apply a theorem of Agol to prove a criterion for a
manifold to be a product, which complements Proposition 1.7.
In order to state our result, we first recall the definition of a sutured
manifold (cf. [Ga83, Definition 2.6] or [CC03, p. 364]). A _sutured manifold_
$(M,\gamma)$ is a compact oriented 3–manifold $M$ together with a set
$\gamma\subset\partial M$ of pairwise disjoint annuli $A(\gamma)$ and tori
$T(\gamma)$. Furthermore, the structure of a sutured manifold consists of the
following choices of orientations:
1. (1)
For each $A\in A(\gamma)$ a choice of a simple closed, oriented curve in $A$
(called _suture_) such that $A$ is the tubular neighborhood of the curve, and
2. (2)
the choice of an orientation for each component of $\partial M\setminus
A(\gamma)$.
The orientations must be compatible, i.e. the orientation of the components of
$\partial M\setminus A(\gamma)$ must be coherent with the orientations of the
sutures.
Given a sutured manifold $(M,\gamma)$ we define $R_{+}(\gamma)$ as the
components of $\overline{\partial M\setminus\gamma}$ where the orientation
agrees with the orientation induced by $M$ on $\partial M$, and
$R_{-}(\gamma)$ as the components of $\overline{\partial M\setminus\gamma}$
where the two orientations disagree. We define also
$R(\gamma)=R_{+}(\gamma)\cup R_{-}(\gamma)$.
A sutured manifold $(M,\gamma)$ is called _taut_ if $M$ is irreducible and if
each component of $R(\gamma)$ is incompressible and Thurston norm–minimizing
in $H_{2}(M,\gamma;\mathbb{Z})$ (we refer to [Sc89] for information regarding
the Thurston norm on sutured manifolds).
An example of a taut sutured manifold is given by taking an oriented surface
$\Sigma$ and considering $\Sigma\times I$ with sutures given by the annuli
$\partial\Sigma\times I$. The sutures are oriented by the orientation of
$\partial\Sigma$. We can pick orientations such that
$R_{-}(\gamma)=\Sigma\times 0$ and $R_{+}(\gamma)=\Sigma\times 1$. If a
sutured manifold $(M,\gamma)$ is diffeomorphic (as a sutured manifold) to such
a product then we say that $(M,\gamma)$ is a _product sutured manifold_.
Another example of a taut sutured manifold comes from considering an oriented
incompressible Thurston norm minimizing surface $\Sigma\subset N$ in an
irreducible 3–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary. We let
$(M,\gamma)=(N\setminus\nu\Sigma,\partial N\cap(N\setminus\nu\Sigma))$. With
appropriate orientations $(M,\gamma)$ is a taut sutured manifold such that
$R_{-}(\gamma)=\Sigma^{-}$ and $R_{+}(\gamma)=\Sigma^{+}$.
The following theorem immediately implies Theorem 1.8.
###### Theorem 4.1.
Assume we have a taut sutured manifold $(M,\gamma)$ which has the following
properties:
1. (1)
$R_{\pm}(\gamma)$ consist of one component $\Sigma^{\pm}$ each, and the
inclusion induced maps $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M)$ give rise to
isomorphisms of the respective prosolvable completions,
2. (2)
$\pi_{1}(M)$ is residually finite solvable,
then $(M,\gamma)$ is a product sutured manifold.
The key ingredient to the proof of Theorem 4.1 is a result of Agol’s [Ag08]
which we recall in Section 4.1. We will then provide the proof for Theorem 4.1
in Sections 4.2 and 4.3.
###### Remark.
(1) It is an immediate consequence of ‘peripheral subgroup separability’
[LN91] that the theorem holds under the assumption that the inclusion induced
maps $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M)$ give rise to isomorphisms of the
respective _profinite_ completions. It is not clear how the approach of [LN91]
can be adapted to prove Theorem 4.1.
(2) It is also interesting to compare Theorem 4.1 with a result of
Grothendieck. In [Gr70, Section 3.1] Grothendieck proves that if $\varphi:A\to
B$ is a homomorphism between finitely presented, residually finite groups
which induces an isomorphism of the profinite completions, and if $A$ is
arithmetic (e.g. a surface group), then $\varphi$ is an isomorphism. It is an
interesting question whether Theorem 4.1 can be proved using purely group
theoretic arguments. We refer to [AHKS07] for more information regarding this
question.
### 4.1. Agol’s theorem
Before we can state Agol’s result we have to introduce more definitions. A
group $G$ is called _residually finite $\mathbb{Q}$–solvable_ or _RFRS_ if
there exists a filtration of groups $G=G_{0}\supset G_{1}\supset G_{2}\dots$
such that the following hold:
1. (1)
$\cap_{i}G_{i}=\\{1\\}$,
2. (2)
$G_{i}$ is a normal, finite index subgroup of $G$ for any $i$,
3. (3)
for any $i$ the map $G_{i}\to G_{i}/G_{i+1}$ factors through $G_{i}\to
H_{1}(G_{i};\mathbb{Z})/\mbox{torsion}$.
Note that RFRS groups are in particular residually finite solvable, but the
RFRS condition is considerably stronger than being residually finite solvable.
The notion of an RFRS group was introduced by Agol [Ag08], we refer to Agol’s
paper for more information on RFRS groups.
Given a sutured manifold $(M,\gamma)$ the double $DM_{\gamma}$ is defined to
be the double of $M$ along $R(\gamma)$, i.e. $DM_{\gamma}=M\cup_{R(\gamma)}M$.
Note that the annuli $A(\gamma)$ give rise to toroidal boundary components of
$DM_{\gamma}$. We denote by $r:DM_{\gamma}\to M$ the retraction map given by
‘folding’ the two copies of $M$ along $R(\gamma)$.
We are now in a position to state Agol’s result. The theorem as stated here is
clearly implicit in the proof of [Ag08, Theorem 6.1].
###### Theorem 4.2.
Let $(M,\gamma)$ be a connected, taut sutured manifold such that $\pi_{1}(M)$
satisfies property RFRS. Write $W=DM_{\gamma}$. Then there exists an
epimorphism $\alpha:\pi_{1}(M)\to S$ to a finite solvable group, such that in
the covering $p:\widetilde{W}\to W$ corresponding to $\alpha\circ
r_{*}:\pi_{1}(W)\to S$ the pull back of the class $[R_{-}(\gamma)]\in
H_{2}(W,\partial W;\mathbb{Z})$ lies on the closure of the cone over a fibered
face of $\widetilde{W}$.
Note that $[R_{+}(\gamma)]=\pm[R_{-}(\gamma)]$ in $H_{2}(W,\partial
W;\mathbb{Z})$, i.e. $[R_{-}(\gamma)]$ is a fibered class if and only if
$[R_{+}(\gamma)]$ is a fibered class. In case that $\widetilde{W}$ has
vanishing Thurston norm, then we adopt the usual convention that by the
fibered face we actually mean
$H^{1}(\widetilde{W},\mathbb{R})\setminus\\{0\\}$.
### 4.2. Proof of Theorem 4.1
From now on assume we have a taut sutured manifold $(M,\gamma)$ with the
following properties:
1. (1)
$R_{\pm}(\gamma)$ consist of one component $\Sigma^{\pm}$ each and the
inclusion induced maps $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M)$ give rise to
isomorphisms of the respective prosolvable completions.
2. (2)
$\pi_{1}(M)$ is residually finite solvable.
Since Theorem 4.1 is obvious in the case $M=S^{2}\times[0,1]$ we will
henceforth assume that $M\neq S^{2}\times[0,1]$.
Our main tool in proving Theorem 4.1 is Theorem 4.2. In order to apply it we
need the following claim.
###### Claim.
The group $\pi_{1}(M)$ is RFRS.
###### Proof.
By assumption the group $\pi_{1}(M)$ is residually finite solvable. This means
that we can find a sequence $\pi_{1}(M)=B_{0}\supset B_{1}\supset B_{2}\dots$
with the following properties:
1. (1)
$\cap_{i}B_{i}=\\{1\\}$,
2. (2)
$B_{i}$ is a normal, finite index subgroup of $\pi_{1}(M)$ for any $i$,
3. (3)
for any $i$ the map $B_{i}\to B_{i}/B_{i+1}$ factors through $B_{i}\to
H_{1}(B_{i};\mathbb{Z})$.
It remains to show that $B_{i}\to B_{i}/B_{i+1}$ factors through
$H_{1}(B_{i};\mathbb{Z})/\mbox{torsion}$. In fact we claim that
$H_{1}(B_{i};\mathbb{Z})$ is torsion–free. Indeed, first note that by
Shapiro’s lemma $H_{1}(B_{i};\mathbb{Z})\cong
H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z}[B/B_{i}])\cong H_{1}(M;\mathbb{Z}[B/B_{i}])$. Furthermore,
by Lemma 2.12 we have
$H_{1}(\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{Z}[B/B_{i}])\xrightarrow{\cong}H_{1}(M;\mathbb{Z}[B/B_{i}]),$
but the first group is clearly torsion–free as it is the homology of a finite
cover of a surface. ∎
In the following we write $W=DM_{\gamma}$. By the above claim we can apply
Theorem 4.2 which says that there exists an epimorphism $\alpha:\pi_{1}(M)\to
S$ to a finite solvable group, such that in the covering $p:\widetilde{W}\to
W$ corresponding to $\alpha\circ r_{*}:\pi_{1}(W)\to S$ the pull back of the
class $[R_{-}(\gamma)]=[\Sigma^{-}]\in H_{2}(W,\partial W;\mathbb{Z})$ lies on
the closure of the cone over of a fibered face of $\widetilde{W}$.
Note that we can view $\widetilde{W}$ as the double of the cover
$(\widetilde{M},\tilde{\gamma})$ of $(M,\gamma)$ induced by
$\alpha:\pi_{1}(M)\to S$. We summarize the main properties of
$\tilde{\Sigma}^{\pm}$ and $\widetilde{W}$ in the following lemma.
###### Lemma 4.3.
1. (1)
$\tilde{\Sigma}^{\pm}:=p^{-1}(\Sigma^{\pm})$ are connected surfaces,
2. (2)
the inclusion induced maps
$\pi_{1}(\tilde{\Sigma}^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(\widetilde{M})$ give rise to
isomorphisms of prosolvable completions,
3. (3)
if $\tilde{\Sigma}^{-}$ is the fiber of a fibration
$\widetilde{W}=D\widetilde{M}_{\tilde{\gamma}}\to S^{1}$, then $\widetilde{M}$
is a product over $\tilde{\Sigma}^{-}$,
4. (4)
$M$ is a product over $\Sigma^{-}$ if and only if $\widetilde{M}$ is a product
over $\tilde{\Sigma}^{-}$.
###### Proof.
First note that it follows from Lemma 2.12 and Corollary 2.3 and the
assumption that $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M)$ give rise to isomorphisms
of the respective prosolvable completions that
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M)\to S$ is surjective, i.e. the preimages
$\tilde{\Sigma}^{\pm}:=p^{-1}(\Sigma^{\pm})$ are connected. The second claim
follows from Lemma 2.11 since the maps
$\pi_{1}({\Sigma}^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}({M})$ give rise to isomorphisms of their
prosolvable completions.
For the third claim consider the following commutative diagram
$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\tilde{\Sigma}^{-})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\widetilde{W}\setminus\nu\tilde{\Sigma}^{-})}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\widetilde{M}).\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$
If $\tilde{\Sigma}^{-}$ is the fiber of a fibration
$D\widetilde{M}_{\tilde{\gamma}}\to S^{1}$, then the top map in the above
commutative diagram is an isomorphism. We can think of
$\widetilde{W}\setminus\nu\tilde{\Sigma}^{-}$ as
$\widetilde{M}\cup_{\tilde{\Sigma}^{+}}\widetilde{M}$. It is now clear that
the lower two maps are injective. But then the lower left map also has to be
an isomorphism, i.e. $\widetilde{M}$ is a product over $\tilde{\Sigma}^{-}$.
The last claim is well–known, it is for example a consequence of [He76,
Theorem 10.5]. ∎
Using the above lemma it is now clear that the following lemma implies Theorem
4.1.
###### Lemma 4.4.
Let $(M,\gamma)$ be a taut sutured manifold such that $R_{\pm}(\gamma)$
consist of one component $\Sigma^{\pm}$ each. Assume the following hold:
1. (A)
The inclusion induced maps $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M)$ give rise to
isomorphisms of the respective prosolvable completions.
2. (B)
The class in $H^{1}(DM_{\gamma};\mathbb{Z})$ represented by the surface
$\Sigma^{-}$ lies on the closure of the cone over a fibered face of
$DM_{\gamma}$.
Then $\Sigma^{-}$ is the fiber of a fibration $DM_{\gamma}\to S^{1}$.
In the following we write $W=DM_{\gamma}$. Note that we have a canonical
involution $\tau$ on $W$ with fix point set $R(\gamma)$. From now on we think
of $W=DM_{\gamma}$ as $M\cup_{R(\gamma)}\tau(M)$.
Our main tool in the proof of Lemma 4.4 will be the interplay between the
Thurston norm and McMullen’s Alexander norm [McM02]. Recall that given a
3–manifold $V$ with $b_{1}(V)\geq 2$ the Alexander norm
$||-||_{A}:H^{1}(V;\mathbb{R})\to\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ has the following
properties:
1. (a)
The Alexander norm ball is dual to the Newton polyhedron defined by the
symmetrized Alexander polynomial
$\Delta_{V}\in\mathbb{Z}[H_{1}(V;\mathbb{Z})/\mbox{torsion}]$.
2. (b)
The Alexander norm ball is a (possibly noncompact) polyhedron with finitely
many faces.
3. (c)
For any $\phi\in H^{1}(V;\mathbb{R})$ we have $||\phi||_{A}\leq||\phi||_{T}$,
and equality holds for fibered classes.
4. (d)
Let $C\subset H^{1}(V;\mathbb{R})$ be a fibered cone, i.e. the cone on a
fibered face of the Thurston norm ball, then $C$ is contained in the cone on
the interior of a top–dimensional face of the Alexander norm ball.
5. (e)
Let $C_{1},C_{2}\subset H^{1}(V;\mathbb{R})$ be fibered cones which are
contained in the same cone on the interior of a top–dimensional face of the
Alexander norm ball, then $C_{1}=C_{2}$.
Our assumption that the induced maps $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M)$ give
rise to isomorphisms of the respective prosolvable completions implies that
$W=DM_{\gamma}$ ‘looks algebraically’ the same as $\Sigma^{-}\times S^{1}$.
More precisely, we have the following lemma which we will prove in Section
4.3.
###### Lemma 4.5.
Let $(M,\gamma)$ be a taut sutured manifold with the property that
$R_{\pm}(\gamma)$ consist of one component $\Sigma^{\pm}$ each. Assume that
(A) holds. Then the following hold:
1. (1)
There exists an isomorphism
$f:\mathbb{R}\oplus H_{1}(\Sigma^{-},\partial\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})\to
H_{2}(W,\partial W;\mathbb{R})$
such that $f(1,0)=[\Sigma^{-}]$ and such that $\tau(f(r,h))=f(r,-h)$.
2. (2)
The class $\phi=PD(\Sigma^{-})\in H^{1}(W;\mathbb{Z})$ lies in the cone $D$ on
the interior of a top–dimensional face of the Alexander norm ball.
Note that (1) implies in particular that $b_{1}(W)\geq 2$. Assuming this lemma
we are now in a position to prove Lemma 4.4.
###### Proof of Lemma 4.4.
Let $(M,\gamma)$ be a taut sutured manifold with the property that
$R_{\pm}(\gamma)$ consist of one component $\Sigma^{\pm}$ each. Assume that
(A) and (B) hold.
By Lemma 4.5 there exists a cone $D\subset H^{1}(W;\mathbb{R})$ on the
interior of a top–dimensional face of the Alexander norm ball which contains
$\phi=PD([\Sigma^{-}])$. We denote the map
$\mathbb{R}\oplus
H_{1}(\Sigma^{-},\partial\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})\xrightarrow{f}H_{2}(W,\partial
W;\mathbb{R})\xrightarrow{PD}H^{1}(W;\mathbb{R})$
by $\Phi$.
By (B) we can find $h\in H_{1}(\Sigma^{-},\partial\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})$ such
that $\Phi(1,h)$ and $\Phi(1,-h)$ lie in $D$ and such that $\Phi(1,h)$ lies in
the cone $C$ on a fibered face $F$ of the Thurston norm ball. Note that the
$\tau_{*}:H^{1}(W;\mathbb{R})\to H^{1}(W;\mathbb{R})$ sends fibered classes to
fibered classes and preserves the Thurston norm. In particular
$\tau(\Phi(1,h))=\Phi(1,-h)$ is fibered as well and it lies in $\tau(C)$ which
is the cone on the fibered face $\tau(F)$ of the Thurston norm ball. Recall
that $\tau(\Phi(1,h))=\Phi(1,-h)$ lies in $D$, it follows from Property (d) of
the Alexander norm that $\tau(C)\subset D$. We then use (e) to conclude that
$C=\tau(C)$. In particular $\Phi(1,h)$ and $\Phi(1,-h)$ lie in $C$. Since $C$
is convex it follows that $\phi=\Phi(1,0)\in C$ i.e. $\phi$ is a fiber class.
∎
### 4.3. Proof of Lemma 4.5
By Lemma 2.12 the following lemma is just the first statement of Lemma 4.5.
###### Lemma 4.6.
Let $(M,\gamma)$ be a taut sutured manifold with the property that
$R_{\pm}(\gamma)$ consist of one component $\Sigma^{\pm}$ each. Assume that
$\iota_{\pm}:H_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm};\mathbb{R})\to H_{1}(M;\mathbb{R})$ are
isomorphisms. Then there exists an isomorphism
$f:\mathbb{R}\oplus H_{1}(\Sigma^{-},\partial\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})\to
H_{2}(W,\partial W;\mathbb{R})$
such that $f(1,0)=[\Sigma^{-}]$ and such that $\tau(f(b,c))=f(b,-c)$.
###### Proof.
We start out with the following two claims.
###### Claim.
$M$ has no toroidal sutures.
###### Proof.
Denote the toroidal sutures by $T_{1},\dots,T_{n}$. Recall that for any
compact 3–manifold $X$ we have $b_{1}(\partial X)\leq 2b_{1}(X)$. In our case
it is easy to see that we have $b_{1}(\partial
M)=b_{1}(\Sigma^{-})+b_{1}(\Sigma^{+})+\sum_{i=1}^{n}b_{1}(T_{i})=2b_{1}(\Sigma)+2n$.
On the other hand, since $H_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm};\mathbb{R})\to
H_{1}(M;\mathbb{R})$ are isomorphisms we have $b_{1}(M)=b_{1}(\Sigma)$. It now
follows from $b_{1}(\partial M)\leq 2b_{1}(M)$ that $n=0$. ∎
###### Claim.
The inclusion induced maps
$H_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm},\partial\Sigma^{\pm};\mathbb{R})\to
H_{1}(M,A(\gamma);\mathbb{R})$ are isomorphisms.
Now consider the following commutative diagram:
$\textstyle{H_{1}(\partial\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\cong}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(\Sigma^{-},\partial\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{0}(\partial\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{0}(\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\cong}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(A(\gamma);\mathbb{R})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(M;\mathbb{R})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(M,A(\gamma);\mathbb{R})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{0}(A(\gamma);\mathbb{R})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{0}(M;\mathbb{R}).}$
Note that by the compatibility condition in the definition of sutured
manifolds we have that for each component $A$ of $A(\gamma)$ the subset
$\partial A\cap\Sigma^{-}=A\cap\partial\Sigma^{-}\subset\partial A$ consists
of exactly one boundary component of $A$. This implies that the maps
$H_{i}(\partial\Sigma^{-}\cap A;\mathbb{R})\to H_{i}(A;\mathbb{R})$ are
isomorphisms. The claim now follows immediately from the above commutative
diagram and from the assumption that $H_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm};\mathbb{R})\to
H_{1}(M;\mathbb{R})$ are isomorphisms.
We now define
$g:H_{1}(\Sigma^{-},\partial\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})\to H_{2}(W,\partial
W;\mathbb{R})$
as follows: given an element $c\in
H_{1}(\Sigma^{-},\partial\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})$ represent it by a chain
$c^{-}$, since the maps
$H_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm},\partial\Sigma^{\pm};\mathbb{R})\to
H_{1}(M,A(\gamma);\mathbb{R})$ are isomorphisms we can find a chain $c^{+}$ in
$\Sigma^{+}$ such that $[c^{-}]=[c^{+}]\in H_{2}(M,A(\gamma);\mathbb{R})$. Now
let $d$ be a $2$–chain in $M$ such that $\partial d=c^{-}\cup-c^{+}$. Then
define $g(c)$ to be the element in $H_{2}(W,\partial W;\mathbb{R})$
represented by the closed $2$–chain $d\cup-\tau(d)$. It is easy to verify that
$g$ is a well–defined homomorphism. Note that $\partial
W=A(\gamma)\cup\tau(A(\gamma))$ since $W$ has no toroidal sutures. It is now
straightforward to check, using a Mayer–Vietoris sequence, that the map
$\begin{array}[]{rclcl}f:\mathbb{R}&\oplus&H_{1}(\Sigma^{-},\partial\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{R})&\to&H_{2}(W,\partial
W;\mathbb{R})\\\ (\,b&,&c\,)&\mapsto&b[\Sigma^{-}]+g(c)\end{array}$
is an isomorphism. Clearly $f(1,0)=[\Sigma^{-}]$. It is also easy to verify
that $\tau(f(b,c))=f(b,-c)$. This shows that $f$ has all the required
properties. ∎
The second statement of Lemma 4.5 is more intricate. We start with the
following lemma which in light of [Gr70], [BG04] and [AHKS07] has perhaps some
independent interest.
###### Lemma 4.7.
Let $\varphi:A\to B$ be a homomorphism of finitely generated metabelian groups
which induces an isomorphism of prosolvable completions. Then $\varphi$ is
also an isomorphism.
###### Proof.
We first show that $A\to B$ is an injection. We consider the following
commutative diagram
$\textstyle{A\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{B\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\widehat{A}_{\mathcal{FS}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\widehat{B}_{\mathcal{FS}}.}$
The vertical maps are injections since metabelian groups are residually finite
(cf. [Ha59]). The bottom map is an isomorphism by assumption. It now follows
that the top map is an injection.
Now suppose that the homomorphism $A\to B$ is not surjective. We identify
$H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z})=H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z})\xrightarrow{\cong}H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z})=H_{1}(B;\mathbb{Z})$
via $\varphi$ and refer to the group as $H$. Let $g^{\prime}\in
B\setminus\varphi(A)$. We can pick an $a\in A$ such that $\varphi(a)$ and
$g^{\prime}$ represent the same element in $H$. Let
$g=\varphi(a)^{-1}g^{\prime}$. Then $g$ represents the trivial element in $H$
but $g$ is also an element in $B\setminus\varphi(A)$.
We will show that there exists a homomorphism $\alpha:B\to G$ to a finite
metabelian group such that $\alpha$ separates $g$ from $\varphi(A)$, i.e. such
that $\alpha(g)\not\in\alpha(\varphi(A))$. This then immediately contradicts,
via Lemma 2.10, our assumption that $\varphi:A\to B$ induces an isomorphism of
prosolvable completions. Our construction of finding such $\alpha$ builds on
some ideas of the proof of [LN91, Theorem 1].
We write ${B_{1}}=B_{2}={B}$. We denote the inclusion maps $A\to B_{i}=B$ by
$\varphi_{i}$. We let $C=B_{1}*_{A}B_{2}$. It is straightforward to see that
the homomorphisms $B_{i}\to C$ give rise to an isomorphism
$H_{1}(B_{i};\mathbb{Z})=H\to H_{1}(C;\mathbb{Z})$. Denote by
$s:B_{1}*_{A}B_{2}\to B_{1}*_{A}B_{2}$
the switching map, i.e. the map induced by $s(b)=b\in B_{2}$ for $b\in B_{1}$
and $s(b)=b\in B_{1}$ for $b\in B_{2}$. Note that $s$ acts as the identity on
$A\subset C$. Also note that $s$ descends to a map $C/C^{(2)}\to C/C^{(2)}$
which we also denote by $s$. We now view $g$ as an element in $B_{1}$ and
hence as an element in $C$. Note that the fact that $g$ represents the trivial
element in $H$ implies that $g$ represents an element in $C^{(1)}/C^{(2)}$. We
will first show that $s(g)\neq g\in C/C^{(2)}$. Consider the following
commutative diagram of exact sequences
$\begin{array}[]{ccccccccccccccc}H_{1}(A;\mathbb{Z}[H])&\to&H_{1}(B_{1};\mathbb{Z}[H])\oplus
H_{1}(B_{2};\mathbb{Z}[H])&\to&H_{1}(C;\mathbb{Z}[H])&\to&0\\\\[5.69054pt]
\,\,\,\downarrow\cong&&\,\,\,\downarrow\cong&&\,\,\downarrow\cong&&\downarrow&&\\\\[5.69054pt]
A^{(1)}&\to&B_{1}^{(1)}\times B_{2}^{(1)}&\to&C^{(1)}/C^{(2)}&\to&0.\\\
h&\mapsto&(\varphi_{1}(h),\varphi_{2}(h)^{-1})&\end{array}$
Since $g\in B_{1}^{(1)}\setminus\varphi(A^{(1)})$ it follows that $(g,g^{-1})$
does not lie in the image of $A^{(1)}$ in $B_{1}^{(1)}\times B_{2}^{(1)}$. It
therefore follows from the above diagram that $gs(g)^{-1}\neq e\in
C^{(1)}/C^{(2)}$.
Note that $C/C^{(2)}$ is metabelian, and hence by [Ha59] residually finite. We
can therefore find an epimorphism $\alpha:C/C^{(2)}\to G$ onto a finite group
$G$ (which is necessarily metabelian) such that $\alpha(gs(g)^{-1})\neq e$.
Now consider $\beta:C/C^{(2)}\to G\times G$ given by
$\beta(h)=(\alpha(h),\alpha(s(h)))$. Then clearly
$\beta(g)\not\in\beta(A)\subset\\{(g,g)\,|\,g\in G\\}$. The restriction of
$\beta$ to $B=B_{1}$ now clearly separates $g$ from $A$. ∎
###### Corollary 4.8.
Let $\varphi:A\to B$ be a homomorphism of finitely generated groups which
induces an isomorphism of prosolvable completions. Then the induced map
$A/A^{(2)}\to B/B^{(2)}$ is an isomorphism.
###### Proof.
It follows immediately from Lemma 2.10 that $\varphi$ induces an isomorphism
of the prosolvable completions of the metabelian groups $A/A^{(2)}$ and
$B/B^{(2)}$. It now follows from Lemma 4.7 that the induced map $A/A^{(2)}\to
B/B^{(2)}$ is an isomorphism. ∎
We now turn to the proof of the second claim of Lemma 4.5. For the remainder
of this section let $(M,\gamma)$ be a taut sutured manifold with the property
that $R_{\pm}(\gamma)$ consist of one component $\Sigma^{\pm}$ each. We assume
that (A) holds, i.e. the inclusion induced maps
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M)$ give rise to isomorphisms of the
respective prosolvable completions. We have to show that the class
$\phi=PD(\Sigma^{-})\in H^{1}(W;\mathbb{Z})$ lies in the cone on the interior
of a top–dimensional face of the Alexander norm ball.
For the remainder of the section we pick a base point $x^{-}\in\Sigma^{-}$ and
a base point $x^{+}\in\Sigma^{+}$. We endow $W,M$ and $\tau(M)$ with the base
point $x^{-}$. Furthermore we pick a path $\gamma$ in $M$ connecting
$x^{-}\in\Sigma^{-}$ to $x^{+}\in\Sigma^{+}$.
Our goal is to understand the Alexander norm ball of $W$. In order to do this
we first have to study $H=H_{1}(W;\mathbb{Z})$. Let $t$ denote the element in
$H$ represented by the closed path $\gamma\cup-\tau(\gamma)$. It follows from
a straightforward Mayer–Vietoris sequence argument that we have an isomorphism
$\begin{array}[]{rclcl}f:H_{1}(\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{Z})&\oplus&\langle
t\rangle&\to&H_{1}(W;\mathbb{Z})\\\
(\,b&,&t^{k}\,)&\mapsto&\iota(b)+kt.\end{array}$
In particular $H$ is torsion–free. We write $F=H_{1}(\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{Z})$.
We use $f$ to identify $H$ with $F\times\langle t\rangle$ and to identify
$\mathbb{Z}[H]$ with $\mathbb{Z}[F][t^{\pm 1}]$.
We now consider the Alexander module $H_{1}(W;\mathbb{Z}[H])$. Recall that
$H_{1}(W;\mathbb{Z}[H])$ is the homology of the covering of $W$ corresponding
to $\pi_{1}(W)\to H_{1}(W;\mathbb{Z})=H$ together with the
$\mathbb{Z}[H]$–module structure given by deck transformations.
In the following claim we compare $W$ with $\Sigma\times S^{1}$. We also write
$F=H_{1}(\Sigma;\mathbb{Z})$ and we can identify $H_{1}(\Sigma\times
S^{1};\mathbb{Z})$ with $H=F\times\langle t\rangle$. In particular we identify
$H_{1}(\Sigma\times S^{1};\mathbb{Z})$ with $H_{1}(W;\mathbb{Z})$. With these
identifications we can now state the following lemma.
###### Lemma 4.9.
The $\mathbb{Z}[H]$–module $H_{1}(W;\mathbb{Z}[H])$ is isomorphic to the
$\mathbb{Z}[H]$–module $H_{1}(\Sigma\times S^{1};\mathbb{Z}[H])$.
###### Proof.
In the following we identify $\Sigma$ with $\Sigma^{-}\subset W$. We denote by
$X$ the result of gluing $M$ and $\tau(M)$ along $\Sigma=\Sigma^{-}$. Note
that we have two canonical maps $r:\Sigma^{+}\to M\to X$ and
$s:\Sigma^{+}\to\tau(M)\to X$. We furthermore denote the canonical inclusion
maps $\Sigma\to M,\Sigma\to\tau(M)$ and $\Sigma=\Sigma^{-}\to X$ by $i$.
Throughout this proof we denote by $i,r,s$ the induced maps on solvable
quotients as well.
_Claim A._ The map $i:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\pi_{1}(X)$ gives rise to an
isomorphism
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma)/\pi_{1}(\Sigma)^{(2)}\to\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}$.
In the following let $M^{\prime}$ be either $M$ or $\tau(M)$. Recall that we
assume that $\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})$ gives rise to isomorphisms
of the prosolvable completions. It now follows from Corollary 4.8 that
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma)/\pi_{1}(\Sigma)^{(2)}\to\pi_{1}(M^{\prime}/\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})^{(2)}$
is an isomorphism. Now let
$g:\pi_{1}(X)=\pi_{1}(M\cup_{\Sigma}\tau(M))\to\pi_{1}(M))$ be the ‘folding
map’. Note that
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma)/\pi_{1}(\Sigma)^{(2)}\xrightarrow{i}\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}\xrightarrow{g}\pi_{1}(M)/\pi_{1}(M)^{(2)}\xleftarrow{\cong}\pi_{1}(\Sigma)/\pi_{1}(\Sigma)^{(2)}$
is the identity map. In particular
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma)/\pi_{1}(\Sigma)^{(2)}\xrightarrow{i}\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}$
is injective. On the other hand it follows from the van Kampen theorem that
$\pi_{1}(X)=\pi_{1}(M)*_{\pi_{1}(\Sigma)}\pi_{1}(M^{\prime}),$
in particular $\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}$ is generated by the images of
$\pi_{1}(M)$ and $\pi_{1}(\tau(M))$ in $\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}$. But it
follows immediately from the following commutative diagram
$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$------------$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma)/\pi_{1}(\Sigma)^{(2)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\cong}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})/\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})^{(2)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}}$
that image of $\pi_{1}(\Sigma)/\pi_{1}(\Sigma)^{(2)}$ in
$\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}$ also generates the group. This concludes the
proof of the claim A.
_Claim B._ For any $g\in\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{+})/\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{+})$ we have
$r(g)=s(g)\in\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}$
Denote by $\tau:X=M\cup_{\Sigma}\tau(M)\to X=M\cup_{\Sigma}\tau(M)$ the map
given by switching the two copies of $M$. Clearly $r(g)=\tau_{*}(s(g))$. But
$\tau_{*}$ acts trivially on image of $\pi_{1}(\Sigma)/\pi_{1}(\Sigma)^{(2)}$
in $\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}$. By the above claim this means that
$\tau_{*}$ acts trivially on $\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}$. This concludes the
proof of the claim.
We now view $W$ as the result of gluing the two copies of $\Sigma^{+}$ in
$\partial X$ by the identity map. First note that by the van Kampen theorem we
have
$\pi_{1}(W)=\langle
t,\pi_{1}(X)\,|\,ts(g)t^{-1}=r(g),g\in\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{+})\rangle.$
Note that by Claim B the obvious assignments give rise to a well–defined map
$\pi_{1}(W)=\langle
t,\pi_{1}(X)\,|\,ts(g)t^{-1}=r(g),g\in\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{+})\rangle\to\langle
t\rangle\times\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}.$
Since $\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}$ is metabelian this map descends to a map
$\Phi:\langle
t,\pi_{1}(X)\,|\,ts(g)t^{-1}=r(g),g\in\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{+})\rangle/(\dots)^{(2)}\to\langle
t\rangle\times\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}.$
_Claim C._ The map $\Phi:\pi_{1}(W)/\pi_{1}(W)^{(2)}\to\langle
t\rangle\times\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}$ is an isomorphism.
We denote by $\Psi$ the following map:
$\begin{array}[]{rcl}\langle
t\rangle\times\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}&\to&\langle
t,\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}\,|\,ts(g)t^{-1}=r(g),g\in\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{+})\rangle\\\\[2.84526pt]
&=&\langle
t,\pi_{1}(X)\,|\,ts(g)t^{-1}=r(g),g\in\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{+}),\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}\rangle\\\\[2.84526pt]
&\to&\langle
t,\pi_{1}(X)\,|\,ts(g)t^{-1}=r(g),g\in\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{+})\rangle/(\dots)^{(2)}.\end{array}$
Clearly $\Psi$ is surjective and we have $\Phi\circ\Psi=\mbox{id}$. It follows
that $\Phi$ is an isomorphism. This concludes the proof of the claim.
Finally note that we have a canonical isomorphism
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma\times S^{1})/\pi_{1}(\Sigma\times S^{1})^{(2)}=\langle
t\rangle\times\pi_{1}(\Sigma)/\pi_{1}(\Sigma)^{(2)}.$
It now follows from the above discussion that we have an isomorphism
$\begin{array}[]{rcl}\pi_{1}(W)/\pi_{1}(W)^{(2)}&\xrightarrow{\Phi}&\langle
t\rangle\times\pi_{1}(X)/\pi_{1}(X)^{(2)}\\\ &\cong&\langle
t\rangle\times\pi_{1}(\Sigma)/\pi_{1}(\Sigma)^{(2)}\\\ &=&\pi_{1}(\Sigma\times
S^{1})/\pi_{1}(\Sigma\times S^{1})^{(2)}\end{array}$
which we again denote by $\Phi$. Note that under the abelianization the map
$\Phi$ descends to the above identification $H_{1}(\Sigma\times
S^{1};\mathbb{Z})=H=H_{1}(W;\mathbb{Z})$. We now get the following commutative
diagram of exact sequences
$\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(W;\mathbb{Z}[H])\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(W)/\pi_{1}(W)^{(2)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\Phi}$$\textstyle{H:=H_{1}(W;\mathbb{Z})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{=}$$\textstyle{0}$$\textstyle{0\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(\Sigma\times
S^{1};\mathbb{Z}[H])\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma\times
S^{1})/\pi_{1}(\Sigma\times
S^{1})^{(2)}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{1}(\Sigma\times
S^{1};\mathbb{Z})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{0.}$
The lemma is now immediate. ∎
We are now ready to prove the second statement of Lemma 4.5. Note that the
isomorphism of Alexander modules implies that the Alexander polynomials
$\Delta_{W}$ and $\Delta_{\Sigma\times S^{1}}$ agree in $\mathbb{Z}[H]$. It is
well–known that $\Delta_{\Sigma\times
S^{1}}=(t-1)^{||\phi||_{T}}\in\mathbb{Z}[H]=\mathbb{Z}[F][t^{\pm 1}]$. Recall
that we are interested in $\phi=PD([\Sigma])$, and that $\phi$ as an element
in $\mbox{Hom}(H,\mathbb{Z})=\mbox{Hom}(F\times\langle t\rangle),\mathbb{Z})$
is given by $\phi(t)=1,\phi|_{F}=0$. It is now obvious from
$\Delta_{W}=\Delta_{\Sigma\times S^{1}}=(t-1)^{||\phi||_{T}}$ that $\phi$ lies
in the interior of a top–dimensional face of the Alexander norm ball of $W$.
This concludes the proof of the second statement of Lemma 4.5 modulo the proof
of the claim.
## 5\. Residual properties of 3–manifold groups
Proposition 1.7 and Theorem 4.1 are almost enough to deduce Theorem 1.2, but
we still have to deal with the assumption in Theorem 4.1 that $\pi_{1}(W)$ has
to be residually finite solvable.
Using well–known arguments (see Section 7 for details) one can easily see that
Proposition 1.7 and Theorem 4.1 imply Theorem 1.2 for 3–manifolds $N$ which
have virtually residually finite solvable fundamental groups. Here we say that
a group $\pi$ has virtually a property if a finite index subgroup of $\pi$ has
this property. It seems reasonable to conjecture that all 3–manifold groups
are virtually residually finite solvable. For example linear groups (and hence
fundamental groups of hyperbolic 3–manifolds and Seifert fibered spaces) are
virtually residually finite solvable and (virtually) fibered 3–manifold groups
are easily seen to be (virtually) residually finite solvable.
It is not known though whether all 3–manifold groups are linear. In the case
of 3–manifolds with non–trivial JSJ decomposition we therefore use a slightly
different route to deduce Theorem 1.2 from Proposition 1.7 and Theorem 4.1. In
Lemmas 7.1 and 7.2 we first show that it suffices in the proof of Theorem 1.2
to consider closed prime 3–manifolds. In this section we will show that given
a closed prime 3–manifold $N$, there exists a finite cover $N^{\prime}$ of $N$
such that all pieces of the JSJ decomposition of $N^{\prime}$ have residually
finite solvable fundamental groups (Theorem 5.1). Finally in Section 6 we will
prove a result which allows us in the proof of Theorem 1.2 to work with each
JSJ piece separately (Theorem 6.4).
### 5.1. Statement of the theorem
We first recall some definitions. Let $p$ be a prime. A $p$–group is a group
such that the order of the group is a power of $p$. Note that any $p$–group is
in particular finite solvable. A group $\pi$ is called _residually $p$_ if for
any nontrivial $g\in\pi$ there exists a homomorphism $\alpha:\pi\to P$ to a
$p$–group such that $\alpha(g)\neq e$. A residually $p$ group is evidently
also residually finite solvable.
For the reader’s convenience we recall the statement of Theorem 1.9 which we
will prove in this section.
###### Theorem 5.1.
Let $N$ be a closed irreducible 3–manifold. Then for all but finitely many
primes $p$ there exists a finite cover $N^{\prime}$ of $N$ such that the
fundamental group of any JSJ component of $N^{\prime}$ is residually $p$.
###### Remark.
1. (1)
Note that this theorem relies on the geometrization results of Thurston and
Perelman.
2. (2)
A slight modification of our proof shows that the statement of the theorem
also holds for irreducible 3–manifolds with toroidal boundary.
### 5.2. Proof of Theorem 5.1
The proof of the theorem combines in a straightforward way ideas from the
proof that finitely generated subgroups of $\mbox{GL}(n,\mathbb{C})$ are
virtually residually $p$ for all but finitely many primes $p$ (cf. e.g. [We73,
Theorem 4.7] or [LS03, Window 7, Proposition 9]) with ideas from the proof
that 3–manifold groups are residually finite (cf. [He87]). Since all technical
results can be found in either [We73] or [He87], and in order to save space,
we only give an outline of the proof by referring heavily to [We73] and
[He87].
In the following recall that given a positive integer $n$ there exists a
unique characteristic subgroup of
$\mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathbb{Z}=\pi_{1}(\text{torus})$ of index $n^{2}$, namely
$n(\mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathbb{Z})$.
###### Definition 5.2.
Let $N$ be a $3$-manifold which is either closed or has toroidal boundary.
Given a prime $p$ we say that a subgroup $\Gamma\subset\pi_{1}(N)$ has
Property $(p)$ if it satisfies the following two conditions:
1. (1)
$\Gamma$ is residually $p$, and
2. (2)
for any torus $T\subset\partial N$ the group $\Gamma\cap\pi_{1}(T)$ is the
unique characteristic subgroup of $\pi_{1}(T)$ of index $p^{2}$.
###### Proposition 5.3.
Let $N$ be a compact orientable $3$-manifold with empty or toroidal boundary
such that the interior has a complete hyperbolic structure of finite volume.
Then for all but finitely many primes $p$ there exists a finite index subgroup
of $\pi_{1}(N)$ which has Property $(p)$.
###### Proof.
This theorem is essentially a straightforward combination of [He87, Lemma 4.1]
with the proof that finitely generated linear groups are virtually residually
$p$. We will use throughout the notation of the proof of [He87, Lemma 4.1].
First we pick a finitely generated subring $A\subset\mathbb{C}$ as in [He87,
Proof of Lemma 4.1]. In particular we can assume that
$\pi_{1}(N)\subset\mbox{SL}(2,A)$ where $A\subset\mathbb{C}$. We pick a prime
$p$ and a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}\subset A$ as in [He87, p. 391]. We then
have in particular that $\mbox{char}(A/\mathfrak{m})=p$. For $i\geq 1$ we now
let
$\Gamma_{i}=\mbox{Ker}\\{\pi_{1}(N)\to\mbox{SL}(2,A/\mathfrak{m}^{i})\times
H/p^{i}H\\}$ where $H=H_{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})/\mbox{torsion}$. We claim that
$\Gamma_{1}\subset\pi_{1}(N)$ is a finite index subgroup which has Property
$(p)$. Clearly $\Gamma_{1}$ is of finite index in $\pi_{1}(N)$ and by [He87,
p. 391] the subgroup $\Gamma_{1}$ also satisfies condition (2). The proof that
finitely generated linear groups are virtually residually $p$ (cf. [We73,
Theorem 4.7] or [LS03, Window 7, Proposition 9]) then shows immediately that
all the groups $\Gamma_{1}/\Gamma_{i},i\geq 1$ are $p$–groups and that
$\cap_{i=1}^{\infty}\Gamma_{i}=\\{1\\}$. In particular $\Gamma_{1}$ is
residually $p$. ∎
###### Proposition 5.4.
Let $N$ be a Seifert fibered space. Then for all but finitely many primes $p$,
there exists a finite index subgroup of $\pi_{1}(N)$ which has Property $(p)$.
###### Proof.
If $N$ is a closed Seifert fibered space, then it is well–known that
$\pi_{1}(N)$ is linear, and the proposition immediately follows from the fact
that linear groups are virtually residually $p$ for almost all primes $p$.
Now consider the case that $N$ has boundary. It is well–known (cf. for example
[Ha01, Lemma 6] and see also [He87, p. 391]) that there exists a finite cover
$q:N^{\prime}\to N$ with the following two properties:
1. (1)
$N^{\prime}=S^{1}\times F$ for some surface $F$,
2. (2)
for any torus $T\subset\partial N$ the group
$\pi_{1}(N^{\prime})\cap\pi_{1}(T)$ is the unique characteristic subgroup of
$\pi_{1}(T)$ of index $p^{2}$.
We now write $\Gamma:=\pi_{1}(N^{\prime})\subset\pi_{1}(N)$. The group
$\Gamma$ is residually $p$ since free groups are residually $p$. It now
follows from (2) that $\Gamma$ has the required properties. ∎
We are now in a position to prove Theorem 5.1.
###### Proof of Theorem 5.1.
Let $N$ be a closed irreducible 3–manifold. Let $N_{1},\dots,N_{r}$ be the JSJ
components. For all but finitely many primes $p$ we can by Propositions 5.3
and 5.4 find finite index subgroups $\Gamma_{i}\subset\pi_{1}(N_{i})$ for
$i=1,\dots,r$ which have Property $(p)$. We denote by $N_{i}^{\prime}$ the
cover of $N_{i}$ corresponding to $\Gamma_{i}$.
By the second condition of Property $(p)$ the intersections of the subgroups
$\Gamma_{i},i=1,\dots,r$ with the fundamental group of any torus of the JSJ
decomposition coincide. We can therefore appeal to [He87, Theorem 2.2] to find
a finite cover $N^{\prime}$ of $N$ such that any component in the JSJ
decomposition of $N^{\prime}$ is homeomorphic to some
$N_{i}^{\prime},i\in\\{1,\dots,r\\}$. Recall that
$\pi_{1}(N_{i}^{\prime})=\Gamma_{i}$ is residually $p$ for any $i$, hence the
cover $N^{\prime}$ of $N$ has the desired properties. ∎
## 6\. The JSJ decomposition and prosolvable completions
Let $N$ be a closed 3–manifold and let $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ primitive
with $||\phi||_{T}>0$. If $(N,\phi)$ fibers, and if $\Sigma\subset N$ is a
surface dual to $\phi$ which is the fiber of the fibration, then it is
well–known (cf. e.g. [EN85]) that the JSJ tori of $N$ cut the product
$N\setminus\nu\Sigma\cong\Sigma\times[0,1]$ into smaller products.
If $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition ($*$), and if $\Sigma\subset N$ is a
connected Thurston norm minimizing surface dual to $\phi$, then we will see in
Lemma 6.3 and Theorem 6.4 that the JSJ tori of $N$ cut the manifold
$N\setminus\nu\Sigma$ into smaller pieces which look like products ‘on the
level of prosolvable completions’. This result will play an important role in
the proof of Theorem 1.2 as it allows us to work with each JSJ piece
separately.
### 6.1. The statement of the theorem
Throughout this section let $N$ be a closed irreducible 3–manifold.
Furthermore let $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ be a primitive class which is
dual to a _connected_ Thurston norm minimizing surface. (Recall that by
Proposition 3.1 this is in particular the case if $(N,\phi)$ satisfies
Condition $(*)$.) Finally we assume that $||\phi||_{T}>0$.
We now fix once and for all embedded tori $T_{1},\dots,T_{r}\subset N$ which
give the JSJ decomposition of $N$. (Recall that the $T_{1},\dots,T_{r}$ are
unique up to reordering and isotopy.)
We will make several times use of the following well–known observations:
###### Lemma 6.1.
Let $\Sigma\subset N$ be an incompressible surface in general position with
the JSJ torus $T_{i},i\in 1,\dots,r$. Let $c$ be a component of $\Sigma\cap
T_{i}$. Then $c$ represents a non–trivial element in $\pi_{1}(T_{i})$ if and
only if $c$ represents a non–trivial element in $\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$.
###### Lemma 6.2.
There exists an embedded Thurston norm minimizing surface $\Sigma\subset N$
dual to $\phi$ with the following three properties:
1. (1)
$\Sigma$ is connected,
2. (2)
the tori $T_{i},i=1,\dots,r$ and the surface $\Sigma$ are in general position,
3. (3)
any component of $\Sigma\cap T_{i},i=1,\dots,r$ represents a nontrivial
element in $\pi_{1}(T_{i})$.
Now, among all surfaces dual to $\phi$ satisfying the properties of the lemma
we pick a surface $\Sigma$ which minimizes the number
$\sum_{i=1}^{r}b_{0}(\Sigma\cap T_{i})$.
Given $\Sigma$ we can and will fix a tubular neighborhood
$\Sigma\times[-1,1]\subset N$ such that the tori $T_{i},i=1,\dots,r$ and the
surface $\Sigma\times t$ are in general position for any $t\in[-1,1]$. We from
now on write $M=N\setminus\Sigma\times(-1,1)$ and
$\Sigma^{\pm}=\Sigma\times\pm 1$.
We denote the components of $N$ cut along $T_{1},\dots,T_{r}$ by
$N_{1},\dots,N_{s}$. Let $\\{A_{1},\dots,A_{m}\\}$ be the set of components of
the intersection of the tori $T_{1}\cup\dots\cup T_{r}$ with $M$. Note that
the surfaces $A_{i}\subset M,i=1,\dots,m$ are properly embedded since we
assumed that the tori $T_{i}$ and the surfaces $\Sigma^{\pm}=\Sigma\times\pm
1$ are in general position. We also let $\\{M_{1},\dots,M_{n}\\}$ be the set
of components of the intersection of $N_{i}$ with $M$ for $i=1,\dots,s$. Put
differently, $M_{1},\dots,M_{n}$ are the components of $M$ cut along
$A_{1},\dots,A_{m}$. For $i=1,\dots,n$ we furthermore write
$\Sigma_{i}^{\pm}=M_{i}\cap\Sigma^{\pm}$.
Let $i\in\\{1,\dots,m\\}$. If the surface $A_{i}$ is an annulus, then we say
that $A_{i}$ _connects $\Sigma^{-}$ and $\Sigma^{+}$_ if one boundary
component of $A_{i}$ lies on $\Sigma^{-}$ and the other boundary component
lies on $\Sigma^{+}$. The following lemma will be proved in Section 6.2
###### Lemma 6.3.
Assume that $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition $(*)$, then for $i=1,\dots,m$ the
surface $A_{i}$ is an annulus which connects $\Sigma^{-}$ and $\Sigma^{+}$.
We can now formulate the main theorem of this section. The proof will be given
in Sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4.
###### Theorem 6.4.
Assume that for $i=1,\dots,m$ the surface $A_{i}$ is an annulus which connects
$\Sigma^{-}$ and $\Sigma^{+}$. Furthermore assume that the inclusion induced
maps $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M)$ give rise to an isomorphism of
prosolvable completions. Then for $i=1,\dots,n$ the following hold:
1. (1)
The surfaces $\Sigma_{i}^{\pm}$ are connected.
2. (2)
Given $j\in\\{1,\dots,n\\}$ with $M_{i}\subset N_{j}$ the inclusion induced
map $\pi_{1}(M_{i})\to\pi_{1}(N_{j})$ is injective.
3. (3)
The inclusion induced maps $\pi_{1}(\Sigma_{i}^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M_{i})$ give
rise to isomorphisms of the respective prosolvable completions.
We would like to remind the reader that at the beginning of the section we
made the assumption that $||\phi||_{T}>0$.
### 6.2. Proof of Lemma 6.3
We first recall the following theorem from an earlier paper (cf. [FV08b,
Theorem 5.2]).
###### Theorem 6.5.
Let $Y$ be a closed irreducible 3–manifold. Let $\psi\in H^{1}(Y;\mathbb{Z})$
a primitive class. Assume that for any epimorphism $\alpha:\pi_{1}(Y)\to G$
onto a finite group $G$ the twisted Alexander polynomial
$\Delta_{Y,\psi}^{\alpha}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$ is nonzero. Let $T\subset
Y$ be an incompressible embedded torus. Then either $\psi|_{T}\in
H^{1}(T;\mathbb{Z})$ is nonzero, or $(Y,\psi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$ with fiber
$T$.
With this theorem we are now able to prove Lemma 6.3. We use the notation from
the previous section. So assume that $(N,\phi)$ is a pair which satisfies
Condition $(*)$. In particular we have that $\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}\neq 0$
for any epimorphism $\alpha:\pi_{1}(N)\to G$ onto a finite group $G$. We can
therefore apply Theorem 6.5 to the tori $T_{1},\dots,T_{r}\subset N$ to
conclude that either $(N,\phi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$ with toroidal fiber, or
$\phi|_{T_{i}}\in H^{1}(T_{i};\mathbb{Z})$ is nonzero for $i=1,\dots,r$.
Recall that we assumed that $||\phi||_{T}>0$, we therefore only have to deal
with the latter case. From $\phi|_{T_{i}}\in H^{1}(T_{i};\mathbb{Z})$ nonzero
we obtain that $\Sigma$ (which is dual to $\phi$) necessarily intersects
$T_{i}$ in at least one curve which is homologically essential on $T_{i}$. In
fact by our assumption on $\Sigma$ and $T_{1},\dots,T_{r}$ any intersection
curve $\Sigma\cap T_{i}\subset T_{i}$ is essential, in particular the
components of $T_{i}$ cut along $\Sigma$ are indeed annuli.
In order to prove Lemma 6.3 it now remains to show that each of the annuli
$A_{i}$ connects $\Sigma^{-}$ and $\Sigma^{+}$. So assume there exists an
$i\in\\{1,\dots,m\\}$ such that the annulus $A_{i}$ does not connect
$\Sigma^{-}$ and $\Sigma^{+}$. Without loss of generality we can assume that
$\Sigma^{+}\cap A_{i}=\emptyset$. We equip $A_{i}$ with an orientation. Denote
the two oriented components of $\partial A_{i}$ by $c$ and $-d$. By our
assumption $c$ and $d$ lie in $\Sigma^{-}$, and they cobound the annulus
$A_{i}\subset M$.
Now recall that by Proposition 3.2 our assumption that $(N,\phi)$ satisfies
Condition $(*)$ implies in particular that $H_{1}(\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{Z})\to
H_{1}(M;\mathbb{Z})$ is an isomorphism. Note that $c,d$ are homologous in $M$
via the annulus $A:=A_{i}$, and since $H_{1}(\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{Z})\to
H_{1}(M;\mathbb{Z})$ is an isomorphism we deduce that $c$ and $d$ are
homologous in $\Sigma^{-}$ as well. Since $\Sigma^{-}$ is closed we can now
find two subsurfaces $\Sigma_{1},\Sigma_{2}\subset\Sigma^{-}$ such that
$\partial\Sigma_{1}=-c\cup d$, and such that (with the orientations induced
from $\Sigma^{-}$) the following hold: $\Sigma_{1}\cup\Sigma_{2}=\Sigma$,
$\partial\Sigma_{2}=c\cup-d$ and $\Sigma_{1}\cap\Sigma_{2}=c\cup d$. Note that
possibly one of $\Sigma_{1}$ or $\Sigma_{2}$ is disconnected.
###### Claim.
The surfaces $\overline{\Sigma}_{1}=\Sigma_{1}\cup A$ and
$\overline{\Sigma}_{2}=\Sigma_{2}\cup-A$ are closed, orientable and connected.
Furthermore, there exists a $j\in\\{1,2\\}$ such that
$\mbox{genus}(\overline{\Sigma}_{j})=\mbox{genus}(\Sigma)$ and such that
$\overline{\Sigma}_{j}$ is homologous to $\Sigma$ in $N$.
###### Proof.
It is clear that $\overline{\Sigma}_{1}$ and $\overline{\Sigma}_{2}$ are
closed, orientable and connected. We give $\overline{\Sigma}_{k},k=1,2$ the
orientation which restricts to the orientation of $\Sigma_{k}$. We therefore
only have to show the second claim.
Recall that Condition $(*)$ implies that the inclusion induced maps
$H_{j}(\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{Z})\to H_{j}(M;\mathbb{Z}),j=0,1$ are isomorphisms.
It follows from Lemma 2.6 that we also have an isomorphism
$H_{2}(\Sigma^{-};\mathbb{Z})\to H_{2}(M;\mathbb{Z})$, in particular
$H_{2}(M;\mathbb{Z})$ is generated by $[\Sigma^{-}]$. Now note that
$\overline{\Sigma}_{1}$ and $\overline{\Sigma}_{2}$ represent elements in
$H_{2}(M;\mathbb{Z})$. We can write
$[\overline{\Sigma}_{k}]=l_{k}[\Sigma^{-}],k=1,2$ for some
$l_{k}\in\mathbb{Z}$. Note that
$[\overline{\Sigma}_{1}]+[\overline{\Sigma}_{2}]=[\Sigma^{-}]$, i.e.
$l_{1}+l_{2}=1$.
Now let $k\in\\{1,\dots,r\\}$ such that $A_{i}\subset T_{k}$. Recall that we
assume that any component of $\Sigma\cap T_{k}$ represents a nontrivial
element in $\pi_{1}(T_{k})$. By Lemma 6.1 any component of $\Sigma\cap T_{k}$
therefore also represents a nontrivial element in $\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$. In
particular $c$ and $d$ do not bound disks on $\Sigma$, which in turn implies
that $\chi(\Sigma_{k})\leq 0,k=1,2$. It follows that
(3) $-\chi(\overline{\Sigma}_{k})=-\chi((\Sigma^{-}\setminus\Sigma_{3-k})\cup
A)=-\chi(\Sigma)+\chi(\Sigma_{3-k})\leq-\chi(\Sigma),\quad k=1,2.$
On the other hand, by the linearity of the Thurston norm and the genus
minimality of $\Sigma$ we have
(4) $-\chi(\overline{\Sigma}_{k})\geq-|l_{k}|\chi(\Sigma),\quad k=1,2.$
Now recall our assumption that $\chi(\Sigma)=||\phi||_{T}>0$. It follows that
$l_{1}+l_{2}=1$ and the inequalities (3) and (4) can only be satisfied if
there exists a $j$ with $l_{j}=1$ and
$\chi(\overline{\Sigma}_{j})=\chi(\Sigma)$. (Note that necessarily $l_{3-j}=0$
and $\overline{\Sigma}_{3-j}$ is a torus.) ∎
Note that there exists a proper isotopy of $A\subset M$ to an annulus
$A^{\prime}\subset M$ such that $\partial A^{\prime}$ lies entirely in
$\Sigma_{j}$ and such that $A^{\prime}$ is disjoint from all the other
$A_{j},j=1,\dots,r$. We then let $\Sigma_{j}^{\prime}\subset\Sigma_{j}$ be the
subsurface of $\Sigma_{j}$ such that $\partial\Sigma_{j}^{\prime}=\partial
A^{\prime}$. Clearly $\Sigma^{\prime}:=\Sigma_{j}^{\prime}\cup-A^{\prime}$ is
isotopic to $\Sigma_{j}\cup-A$, in particular by the claim $\Sigma^{\prime}$
is a closed connected surface homologous to $\Sigma$ in $N$ with
$\mbox{genus}(\Sigma^{\prime})=\mbox{genus}(\Sigma)$ which satisfies all the
properties listed in Lemma 6.2. On the other hand we evidently have
$b_{0}(\Sigma^{\prime}\cap T_{j})\leq b_{0}(\Sigma)-2$. Since we did not
create any new intersections we in fact have
$\sum_{i=1}^{r}b_{0}(\Sigma^{\prime}\cap T_{i})<\sum_{i=1}^{r}b_{0}(\Sigma\cap
T_{i})$. But this contradicts the minimality of
$\sum_{i=1}^{r}b_{0}(\Sigma\cap T_{i})$ in our choice of the surface $\Sigma$.
We therefore showed that the assumption that $A_{i}$ does not connect
$\Sigma^{-}$ and $\Sigma^{+}$ leads to a contradiction. This concludes the
proof of Lemma 6.3.
### 6.3. Preliminaries on the components $M_{1},\dots,M_{n}$
We continue with the notation from the previous sections. Using Lemma 6.3 we
can now prove the following lemma, which in particular implies the first
statement of Theorem 6.4.
###### Lemma 6.6.
Assume that the inclusion induced maps $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M)$
give rise to isomorphisms of the prosolvable completions. Let
$i\in\\{1,\dots,n\\}$. Then the following hold:
1. (1)
The surfaces $\Sigma_{i}^{\pm}$ are connected.
2. (2)
For any homomorphism $\alpha:\pi_{1}(M)\to S$ to a finite solvable group the
inclusion maps induce isomorphisms
$H_{j}(\Sigma_{i}^{\pm};\mathbb{Z}[S])\to H_{j}(M_{i};\mathbb{Z}[S])$
for $j=0,1$.
###### Proof.
We first consider statement (1). Recall that $M_{1},\dots,M_{n}$ are the
components of $M$ split along $A_{1},\dots,A_{m}$. We therefore get the
following commutative diagram of Mayer–Vietoris sequences
$\textstyle{\dots\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\bigoplus\limits_{k=1}^{m}H_{j}(A_{k}\cap\Sigma^{\pm};\mathbb{Z})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\bigoplus\limits_{l=1}^{n}H_{j}(M_{l}\cap\Sigma^{\pm};\mathbb{Z})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{j}(\Sigma^{\pm};\mathbb{Z})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\dots}$$\textstyle{\dots\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\bigoplus\limits_{k=1}^{m}H_{j}(A_{k};\mathbb{Z})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\bigoplus\limits_{l=1}^{n}H_{j}(M_{l};\mathbb{Z})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{H_{j}(M;\mathbb{Z})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\dots.}$
Note that the vertical homomorphisms on the left are isomorphisms since by
Lemma 6.3 for any $i=1,\dots,m$ the $A_{i}$ is an annulus which connects
$\Sigma^{-}$ and $\Sigma^{+}$, i.e. $A_{i}$ is a product on
$A_{i}\cap\Sigma^{\pm}$. Also note that the vertical homomorphisms on the
right are isomorphisms for $j=0,1$ by Proposition 3.2 and for $j=2$ by Lemma
2.6. We can now appeal to the 5–lemma to deduce that the middle homomorphisms
are isomorphisms as well. But for any $j$ the middle homomorphism is a direct
sum of homomorphisms, it therefore follows in particular that the maps
$H_{j}(\Sigma_{i}^{\pm};\mathbb{Z})\to H_{j}(M_{i};\mathbb{Z}),j=0,1$ are
isomorphisms for any $i\in\\{1,\dots,n\\}$. In particular
$b_{0}(\Sigma_{i}^{\pm})=b_{0}(M_{i})=1$, i.e. the surfaces $\Sigma_{i}^{\pm}$
are connected.
We now prove statement (2). Let $\alpha:\pi_{1}(M)\to S$ be a homomorphism to
a finite solvable group. Recall that by Lemmas 2.12 and 2.6 we have that the
inclusion induced maps $H_{j}(\Sigma^{\pm};\mathbb{Z}[S])\to
H_{j}(M;\mathbb{Z}[S])$ are isomorphisms for $j=0,1,2$. It now follows from
the commutative diagram of Mayer–Vietoris sequences as above, but with
$\mathbb{Z}[S]$–coefficients (cf. [FK06] for details) that
$H_{j}(\Sigma_{i}^{\pm};\mathbb{Z}[S])\to H_{j}(M_{i};\mathbb{Z}[S])$
is an isomorphism for any $i\in\\{1,\dots,n\\}$ and $j=0,1$.
∎
The following lemma in particular implies the second statement of Theorem 6.4.
###### Lemma 6.7.
For any pair $(i,j)$ such that $M_{i}\subset N_{j}$ we have a commutative
diagram of injective maps as follows:
$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma_{i}^{\pm})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(M_{i})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(N_{j})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(M)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(N).}$
###### Proof.
First note that since $\Sigma$ is incompressible we know that the two bottom
maps are injective. Furthermore recall that $N_{j}$ is a JSJ component of $N$,
i.e. a component of the result of cutting $N$ along incompressible tori, hence
$\pi_{1}(N_{j})\to\pi_{1}(N)$ is injective.
###### Claim.
For any $k\in\\{1,\dots,n\\}$ the maps
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm}_{k})\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$ are injective.
Let $c$ be a component of $\Sigma\cap T_{l}$ for some $l\in\\{1,\dots,r\\}$.
Recall that by our choice of tori $T_{1},\dots,T_{r}$ the curve $c$ represents
a nontrivial element in $\pi_{1}(T_{l})$. By Lemma 6.1 the curve $c$ also
represents a nontrivial element in $\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$. In particular none of
the components of $\Sigma^{\pm}\setminus\Sigma_{k}^{\pm}$ are disks and
therefore the maps $\pi_{1}(\Sigma_{k}^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})$ are
injective. This concludes the proof of the claim.
Now let $K=\\{k\in\\{1,\dots,n\\}\,|\,M_{k}\subset N_{j}\\}$. It follows from
the claim and the above commutative diagram that for any $k\in K$ the
inclusion induced map $\pi_{1}(\Sigma_{k})\to\pi_{1}(N_{j})$ is injective,
i.e. for any $k\in K$ the surface $\Sigma_{k}\subset N_{j}$ is incompressible.
Since $M_{i}$ is a component of cutting $N_{j}$ along the incompressible
surfaces $\Sigma_{k}^{-}\subset N_{j},k\in K$ we have that
$\pi_{1}(M_{i})\to\pi_{1}(N_{j})$ is injective.
By commutativity of the above diagram we now obtain that all other maps are
injective as well. ∎
### 6.4. The conclusion of the proof of Theorem 6.4
In this section we will finally prove the third statement of Theorem 6.4. The
main ingredient in the proof is the following result.
###### Proposition 6.8.
Let $\Sigma$ be a closed surface and $\Sigma^{\prime}\subset\Sigma$ a
connected subsurface such that $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$ is
injective. Let $\alpha:\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to S$ be a homomorphism to a
finite solvable group. Then there exists a homomorphism to a finite solvable
group $\beta:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to T$ and a homomorphism
$\pi:T^{\prime}:=\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to T\\}\to S$ such that
the following diagram commutes:
$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\alpha}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\beta}$$\textstyle{S}$$\textstyle{\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces
T^{\prime}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\pi}$$\textstyle{T.}$
Put differently, the prosolvable topology on $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})$ agrees
with the topology on $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})$ induced from the prosolvable
topology on $\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$.
###### Remark.
Note that in general $H_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime};\mathbb{Z})\to
H_{1}(\Sigma;\mathbb{Z})$ is not injective, even if
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$ is an injection. In particular in
general a homomorphism $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to S$ to an abelian group
will not extend to a homomorphism from $\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$ to an abelian group.
This shows that in general we can not take $T=S$ or $T$ of the same
solvability length as $S$ in the above proposition.
###### Proof.
The statement of the proposition is trivial if $\Sigma^{\prime}=\Sigma$, we
will therefore henceforth only consider the case that
$\Sigma^{\prime}\neq\Sigma$. Let $\alpha:\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to S$ be a
homomorphism to a finite solvable group. It suffices to show that there exists
a homomorphism $\beta:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to T$ to a finite solvable group such
that $\mbox{Ker}(\beta)\cap\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\subset\mbox{Ker}(\alpha)$.
Denote by $\Sigma_{1},\dots,\Sigma_{l}$ the components of
$\overline{\Sigma\setminus\Sigma^{\prime}}$. Note that the condition that
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$ is injective is equivalent to
saying that none of the subsurfaces $\Sigma_{1},\dots,\Sigma_{l}$ is a disk.
It is straightforward to see that for each $j=1,\dots,l$ we can find an
annulus $A_{j}\in\mbox{int}(\Sigma_{j})$ such that
$(\Sigma^{\prime}\cup\Sigma_{j})\setminus A_{j}$ is still connected.
Figure 1. Surface $\Sigma^{\prime}\subset\Sigma$ with annuli
$A_{i}\subset\Sigma_{i},i=1,2,3$.
Now let $\Sigma^{\prime\prime}=\overline{\Sigma\setminus\cup_{j\in J}A_{j}}$.
Clearly $\Sigma^{\prime\prime}$ is a connected surface with boundary. By
assumption $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$ is injective. Since
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$ factors through
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime})$ we see that $\Sigma^{\prime}$ is a subsurface
of $\Sigma^{\prime\prime}$ such that
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime})$ is injective.
Since $\Sigma^{\prime\prime}$ is a surface with boundary (contrary to
$\Sigma$) this implies that $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})$ is in fact a free
factor of $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime})$, i.e. we have an isomorphism
$\gamma:\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime})\xrightarrow{\cong}\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})*F$
where $F$ is a free group such that the map
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime})\xrightarrow{\gamma}\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})*F\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})$
splits the inclusion induced map
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime})$.
We now write $\pi:=\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime})$ and we denote by
$\alpha^{\prime\prime}$ the projection map $\pi\to\pi/\pi(S)$ (We refer to
Section 3.4 for the definition and the properties of the characteristic
subgroup $\pi(S)$ of $\pi$). We can extend $\alpha:\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to
S$ to
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime})\xrightarrow{\gamma}\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})*F\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\xrightarrow{\alpha}S$.
It follows immediately that
$\mbox{Ker}(\alpha^{\prime\prime})\cap\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\subset\mbox{Ker}(\alpha)$.
We will now extend
$\alpha^{\prime\prime}:\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime})\to\pi/\pi(S)$ to a
homomorphism $\beta:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\mathbb{Z}/n\ltimes\pi/\pi(S)$ where
$1\in\mathbb{Z}/n$ acts in an appropriate way on $\pi/\pi(S)$. In order to do
this we will first study the relationship between
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime})$ and $\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$.
Evidently $\Sigma=\Sigma^{\prime\prime}\,\cup\,\cup_{i=1}^{k}A_{i}$. We pick
an orientation for $\Sigma$ and give $A_{1},\dots,A_{k}$ the induced
orientations. We write $\partial A_{i}=-a_{i}\cup b_{i},i=1,\dots,k$ (see
Figure 2).
Figure 2. Surface $\Sigma^{\prime\prime}\subset\Sigma$ with oriented boundary
curves $a_{i},b_{i}$.
We now pick a base point for $\Sigma^{\prime\prime}$. We can find based curves
$c_{1},\dots,c_{l},d_{1},\dots,d_{l}$ and paths from the base point to the
curves $a_{1},\dots,a_{k},b_{1},\dots,b_{k}$ (and from now on we do not
distinguish in the notation between curves and based curves) such that
$\pi=\langle
a_{1},\dots,a_{k},b_{1},\dots,b_{k},c_{1},\dots,c_{l},d_{1},\dots,d_{l}\,|\,a_{1}\dots
a_{k}b_{k}^{-1}\dots b_{1}^{-1}=[c_{l},d_{l}]\dots[c_{1},d_{1}]\rangle.$
(See Figure 3 for an illustration.)
Figure 3. Surface $\Sigma^{\prime\prime}\subset\Sigma$ with oriented based
curves $a_{i},b_{i},c_{i},d_{i}$.
By the van Kampen theorem we then have
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma)=\langle\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime}),t_{1},\dots,t_{k}\,|\,t_{i}a_{i}t_{i}^{-1}=b_{i},i=1,\dots,k\rangle.$
###### Claim.
There exists an automorphism $\varphi:\pi\to\pi$ such that
$\varphi(a_{i})=b_{i}$ and $\varphi(b_{i})=a_{i}$ for any
$i\in\\{1,\dots,k\\}$.
Let $\Gamma$ be the free group generated by $a_{i},b_{i},i=1,\dots,k$ and
$c_{i},d_{i},i=1,\dots,l$ and consider the isomorphism
$\varphi:\Gamma\to\Gamma$ defined by
$\varphi(a_{i})=b_{i},\varphi(b_{i})=a_{i},i=1,\dots,k$ and
$\varphi(c_{i})=d_{l+1-i},\varphi(d_{i})=c_{l+1-i},i=1,\dots,l$. In the
following we write $w=[c_{l},d_{l}]\dots[c_{1},d_{1}]$ and we write
$r=a_{1}\dots a_{k}b_{k}^{-1}\dots
b_{1}^{-1}\cdot[c_{1},d_{1}]^{-1}\dots[c_{l},d_{l}]^{-1}$ for the relator.
Note that we have a canonical isomorphism $\pi\cong\Gamma/\langle\langle
r\rangle\rangle$. We calculate
$\begin{array}[]{rclccc}\varphi(r)&=&\varphi\big{(}a_{1}\dots
a_{k}b_{k}^{-1}\dots
b_{1}^{-1}\cdot[c_{1},d_{1}]^{-1}\dots[c_{l},d_{l}]^{-1}\big{)}\\\\[2.84526pt]
&=&b_{1}\dots b_{k}a_{k}^{-1}\dots
a_{1}^{-1}\cdot[d_{l},c_{l}]^{-1}\dots[d_{1},c_{1}]^{-1}\\\\[2.84526pt]
&=&b_{1}\dots b_{k}a_{k}^{-1}\dots
a_{1}^{-1}\cdot[c_{l},d_{l}]\dots[c_{1},d_{1}]\\\\[2.84526pt]
&=&w^{-1}[c_{l},d_{l}]\dots[c_{1},d_{1}]b_{1}\dots b_{k}a_{k}^{-1}\dots
a_{1}^{-1}w\\\\[2.84526pt] &=&w^{-1}r^{-1}w.\end{array}$
This shows that $\varphi$ restricts to an automorphism of the subgroup of
$\Gamma$ normally generated by the relator $r$. In particular $\varphi$
descends to an automorphism of $\pi$. This concludes the proof of the claim.
Recall that $\pi(S)$ is a characteristic subgroup of $\pi$, hence
$\varphi:\pi\to\pi$ descends to an automorphism $\pi/\pi(S)\to\pi/\pi(S)$
which we again denote by $\varphi$. Furthermore recall that $\pi/\pi(S)$ is a
finite solvable group. Since $\pi/\pi(S)$ is finite there exists $n>0$ such
that $\varphi^{n}:\pi/\pi(S)\to\pi/\pi(S)$ acts as the identity. We can
therefore consider the semidirect product $\mathbb{Z}/n\ltimes\pi/\pi(S)$
where $1\in\mathbb{Z}/n$ acts on $\pi/\pi(S)$ via $\varphi$.
It is now straightforward to check that the assignment
$\begin{array}[]{rcl}g&\mapsto&(0,\alpha^{\prime\prime}(g)),\,\,\,g\in\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime}),\\\
t_{i}&\mapsto&(1,0)\end{array}$
defines a homomorphism
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma)=\langle\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime}),t_{1},\dots,t_{k}\,|\,t_{i}a_{i}t_{i}^{-1}=b_{i},i=1,\dots,k\rangle\to\mathbb{Z}/n\ltimes\pi/\pi(S)$
which we denote by $\beta$. Clearly
$\beta:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\mathbb{Z}/n\ltimes\pi/\pi(S)$ restricts to
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime\prime})\to\pi/\pi(S)$ and hence has the required
properties. ∎
We can now prove the third statement of Theorem 6.4.
###### Proof of Theorem 6.4 (3).
In light of Lemma 6.6 (together with Corollary 2.3) and Lemma 6.7 it suffices
to show the following claim:
###### Claim.
Let $M$ be a 3–manifold and $\Sigma\subset\partial M$ such that
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\pi_{1}(M)$ induces an isomorphism of prosolvable
completions. Furthermore let $M^{\prime}\subset M$ be a submanifold with the
following properties:
1. (A)
$\Sigma^{\prime}:=\Sigma\cap M^{\prime}$ is a connected subsurface of
$\Sigma^{\prime}$,
2. (B)
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$ is injective, and
3. (C)
for any homomorphism $\alpha:\pi_{1}(M)\to S$ to a finite solvable group the
inclusion map induces isomorphisms
$H_{j}(\Sigma^{\prime};\mathbb{Z}[S])\to H_{j}(M^{\prime};\mathbb{Z}[S])$
for $j=0,1$ and we have
$\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(M)\xrightarrow{\alpha}S\\}=\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(M)\xrightarrow{\alpha}S\\}.$
Then $\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})$ induces an isomorphism
of prosolvable completions.
By Lemma 2.10 we have to show that for any finite solvable group $S$ the map
$\iota^{*}:\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(M^{\prime}),S)\to\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime}),S)$
is a bijection.
So let $S$ be a finite solvable group. We first show that
$\iota^{*}:\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(M^{\prime}),S)\to\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime}),S)$
is surjective. The various groups and maps in the proof are summarized in the
diagram below. Assume we are given a homomorphism
$\alpha^{\prime}:\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to S$. By (B) and Proposition 6.8
there exists a homomorphism $\beta:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to T$ to a finite solvable
group and a homomorphism $\pi:\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to T\\}\to
S$ such that $\pi\circ(\beta\circ\iota)=\alpha^{\prime}$. We write
$T^{\prime}=\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to T\\}$ and
$\beta^{\prime}=\beta\circ\iota:\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to T^{\prime}$.
By our assumption that $\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to\pi_{1}(M)$ induce isomorphisms of
prosolvable completions and by Lemma 2.10 there exists a homomorphism
$\varphi:\pi_{1}(M)\to T$ such that $\beta=\varphi\circ\iota$. By (C) we have
$\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(M)\xrightarrow{\varphi}T\\}=\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\xrightarrow{\iota}\pi_{1}(M)\xrightarrow{\varphi}T\\}=\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\xrightarrow{\beta}T\\}=T^{\prime}.$
Now denote the induced homomorphism $\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\to T^{\prime}$ by
$\varphi^{\prime}$. Clearly $\varphi^{\prime}\circ\iota=\beta^{\prime}$. Hence
$\alpha^{\prime}=\pi\circ\beta^{\prime}=(\pi\circ\varphi^{\prime})\circ\iota$.
This shows that
$\iota^{*}:\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(M^{\prime}),S)\to\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime}),S)$
is surjective. The following diagram summarizes the homomorphisms in the proof
of the previous claim:
$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\alpha^{\prime}}$$\scriptstyle{\beta^{\prime}=\beta\circ\iota}$$\scriptstyle{\iota}$$\scriptstyle{\iota}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\beta}$$\scriptstyle{\iota}$$\textstyle{S}$$\textstyle{T^{\prime}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\pi\quad}$$\textstyle{T}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\varphi^{\prime}}$$\scriptstyle{\iota}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(M)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces.}$$\scriptstyle{\varphi}$
We now show that
$\iota^{*}:\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(M^{\prime}),S)\to\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime}),S)$
is injective. Let $\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}:\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\to S$ be two
different homomorphisms. Let $n$ be the maximal integer such that the
homomorphisms $\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\to S\to S/S^{(n)}$ induced by $\alpha_{1}$
and $\alpha_{2}$ agree. We will show that the restriction to
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})$ of the maps $\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\to S\to
S/S^{(n+1)}$ induced by $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ are different. Without
loss of generality we can therefore assume that $S=S/S^{(n+1)}$.
We denote by $\psi^{\prime}$ the homomorphism $\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\to S\to
S/S^{(n)}=:G$, induced by $\alpha_{1}$ and $\alpha_{2}$.
###### Claim.
There exists a homomorphism $\varphi:\pi_{1}(M)\to H$ to a finite solvable
group and a homomorphism $\pi:\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(M)\to
H\\}\to G$ such that $\psi^{\prime}=\pi\circ(\varphi\circ\iota)$.
By (B) and Proposition 6.8 there exists a homomorphism
$\beta:\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\to H$ to a finite solvable group $H$ and a homomorphism
$\pi:\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to H\\}\to G$ such that
$\pi^{\prime}\circ(\beta\circ\iota)=\psi^{\prime}\circ\iota$. By our
assumption and by Lemma 2.10 there exists a homomorphism
$\varphi:\pi_{1}(M)\to H$ such that $\beta=\varphi\circ\iota$. By (C) we have
$\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to
H\\}=\mbox{Im}\\{\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\to H\\}=:H^{\prime}$. It is now clear
that $\varphi$ and $\pi$ have the required properties. This concludes the
proof of the claim.
The following diagram summarizes the homomorphisms in the proof of the
previous claim:
$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\psi^{\prime}\circ\iota}$$\scriptstyle{\iota}$$\scriptstyle{\iota}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\beta}$$\scriptstyle{\iota}$$\textstyle{G}$$\textstyle{H^{\prime}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\pi\quad}$$\textstyle{H}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\psi^{\prime}}$$\scriptstyle{\varphi^{\prime}=\varphi\circ\iota}$$\scriptstyle{\iota}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(M)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces.}$$\scriptstyle{\varphi}$
We now apply (C) and Corollary 2.5 to the case
$A=\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime}),B=\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})$ and $\varphi^{\prime}:B\to
H^{\prime}$ to conclude that the inclusion map induces an isomorphism
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})/[\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime}\circ\iota),\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime}\circ\iota)]\to\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})/[\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime}),\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime}].$
We now consider the homomorphisms
$\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}:\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\to S=S/S^{(n+1)}$. First note that
they factor through
$\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})/[\mbox{Ker}(\psi^{\prime}),\mbox{Ker}(\psi^{\prime})]$.
Now note that
$\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime})\subset\mbox{Ker}(\psi^{\prime})\subset\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})$,
in particular we have a surjection
$\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})/\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})/\mbox{Ker}(\psi^{\prime})$
which gives rise to a surjection
$\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})/[\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime}),\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime})]\to\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})/[\mbox{Ker}(\psi^{\prime}),\mbox{Ker}(\psi^{\prime})].$
In particular $\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}$ factor through
$\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})/[\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime}),\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime})]$.
We therefore obtain the following commutative diagram
$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\iota}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\alpha_{1}}$$\scriptstyle{\alpha_{2}}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})/[\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime}\circ\iota),\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime}\circ\iota)]\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\scriptstyle{\cong}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})/[\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime}),\mbox{Ker}(\varphi^{\prime})]\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})/[\mbox{Ker}(\psi^{\prime}),\mbox{Ker}(\psi^{\prime})]\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$$\textstyle{S.}$
It is now clear that $\alpha_{1}\circ\iota$ and $\alpha_{2}\circ\iota$ are
different. This concludes the proof that
$\iota^{*}:\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(M^{\prime}),S)\to\mbox{Hom}(\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime}),S)$
is injective. As we pointed out before, it now follows from Lemma 2.10 that
$\iota:\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\prime})\to\pi_{1}(M^{\prime})$ induces an isomorphism
of prosolvable completions. ∎
## 7\. The proof of Theorem 1.2
We start out with the following two results which allow us to reduce the proof
of Theorem 1.2 to the case of closed prime 3–manifolds.
###### Lemma 7.1.
Let $N$ be a 3–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary and let $\phi\in
H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ be nontrivial. If $\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}$ is nonzero
for any homomorphism $\alpha:\pi_{1}(N)\to G$ to a finite group $G$, then $N$
is prime.
Note that the main idea for the proof of this lemma can already be found in
[McC01].
###### Proof.
Let $N$ be a 3–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary which is not prime,
i.e. $N=N_{1}\\#N_{2}$ with $N_{1},N_{2}\neq S^{3}$. We have to show that
there exists a homomorphism $\alpha:\pi_{1}(N)\to G$ to a finite group such
that $\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}=0$. Recall that by Lemma 2.9 we have
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}=0$ if and only if $H_{1}(N;\mathbb{Q}[G][t^{\pm
1}])$ is not $\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]$–torsion. Note that we can write
$N=(N_{1}\setminus\mbox{int}D^{3})\cup_{S^{2}}(N_{2}\setminus\mbox{int}D^{3})$
and that $H_{j}(N_{i}\setminus\mbox{int}D^{3};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm
1}])=H_{j}(N_{i};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}])$ for $j=0,1$ and $i=1,2$. The
Mayer–Vietoris sequence corresponding to
$N=(N_{1}\setminus\mbox{int}D^{3})\cup_{S^{2}}(N_{2}\setminus\mbox{int}D^{3})$
now gives rise to the following long exact sequence:
$\begin{array}[]{cccccccccccccccccc}H_{1}(S^{2};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm
1}])&\to&H_{1}(N_{1};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm
1}])&\oplus&H_{1}(N_{2};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}])&\to&H_{1}(N;\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm
1}])&\to\\\ H_{0}(S^{2};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm
1}])&\to&H_{0}(N_{1};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm
1}])&\oplus&H_{0}(N_{2};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}])&\to&H_{0}(N;\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm
1}])&\to&0.\end{array}$
A straightforward computation shows that $H_{0}(S^{2};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm
1}])=\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]$ and $H_{1}(S^{2};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}])=0$.
First assume that $b_{1}(N_{i})>0$ for $i=1,2$. Denote by $\phi_{i}$ the
restriction of $\phi:H_{1}(N;\mathbb{Q})\to\mathbb{Q}$ to
$H_{1}(N_{i};\mathbb{Q})$. If $\phi_{i}$ is nontrivial for $i=1$ and $i=2$,
then it follows from Lemma 2.2 and Lemma 2.9 that
$H_{0}(N_{i};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}])$ is $\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]$–torsion for
$i=1,2$. On the other hand we have $H_{0}(S^{2};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm
1}])=\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]$. It follows from the above Mayer–Vietoris sequence
that $H_{1}(N;\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}])$ can not be $\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm
1}]$–torsion. On the other hand, if $\phi_{i}$ is trivial for some
$i\in\\{1,2\\}$, then $H_{1}(N_{i};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}])$ is isomorphic to
$H_{1}(N_{i};\mathbb{Q})\otimes\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]$, in particular
$H_{1}(N_{i};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}])$ is not $\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]$–torsion,
and using that $H_{1}(S^{2};\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}])=0$ it follows again from
the above Mayer–Vietoris sequence that $H_{1}(N;\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}])$ is not
$\mathbb{Q}[t^{\pm 1}]$–torsion.
Now assume that either $b_{1}(N_{1})=0$ or $b_{1}(N_{2})=0$. Without loss of
generality we can assume that $b_{1}(N_{2})=0$. Since
$b_{1}(N)=b_{1}(N_{1})+b_{1}(N_{2})$ we have $b_{1}(N_{1})>0$. By the
Geometrization Conjecture $\pi_{1}(N_{2})$ is nontrivial and residually finite
(cf. [Th82] and [He87]), in particular there exists an epimorphism
$\alpha:\pi_{1}(N_{2})\to G$ onto a nontrivial finite group $G$. Denote the
homomorphism $\pi_{1}(N)=\pi_{1}(N_{1})*\pi_{1}(N_{2})\to\pi_{1}(N_{2})\to G$
by $\alpha$ as well. Then by Lemma 2.8 we have
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}=\Delta_{N_{G},\phi_{G}}$
where $p:N_{G}\to N$ is the cover of $N$ corresponding to $\alpha$ and
$\phi_{G}=p^{*}(\phi)$. But the prime decomposition of $N_{G}$ has $|G|$
copies of $N_{1}$. By the argument above we now have that
$\Delta_{N_{G},\phi_{G}}=0$, which implies that
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\alpha}=\Delta_{N_{G},\phi_{G}}=0$. ∎
###### Lemma 7.2.
Let $N$ be an irreducible $3$–manifold with non–empty toroidal boundary and
let $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ be nontrivial. Let $W=N\cup_{\partial N}N$
be the double of $N$ along the boundary of $N$. Let $\Phi=p^{*}(\phi)\in
H^{1}(W;\mathbb{Z})$ where $p:W\to N$ denotes the folding map. Then the
following hold:
1. (1)
$(W,\Phi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$ if and only if $(N,\phi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$,
2. (2)
if $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition $(*)$, then $(W,\Phi)$ satisfies Condition
$(*)$.
In the proof of Lemma 7.2 we will make use of the following well–known lemma.
We refer to [EN85, Theorem 4.2] and [Ro74] for the first statement, and to
[EN85, p. 33] for the second statement.
###### Lemma 7.3.
Let $Y$ be a closed 3–manifold. Let $T\subset Y$ be a union of incompressible
tori such that $T$ separates $Y$ into two connected components $Y_{1}$ and
$Y_{2}$. Let $\psi\in H^{1}(Y;\mathbb{Z})$. Then the following hold:
1. (1)
If $||\phi||_{T,Y}>0$, then $(Y,\psi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$ if and only if
$(Y_{1},\psi|_{Y_{1}})$ and $(Y_{2},\psi|_{Y_{2}})$ fiber over $S^{1}$,
2. (2)
$||\psi||_{T,Y}=||\psi|_{Y_{1}}||_{T,Y_{1}}+||\psi|_{Y_{2}}||_{T,Y_{2}}$.
###### Proof of Lemma 7.2.
First note that an irreducible 3–manifold with boundary a union of tori has
compressible boundary if and only if it is the solid torus. Since the lemma
holds trivially in the case that $N=S^{1}\times D^{2}$ we will from now on
assume that $N$ has incompressible boundary. This implies in particular that
$||\phi||_{T}>0$. The first statement is now an immediate consequence of Lemma
7.3 and the observation that $\Phi|_{N}=\phi$.
Now assume that $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition ($*$). In the following we
write $N_{i}=N,i=1,2$ and we think of $W$ as $W=N_{1}\cup_{\partial
N_{1}=\partial N_{2}}N_{2}$. Let $\alpha:\pi_{1}(N)\to G$ be a homomorphism to
a finite group $G$. We write $n=|G|$, $V=\mathbb{Z}[G]$ and we slightly abuse
notation by denoting by $\alpha$ the representation
$\pi_{1}(W)\to\mbox{Aut}(V)$ given by left multiplication. We have to show
that $\Delta_{W,\Phi}^{\alpha}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$ is monic and that
$\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{W,\Phi}^{\alpha})-\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{W,\Phi,0}^{\alpha})-\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{W,\Phi,2}^{\alpha})=n\,\|\Phi\|_{T}$
(here we used Lemma 2.8 to rephrase the last condition). For any submanifold
$X\subset W$ we denote the restriction of $\Phi$ and $\alpha$ to $\pi_{1}(X)$
by $\Phi$ and $\alpha$ as well. Evidently the restriction of $\Phi$ to
$N=N_{i},i=1,2$ just agrees with $\phi$.
In order to prove the claims on $\Delta_{W,\Phi}^{\alpha}$ we will in the
following express $\Delta_{W,\Phi}^{\alpha}$ in terms of
$\Delta_{N_{i},\phi_{i}}^{\alpha}$, $i=1,2$. The following statement combines
the assumption that $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition $(*)$ with Lemmas 2.8 and
2.9.
###### Fact 1.
For $i=1,2$ we have
$\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{N_{i},\Phi}^{\alpha})-\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{N_{i},\Phi,0}^{\alpha})-\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{N_{i},\Phi,2}^{\alpha})=n\,\|\Phi\|_{T,N_{i}}.$
Furthermore for all $j$ we have that $\Delta_{N_{i},\Phi,j}^{\alpha}$ is
monic.
We now turn to the twisted Alexander polynomials of the boundary tori of
$\partial N$. The following is an immediate consequence of Theorem 6.5.
###### Fact 2.
If $\Delta_{N,\phi}\neq 0$ (in particular if $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition
$(*)$), then for any boundary component $T\subset\partial N$ the restriction
of $\phi$ (and hence of $\Phi$) to $\pi_{1}(T)$ is nontrivial.
This fact and a straightforward computation now gives us the following fact
(cf. e.g. [KL99]).
###### Fact 3.
Let $T\subset\partial N$ be any boundary component. Then
1. (1)
$\Delta_{T,\Phi,i}^{\alpha}$ is monic for any $i$,
2. (2)
$H_{i}(T;V[t^{\pm 1}])=0$ for $i\geq 2$, in particular
$\Delta_{T,\Phi,i}^{\alpha}=1$ for $i\geq 2$,
3. (3)
$\Delta_{T,\Phi,0}^{\alpha}=\Delta_{T,\Phi,1}^{\alpha}$.
We now consider the following Mayer–Vietoris sequence:
$\begin{array}[]{ccccccccccccccccc}0&\to&H_{2}(N_{1};V[t^{\pm 1}])\oplus
H_{2}(N_{2};V[t^{\pm 1}])&\to&H_{2}(W;V[t^{\pm 1}])&\to&\\\ H_{1}(\partial
N;V[t^{\pm 1}])&\to&H_{1}(N_{1};V[t^{\pm 1}])\oplus H_{1}(N_{2};V[t^{\pm
1}])&\to&H_{1}(W;V[t^{\pm 1}])&\to&\\\ H_{0}(\partial N;V[t^{\pm
1}])&\to&H_{0}(N_{1};V[t^{\pm 1}])\oplus H_{0}(N_{2};V[t^{\pm
1}])&\to&H_{0}(W;V[t^{\pm 1}])&\to&0.\end{array}$
Recall that we assume that $(N,\phi)$ (and hence $(N_{i},\phi),i=1,2$) satisfy
Condition ($*$). By Lemmas 2.8 and 2.9 and Facts 1 and 3 it follows that all
homology modules in the above long exact sequence but possibly
$H_{1}(W;V[t^{\pm 1}])$ and $H_{2}(W;V[t^{\pm 1}])$ are $\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm
1}]$–torsion. But then evidently $H_{1}(W;V[t^{\pm 1}])$ and $H_{2}(W;V[t^{\pm
1}])$ also have to be $\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$–torsion. Furthermore it follows
from Fact 3, [Tu01, Theorem 3.4] and [Tu01, Theorem 4.7] that
(5)
$\frac{\Delta_{W,\Phi,1}^{\alpha}}{\Delta_{W,\Phi,0}^{\alpha}\Delta_{W,\Phi,2}^{\alpha}}=\frac{\Delta_{N_{1},\Phi,1}^{\alpha}}{\Delta_{N_{1},\Phi,0}^{\alpha}\Delta_{N_{1},\Phi,2}^{\alpha}}\cdot\frac{\Delta_{N_{2},\Phi,1}^{\alpha}}{\Delta_{N_{2},\Phi,0}^{\alpha}\Delta_{N_{2},\Phi,0}^{\alpha}}.$
Note that $\Delta_{W,\Phi,0}^{\alpha}$ and $\Delta_{W,\Phi,2}^{\alpha}$ are
monic by Lemma 2.8, it now follows from Fact 1 and Equality (5) that
$\Delta_{W,\Phi,1}^{\alpha}$ is monic as desired.
Finally we can appeal to Lemma 7.3 to conclude that
$||\Phi||_{T,W}=||\Phi||_{T,N_{1}}+||\Phi||_{T,N_{2}}$. It therefore follows
from Fact 1 and Equation (5) that
$\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{W,\Phi}^{\alpha})-\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{W,\Phi,0}^{\alpha})-\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{W,\Phi,2}^{\alpha})=n\,\|\Phi\|_{T,W}$
as required. ∎
Let $N$ be a $3$–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary. We write
$\pi=\pi_{1}(N)$. Let $\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi$ be a finite index subgroup and
$\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ nontrivial. We now say that the pair
$(\tilde{\pi},\phi)$ has Property (M) if the twisted Alexander polynomial
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$ is monic and if
$\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}})=[\pi:\tilde{\pi}]\,\|\phi\|_{T}+(1+b_{3}(N))\mbox{div}\phi_{\tilde{\pi}}$
holds.
The first statement of the following lemma is well–known, the second one can
be easily verified and the third is an immediate consequence of the second
statement.
###### Lemma 7.4.
Let $N$ be a $3$–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary and let $\phi\in
H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ be nontrivial. Let $k\neq 0\in\mathbb{Z}$. Then the
following hold:
1. (1)
$(N,\phi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$ if and only if $(N,k\phi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$,
2. (2)
Let $\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi$ be a finite index subgroup. Then
$(\tilde{\pi},\phi)$ has Property (M) if and only if $(\tilde{\pi},k\phi)$ has
Property (M),
3. (3)
$(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition $(*)$ if and only if $(N,k\phi)$ satisfies
Condition $(*)$.
We will also need the following lemma.
###### Lemma 7.5.
Let $N$ be a $3$–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary and let $\phi\in
H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ be non–trivial. Suppose that all finite index _normal_
subgroups of $\pi_{1}(N)$ have Property (M), then in fact all finite index
subgroups of $\pi_{1}(N)$ have Property (M).
###### Proof.
We write $\pi:=\pi_{1}(N)$. Let $\phi\in H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ be non–trivial.
By Lemma 7.4 (2) we can without loss of generality assume that $\phi$ is
primitive. Let $\tilde{\pi}\subset\pi$ be a finite index subgroup. We denote
by $\hat{\pi}\subset\pi$ the core of $\tilde{\pi}$, i.e.
$\hat{\pi}=\cap_{g\in\pi}g\tilde{\pi}g^{-1}$. Note that $\hat{\pi}$ is normal
in $\pi$ and contained in $\tilde{\pi}$.
By Proposition 3.1 the class $\phi$ is dual to a connected Thurston norm
minimizing surface $\Sigma$. We write $A=\pi_{1}(\Sigma)$ and
$B=\pi_{1}(N\setminus\nu\Sigma)$ as before.
We write $\hat{B}:=B\cap\hat{\pi}$ and
$\hat{A}^{\pm}:=(\iota_{\pm})^{-1}(\hat{B})$. We now pick representatives
$g_{1},\dots,g_{m}$ for the equivalence classes of
$B\backslash\pi/\tilde{\pi}$. For $i=1,\dots,m$ we write $\tilde{B}_{i}:=B\cap
g_{i}\tilde{\pi}g_{i}^{-1}$ and
$\tilde{A}^{\pm}_{i}:=(\iota_{\pm})^{-1}(\tilde{B}_{i})$.
Since $\hat{\pi}\subset\pi$ is normal and since we assume that normal finite
index subgroups have Property (M) we can now apply Proposition 3.2 and Lemma
2.1 to conclude that
$\iota_{\pm}:H_{j}(A;\mathbb{Z}[B/\hat{B}])\to H_{j}(B;\mathbb{Z}[B/\hat{B}])$
are isomorphisms for $j=0,1$. It now follows from Corollary 2.5 that the maps
$\iota_{\pm}:A/\hat{A}^{\pm}\to B/\hat{B}\mbox{ and
}\iota_{\pm}:A/[\hat{A}^{\pm},\hat{A}^{\pm}]\to B/[\hat{B},\hat{B}]$
are isomorphisms. Recall that $\hat{\pi}$ is normal in $\pi$, it follows that
$\hat{B}\subset B$ is normal and for any $i$ we have $\hat{B}=B\cap
g_{i}\hat{\pi}g_{i}^{-1}\subset B\cap
g_{i}\tilde{\pi}g_{i}^{-1}=\tilde{B}_{i}$. We now deduce from Lemma 2.7 that
$\iota_{\pm}:A/\tilde{A}^{\pm}_{i}\to B/\tilde{B}_{i}\mbox{ and
}\iota_{\pm}:A/[\tilde{A}^{\pm}_{i},\tilde{A}^{\pm}_{i}]\to
B/[\tilde{B}_{i},\tilde{B}_{i}]$
are bijections for $i=1,\dots,m$. It now follows from Lemma 2.4 that the maps
$\iota_{\pm}:H_{j}(A;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])\to
H_{j}(B;\mathbb{Z}[\pi/\tilde{\pi}])$
are isomorphisms. It now follows from Proposition 3.2 that $\tilde{\pi}$ also
has Property (M). ∎
We will now use the previous lemma to prove the following lemma.
###### Lemma 7.6.
Let $N$ be a $3$–manifold with empty or toroidal boundary and let $\phi\in
H^{1}(N;\mathbb{Z})$ be non–trivial. Let $p:N^{\prime}\to N$ be a finite
cover. We write $\phi^{\prime}=p^{*}(\phi)\in H^{1}(N^{\prime};\mathbb{Z})$.
Then the following hold:
1. (1)
$\phi^{\prime}$ is nontrivial,
2. (2)
$(N,\phi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$ if and only if $(N^{\prime},\phi^{\prime})$
fibers over $S^{1}$,
3. (3)
if $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition $(*)$, then $(N^{\prime},\phi^{\prime})$
satisfies Condition $(*)$.
###### Proof.
The first statement is well–known. The second statement is a consequence of
[He76, Theorem 10.5]. We now turn to the third statement. Assume that
$(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition ($*$).
Let $\tilde{\pi}$ be a normal finite index subgroup of
$\pi^{\prime}=\pi_{1}(N^{\prime})$. We have to show that
$(\tilde{\pi},\phi^{\prime})$ has Property (M). Note that $\tilde{\pi}$ viewed
as a subgroup of $\pi=\pi_{1}(N)$ is not necessarily normal. It nonetheless
follows from the assumption that $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition ($*$) and from
Lemma 7.5 that the twisted Alexander polynomial
$\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm 1}]$ is monic and that
$\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{N,\phi}^{\pi/\tilde{\pi}})=[\pi:\tilde{\pi}]\,\|\phi\|_{T}+(1+b_{3}(N))\mbox{div}\phi_{\tilde{\pi}}$
holds. It now follows easily from Lemma 2.8, $b_{3}(N)=b_{3}(N^{\prime})$, and
the multiplicative property of the Thurston norm under finite covers (cf.
[Ga83, Corollary 6.13]) that the twisted Alexander polynomial
$\Delta_{N^{\prime},\phi^{\prime}}^{\pi^{\prime}/\tilde{\pi}}\in\mathbb{Z}[t^{\pm
1}]$ is monic and that the following equality holds:
$\mbox{deg}(\Delta_{N^{\prime},\phi^{\prime}}^{\pi^{\prime}/\tilde{\pi}})=[\pi^{\prime}:\tilde{\pi}]\,\|\phi^{\prime}\|_{T}+(1+b_{3}(N^{\prime}))\mbox{div}\phi^{\prime}_{\tilde{\pi}}.$
In particular $(\tilde{\pi},\phi^{\prime})$ has Property (M). ∎
We are now finally in a position to prove Theorem 1.2.
###### Proof of Theorem 1.2.
First note that the combination of Theorem 1.9 and Lemmas 7.1, 7.2, 7.6 and
7.4 shows that it suffices to show the following claim:
###### Claim.
Assume we are given a pair $(N,\phi)$ where
1. (1)
$N$ is a closed irreducible 3–manifold such that the fundamental group of each
JSJ component is residually $p$, and
2. (2)
$\phi$ is primitive.
If $(N,\phi)$ satisfies Condition $(*)$, then $(N,\phi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$.
Let $(N,\phi)$ be a pair as in the claim which satisfies Condition $(*)$. If
$||\phi||_{T}=0$, then it follows from [FV08b, Proposition 4.6] that
$(N,\phi)$ fibers over $S^{1}$.
We can and will therefore henceforth assume that $||\phi||_{T}>0$. We denote
the tori of the JSJ decomposition of $N$ by $T_{1},\dots,T_{r}$. We pick a
connected Thurston norm minimizing surface $\Sigma$ dual to $\phi$ and a
tubular neighborhood $\nu\Sigma=\Sigma\times[-1,1]\subset N$ as in Section
6.1. In particular we can and will throughout assume that $\Sigma\times t$ and
the tori $T_{1},\dots,T_{r}$ are in general position for any $t\in[-1,1]$ and
that for any $i\in\\{1,\dots,r\\}$ any component of $\Sigma\cap T_{i}$
represents a nontrivial element in $\pi_{1}(T_{i})$. Furthermore as in Section
6 we assume that our choice of $\Sigma$ minimizes the number
$\sum_{i=1}^{r}b_{0}(\Sigma\cap T_{i})$.
Let $A_{1},\dots,A_{m}$ be the components of the intersection of the tori
$T_{1},\dots,T_{r}$ with $M:=N\setminus\Sigma\times(-1,1)$. Furthermore let
$M_{1},\dots,M_{n}$ be the components of $M$ cut along $A_{1}\cup\dots\cup
A_{m}$. Recall that any $M_{i}$ is a submanifold of a JSJ component of $N$.
For $i=1,\dots,m$ write $C_{i}=A_{i}\cap\Sigma^{-}$. It follows from Lemma 6.3
that for $i=1,\dots,m$ the surface $A_{i}$ is an annulus which is a product on
$C_{i}$, i.e. $C_{i}$ consists of one component and
$\pi_{1}(C_{i})\to\pi_{1}(A_{i})$ is an isomorphism.
In order to show that $M$ is a product on $\Sigma^{-}$ it suffices to show
that $\pi_{1}(\Sigma_{i}^{-})\to\pi_{1}(M_{i})$ is an isomorphism for any
$i\in\\{1,\dots,n\\}$. So let $i\in\\{1,\dots,n\\}$. Since $(N,\phi)$
satisfies Condition $(*)$ it follows from Proposition 1.7 that the maps
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M)$ induce an isomorphism of prosolvable
completions. By Theorem 6.4 (1) the surfaces $\Sigma_{i}^{\pm}$ are connected,
and by Theorem 6.4 (3) the inclusion induced maps
$\pi_{1}(\Sigma_{i}^{\pm})\to\pi_{1}(M_{i}),i=1,\dots,n$ also induce
isomorphisms of prosolvable completions. By Theorem 6.4 (2) we have that the
group $\pi_{1}(M_{i})$ is a subgroup of the fundamental group of a JSJ
component of $N$. By our assumption this implies that $\pi_{1}(M_{i})$ is
residually $p$, in particular residually finite solvable.
In the following we view $M_{i}$ as a sutured manifold with sutures given by
$\gamma_{i}=\partial N\cap M_{i}$. We can pick orientations such that
$R_{-}(\gamma_{i})=\Sigma_{i}^{-}$ and $R_{+}(\gamma_{i})=\Sigma_{i}^{+}$.
Since $\Sigma\subset N$ is Thurston norm minimizing it follows that
$(M_{i},\gamma_{i})$ is a taut sutured manifold. We can therefore now apply
Theorem 4.1 to conclude that $(M_{i},\gamma_{i})$ is a product sutured
manifold, i.e. $\pi_{1}(\Sigma_{i}^{-})\to\pi_{1}(M_{i})$ is an isomorphism. ∎
## References
* [Ag08] I. Agol, Criteria for virtual fibering, Journal of Topology 1: 269-284 (2008)
* [AHKS07] G. Arzhantseva, P. de la Harpe, D. Kahrobaei, Z. Sunic, The true prosoluble completion of a group: examples and open problems, Geom. Dedicata 124 (2007), 5–26.
* [AF10] M. Aschenbrenner, S. Friedl, 3–manifold groups are virtually residually $p$, preprint (2010)
* [BG04] M. Bridson, F. Grunewald, Grothendieck’s problems concerning profinite completions and representations of groups, Ann. of Math. (2) 160 (2004), no. 1, 359–373.
* [Br94] K. Brown, Cohomology of groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 87, Springer-Verlag (1994)
* [CC03] A. Candel, L. Conlon, Foliations. II, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 60. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2003)
* [Ch03] J. Cha, Fibred knots and twisted Alexander invariants, Transactions of the AMS 355: 4187–4200 (2003)
* [CM00] W. Chen, R. Matveyev, Symplectic Lefschetz fibrations on $S^{1}\times M^{3}$, Geom. Topol. 4: 517–535 (2000)
* [Do96] S. Donaldson, Symplectic submanifolds and almost-complex geometry, J. Diff. Geom., 44 (1996), 666-705
* [EN85] D. Eisenbud, W. Neumann, Three-dimensional link theory and invariants of plane curve singularities, Annals of Mathematics Studies, 110. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1985\.
* [Et01] T. Etgu, Lefschetz fibrations, complex structures and Seifert fibrations on $S^{1}\times M$, Algebraic and Geometric Topology, Volume 1 (2001), 469–489
* [FK06] S. Friedl, T. Kim, _Thurston norm, fibered manifolds and twisted Alexander polynomials_ , Topology, Vol. 45: 929-953 (2006)
* [FV07] S. Friedl, S. Vidussi, Symplectic 4-manifolds with a free circle action, Preprint (2007)
* [FV08a] S. Friedl, S. Vidussi, Twisted Alexander polynomials and symplectic structures, Amer. J. Math. 130, no 2: 455– 484 (2008)
* [FV08b] S. Friedl, S. Vidussi, Symplectic $S^{1}\times N^{3}$, surface subgroup separability, and vanishing Thurston norm, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 21 (2008), 597-610.
* [FV10] S. Friedl, S. Vidussi, Twisted Alexander polynomials and fibered 3-manifolds, to be published by the Proceedings of the Georgia International Topology Conference (2010)
* [Ga83] D. Gabai, Foliations and the topology of 3–manifolds, J. Differential Geometry 18, no. 3: 445–503 (1983)
* [Gh08] P. Ghiggini, Knot Floer homology detects genus-one fibred knots, Amer. J. Math. 130, Number 5: 1151-1169 (2008)
* [GKM05] H. Goda, T. Kitano, T. Morifuji, Reidemeister Torsion, Twisted Alexander Polynomial and Fibred Knots, Comment. Math. Helv. 80, no. 1: 51–61 (2005)
* [Gr70] A. Grothendieck, Représentations linéaires et compactification profinie des groupes discrets, Manuscripta Math. 2 (1970) 375–396.
* [Ha59] P. Hall, On the finiteness of certain solvable groups, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 9: 595–622 (1959).
* [Ha01] E. Hamilton, Abelian Subgroup Separability of Haken $3$–manifolds and closed Hyperbolic $n$–orbifolds, Proc. London Math. Soc. 83 no. 3: 626–646 (2001).
* [He76] J. Hempel, $3$-Manifolds, Ann. of Math. Studies, No. 86. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J. (1976)
* [He87] J. Hempel, Residual finiteness for $3$-manifolds, Combinatorial group theory and topology (Alta, Utah, 1984), 379–396, Ann. of Math. Stud., 111, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ (1987)
* [HS97] P. J. Hilton and U. Stammbach, A Course in Homological Algebra, Springer Graduate Texts in Mathematics (1997)
* [Ki] R. Kirby, Problems in low-dimensional topology, Edited by Rob Kirby. AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math., 2.2, Geometric topology (Athens, GA, 1993), 35–473, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1997. 57-02
* [KL99] P. Kirk, C. Livingston, Twisted Alexander invariants, Reidemeister torsion and Casson–Gordon invariants, Topology 38, no. 3: 635–661 (1999)
* [Ki07] T. Kitayama, Normalization of twisted Alexander invariants, Preprint (2007)
* [Kr98] P. Kronheimer, Embedded surfaces and gauge theory in three and four dimensions, Surveys in differential geometry, Vol. III (Cambridge, MA, 1996), 243–298, Int. Press, Boston, MA (1998)
* [Kr99] P. Kronheimer, Minimal genus in $S^{1}\times M^{3}$, Invent. Math. 135, no. 1: 45–61 (1999)
* [KM08] P. Kronheimer, T. Mrowka, Knots, sutures and excision, Preprint (2008)
* [KT09] Ç. Kutluhan, C. Taubes, Seiberg-Witten Floer homology and symplectic forms on $S^{1}\times M^{3}$, Geometry & Topology 13: 493–525 (2009)
* [Li01] X. S. Lin, Representations of knot groups and twisted Alexander polynomials, Acta Math. Sin. (Engl. Ser.) 17, no. 3: 361–380 (2001)
* [LN91] D. Long, G. Niblo, Subgroup separability and $3$-manifold groups, Math. Z. 207 (1991), no. 2, 209–215.
* [LS03] A. Lubotzky, D. Segal, Subgroup growth, Progress in Mathematics, 212. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2003.
* [McC01] J. McCarthy, On the asphericity of a symplectic $M^{3}\times S^{1}$, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 129: 257–264 (2001)
* [McM02] C. T. McMullen, The Alexander polynomial of a 3–manifold and the Thurston norm on cohomology, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. (4) 35, no. 2: 153–171 (2002)
* [MT07] J. Morgan, G. Tian, Ricci flow and the Poincaré conjecture, Clay Mathematics Monographs, 3. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI; Clay Mathematics Institute, Cambridge, MA, 2007.
* [Ni08] Y. Ni, Addendum to:“Knots, sutures and excision”, Preprint (2008)
* [Ni09] Y. Ni, Heegaard Floer homology and fibred 3–manifolds, Amer. J. Math. 131 (2009), no. 4, 1047–1063
* [RZ00] L. Ribes, P. Zalesskii, Profinite Groups, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, 3. Folge, Vol. 40 (2000).
* [Ro74] R. Roussarie, Plongements dans les variétés feuilletées et classification de feuilletages sans holonomie, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. No. 43 (1974), 101–141.
* [Sc85] M. Scharlemann, $3$-manifolds with $H_{2}(A,\partial A)=0$ and a conjecture of Stallings, Knot theory and manifolds (Vancouver, B.C., 1983), 138–145, Lecture Notes in Math., 1144, Springer, Berlin, 1985.
* [Sc89] M. Scharlemann, Sutured manifolds and generalized Thurston norms, J. Differential Geom. 29 (1989), no. 3, 557–614.
* [St62] J. Stallings, On fibering certain 3–manifolds, 1962 Topology of 3–manifolds and related topics (Proc. The Univ. of Georgia Institute, 1961) pp. 95–100 Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1962)
* [St83] J. Stallings, Surfaces in three-manifolds and nonsingular equations in groups, Math. Z. 184 (1983), no. 1, 1–17.
* [Ta94] C. H. Taubes, The Seiberg-Witten invariants and symplectic forms, Math. Res. Lett. 1: 809–822 (1994)
* [Ta95] C. H. Taubes, More constraints on symplectic forms from Seiberg-Witten invariants, Math. Res. Lett. 2: 9–13 (1995)
* [Th76] W. P. Thurston, Some simple examples of symplectic manifolds, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 55 (1976), no. 2, 467–468.
* [Th82] W. P. Thurston, Three dimensional manifolds, Kleinian groups and hyperbolic geometry, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 6 (1982)
* [Th86] W. P. Thurston, A norm for the homology of 3–manifolds, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 339: 99–130 (1986)
* [Tu01] V. Turaev, Introduction to combinatorial torsions, Birkhäuser, Basel, (2001)
* [Vi99] S. Vidussi, The Alexander norm is smaller than the Thurston norm; a Seiberg–Witten proof, Prepublication Ecole Polytechnique 6 (1999)
* [Vi03] S. Vidussi, Norms on the cohomology of a 3-manifold and SW theory, Pacific J. Math. 208, no. 1: 169–186 (2003)
* [Wa94] M. Wada, Twisted Alexander polynomial for finitely presentable groups, Topology 33, no. 2: 241–256 (1994)
* [We73] B. A. F. Wehrfritz, Infinite linear groups, Springer (1973)
* [Wi98] J. Wilson, Profinite groups, London Mathematical Society Monographs. New Series, 19. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-08T20:12:52 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.696658 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Stefan Friedl and Stefano Vidussi",
"submitter": "Stefan Friedl",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1234"
} |
0805.1269 | # Some Topics Related to Bergman Kernel
YIN Weiping YIN Weiping: Dept. of Math., Capital Normal Univ., Beijing
100037, China wyin@mail.cnu.edu.cn; wpyin@263.net
Actually we will discuss some topics related to Bergman kernel on Cartan-
Hartogs domain. Cartan-Hartogs domain is introduced by Guy Roos and Weiping
YIN in 1998, which is built on the Cartan domains(classical domains). The four
big types of Cartan domains can be written as[1]:
$\begin{array}[]{ll}R_{I}(m,n)&:=\\{Z\in{\bf{C}^{mn}}:I-Z\overline{Z}^{t}>0,\\},\\\\[8.53581pt]
R_{II}(p)&:=\\{Z\in{\bf{C}^{p(p+1)/2}}:I-Z\overline{Z}^{t}>0,\\},\\\\[8.53581pt]
R_{III}(q)&:=\\{Z\in{\bf{C}^{q(q-1)/2}}:I-Z\overline{Z}^{t}>0,\\},\\\\[8.53581pt]
R_{IV}(n)&:=\\{Z\in{\bf{C}^{n}}:1+|ZZ^{t}|^{2}-2Z\overline{Z}^{t}>0,\\\
&1-|ZZ^{t}|^{2}>0\\}.\end{array}$
where $Z$ is $m\times n$ matrix, $p$ degree symmetric matrix, $q$ degree skew
symmetric matrix and $n$ dimensional complex vector respectively. Then the
Cartan-Hartogs domains can be introduced as follows:
$Y_{I}:=Y_{I}(N,m,n;K):=\\{W\in{\bf{C}^{N}},Z\in R_{I}(m,n):$
$|W|^{2K}<\det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t}),K>0\\},$
$Y_{II}:=Y_{II}(N,p;K):=\\{W\in{\bf{C}^{N}},Z\in R_{II}(p):$
$|W|^{2K}<\det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t}),K>0\\},$
$Y_{III}:=Y_{III}(N,q;K):=\\{W\in{\bf{C}^{N}},Z\in R_{III}(q):$
$|W|^{2K}<\det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t}),K>0\\},$
$Y_{IV}:=Y_{IV}(N,n;K):=\\{W\in{\bf{C}^{N}},Z\in R_{IV}(n):$
$|W|^{2K}<1-2Z\overline{Z}^{t}+|ZZ^{t}|^{2},K>0\\},$
where $\det$ indicates the determinant, $N,m,n,p,q$ are natural numbers. These
domains are also called super-Cartan domains.
If the right hand of above inequalities are denoted by the
$N_{j}:=N_{j}(Z,\overline{Z}),j=I,II,III,IV$ respectively, then the definition
of Cartan-Hartogs domain can be also written as
$Y_{j}=\\{W\in{\bf{C}^{N}},Z\in
R_{j}:|W|^{2K}<N_{j}(Z,\overline{Z})\\},j=I,II,III,IV.$
The following topics will be discussed:
I. The zeroes of Bergman kernel of Cartan-Hartogs domain;
II. The classical (Cannonical) metrics (Bergman metric, Caratheodory metric,
Kaehler-Einstein metric, Kobayashi metric) on Cartan-Hartogs domain, which
contains Bergman metric equivalent to Kaehler-Einstein metric, Lu Qikeng
constant, Bergman Kaehler-Einstein metric and some good new metrics.
III. Generalized Cartan-Hartogs domain;
IV. The centre of representative domain and applications;
V. The solution of Dirichlet’s problem of complex Monge-Ampère equation on
Cartan-Hartogs domain and Kaehler-Einstein metric with explicit formula.
## I. The zeroes of Bergman kernel on Cartan-Hartogs domain
The Cartan-Hartogs domain of the first type is defined by
$Y_{I}(N,m,n;K)=\\{W\in{\bf{C^{N}}},Z\in
R_{I}(m,n):|W|^{2K}<det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t}),K>0\\}.$
And
$Y_{I}(1,1,n;K)=\\{W\in{\bf{C}},Z\in{\bf{C^{n}}}:|W|^{2K}+|z_{1}|^{2}+|z_{2}|^{2}+\dots+|z_{n}|^{2}<1\\}.$
Then the Bergman kernel of $Y_{I}(1,1,n;K)$ is
$K_{I}((W,Z);(\zeta,\xi))=K^{-n}\pi^{-(n+1)}F(Y)det(I-Z\overline{\xi}^{t})^{-(1+n+1/K)}.$
Where
$F(Y)=\sum_{i=0}^{n+1}b_{i}\Gamma(i+1)Y^{i+1},Y=(1-X)^{-1},X=W\zeta[det(I-Z\overline{\xi}^{t})]^{-1/K}.$
And $b_{0}=0$, let
$P(x)=(x+1)[(x+1+Kn)(x+1+K(n-1))\dots(x+1+K)].$
Then the others $b_{i}(i=1,2,\dots\dots,n+1)$ can be got by
$None$
$b_{i}=[P(-i-1)-\sum_{k=0}^{i-1}b_{k}(-1)^{k}\Gamma(i+1)/\Gamma(i-k+1)][(-1)^{i}\Gamma(i+1)]^{-1}.$
Recently, Liyou Zhang prove that above formula can be rewritten as
$b_{i}=\sum_{j=1}^{i}\frac{(-1)^{j}P(-j-1)}{\Gamma(j+1)\Gamma(i-j+1)}.$
It is well known that for the first type of Cartan-Hartogs domains there
exists the holomorphic automorphism $(W^{*},Z^{*})=F(W,Z)$ such that
$F(W,Z_{0})=(W^{*},0)$ if $(W,Z_{0})\in Y_{I}$. Due to the transformation rule
of Bergman kernel, one has
$K_{I}((W,Z);(\zeta,\xi))=(detJ_{F}(W,Z))|_{Z_{0}=Z}K_{I}[(W^{*},0),(\zeta^{*},\xi^{*})](det\overline{J_{F}(\zeta,\xi)}).$
Therefore the zeroes of $K_{I}((W,Z);(\zeta,\xi))$ are same as the zeroes of
$K_{I}[(W^{*},0),(\zeta^{*},\xi^{*})]=K^{-n}\pi^{-(n+1)}F(Y)$. Let $W^{*}$ be
the $W$, and $\zeta^{*}$ be the $\zeta$, then we have
$None$
$K^{-n}\pi^{-(n+1)}F(Y)=K^{-n}\pi^{-(n+1)}F(y),y=(1-W\overline{\zeta})^{-1}.$
Where
$None$ $F(y)=\sum_{i=0}^{n+1}b_{i}\Gamma(i+1)y^{i+1}.$
If $(W,0)$, $(\zeta,0)$, $(W^{*},0)$ and $(\zeta^{*},0)$ belong to $Y_{I}$,
then their norms $|W|,|\zeta|,|W^{*}|,|\zeta^{*}|$ are less than 1.
1.1. Let $t=W\overline{\zeta}$, then $|t|<1$, and $F(y)=(1-t)^{-(n+2)}G(t)$,
where $G(t)=\sum_{i=0}^{(n+1)}b_{i}\Gamma(i+1)(1-t)^{n+1-i}$. Therefore to
discuss the the presence or absence of zeroes of the Bergman kernel function
of $Y_{I}(1,1,n;K)$ can be reduced to discuss the zeroes of polynomial with
real coefficients in the unit disk in $\bf{C}$[3].
Because $y=(1-W\overline{\zeta})^{-1}=\frac{1}{1-t}$, which maps the unit disk
in $t$-plane onto the half-plane in $y$-plane $Rey>1/2$, therefore to discuss
the the presence or absence of zeroes of the Bergman kernel function of
$Y_{I}(1,1,n;K)$ can be reduced to discuss the zeroes of polynomial with real
coefficients in the right half-plane $Rey>1/2$.
Above two statements are true not only for the $Y_{I}(1,1,n;K)$ but also for
all of the Cartan-Hartogs domains(and Hua domains).
1.2. In the low dimension case, it is very easy to answer the Lu Qikeng
problem for the Cartan-Hartogs domain. For example, we can say that
$Y_{I}(1,1,1;K)$ is Lu Qi-Keng domain.
At this time
$Y_{I}(1,1,1;K)=\\{W\in{\bf{C}},Z\in{\bf{C}}:|W|^{2K}+|Z|^{2}<1\\}$, and the
zeroes of its Bergman kernel function $K_{I}[(W,Z),(\zeta,\xi)]$ are same as
the zeroes of $K_{I}[(W^{*},0),(\zeta^{*},0)]$. But
$K_{I}[(W,0),(\zeta,0)]=K^{-n}\pi^{-(2)}F(y),F(y)=\sum_{i=0}^{2}b_{i}\Gamma(i+1)y^{i+1}$
$y=(1-t)^{-1}.$
Where $b_{1}=K-1,b_{2}=1,b_{0}=0$, therefore
$F(y)=(K-1)y^{2}+2y^{3}=y^{3}[(K-1)(1-t)+2].$
But the zeroes of $F(y)$ are equal to $t=(K+1)/(K-1)$, its norm $|t|>1$, it is
impossible.
Therefore the Bergman kernel function of $Y_{I}(1,1,1;K)$ is zero-free, that
is the $Y_{I}(1,1,1;K)$ is Lu Qi-Keng domain. Therefore we also prove that:
If $D\subset{C^{2}}$ is a bounded pseudoconvex domain with real analytic
boundary and its holomorphic automorphism group is noncompact, then $D$ is the
Lu Qi-Keng domain due to the E.Bedford and S.I.Pinchuk’s following theorem[4].
Theorem 1.1: If $D$ is a bounded pseudoconvex domain with real analytic
boundary and its holomorphic automorphism group is noncompact, then $D$ is
biholomorphically equivalent to a domain of the form
$E_{m}=\\{(z_{1},z_{2})\in{\bf{C^{2}}}:|z_{1}|^{2m}+|z_{2}|^{2}<1\\}$
for some positive integer $m$.
## II. The classical (Cannonical) metrics on Cartan-Hartogs domain
Let $D$ be the bounded domain in $\bf{C^{M}}$, $B_{D},C_{D},KE_{D},K_{D}$
denote the Bergman metric, Caratheodory metric, Kaehler-Einstein metric,
Kobayashi metric respectively, then we have $C_{D}\leq B_{D},C_{D}\leq K_{D}$
[5], and if $D$ is also the convex domain then $C_{D}=K_{D}$[5]. On the other
hand, there is no clear relationship between the $B_{D}$ and $K_{D}$.
2.1. But we have that $B_{D}\leq cK_{D}$ for the Cartan-Hartogs domain where
$c$ is the constant [6-9].
2.2. We proved the Bergman metric is equivalent to Kaehler-Einstein
metric[10], that is $B_{D}\sim KE_{D}$ on Cartan-Hartogs domains. For example,
we consider the Cartan-Hartogs of the first type $Y_{I}=Y_{I}(N,m,n;K)$. Let
$G_{\lambda}=G_{\lambda}(Z,W)=Y^{\lambda}[\det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t})]^{-(m+n+\frac{N}{K})},\lambda>0,$
$T_{\lambda
I}(Z,W;\overline{Z},\overline{W})=(g_{i\overline{j}})=\left(\frac{\partial^{2}\log
G_{\lambda}}{\partial z_{i}\partial\overline{z}_{j}}\right),$
where
$Y=(1-X)^{-1},X=|W|^{2}[\det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t})]^{-\frac{1}{K}}.$
Then $G_{\lambda}$ induces a metric
$Y(I\lambda):=[(dw,dz)T_{\lambda
I}(Z,W;\overline{Z},\overline{W})\overline{(dw,dz)}^{t}]^{1/2}.$
Firstly, by the direct computations one can prove that $B_{Y_{I}}\sim
Y(I\lambda)$. The $Y(I\lambda)$ has good properties: Its holomorphic sectional
curvature and Ricci curvature are bounded from above and below by the Negative
constants. Then based on above good properties and using the Yau’s Schwarz
lemma[11] one can prove $KE_{Y_{I}}\sim Y(I\lambda)$. Therefore
$KE_{Y_{I}}\sim B_{Y_{I}}$, and the metric $Y(I\lambda)$ may be useful for us.
2.3. Definition: A complex manifold $M^{n}$ is called holomorphic homogeneous
regular if there are positive constants $r<R$ such that for each point $p\in
M$, there is a one to one holomorphic map $f:M\longrightarrow\bf{C}^{n}$ such
that
i) $f(p)=0;$
ii) $B_{r}\subset f(M)\subset B_{R},$ where $B_{r}$ and $B_{R}$ are balls with
radius $r$ and $R$ respectively.
Theorem 2.1(Liu-Sun-Yau)[11,12]: For holomorphic homogeneous regular
manifolds, the Bergman metric, the Kobayashi metric and the Caratheodory
metric are equivalent.
Therefore if Cartan-Hartogs domains are the holomorphic homogeneous regular
manifolds, then the Bergman metric, the Kobayashi metric, the Caratheodory
metric and Kaehler-Einstein metric are equivalent. But whether the Cartan-
Hartogs domains are the holomorphic homogeneous regular manifolds? This
problem remains open.
2.4. From an immediate consequence of an inequality due to Lu Qikeng’s paper
[13], we have the following
Theorem 2.2(Lu Qikeng): Let $D$ be a bounded domain in $\bf{C}^{n}$. Then for
each tangent $v\in T_{z}(D)=\bf{C}^{n}$ at $z\in D$, $B_{D}(z,v)\geq
C_{D}(z,v)$. Where $B_{D}(z,v)$ equals the length of $v$ w.r.t. the Bergman
metric $B_{D}$, and $C_{D}(z,v)$ equals the length of $v$ w.r.t. the
differential Caratheodory metric $C_{D}$.
Therefore Cheung and Wong introduce the definition of Lu constant $L(D)$ of a
bounded domain $D$ in $\bf{C}^{n}$ as follows[5].
Definition:
$L(D)=\sup\limits^{z\in
D}_{v\not=0\in{T_{z}(D)}}(\frac{C_{D}(z,v)}{B_{D}(z,v)})$
Lu’s theorem says that $L(D)\leq 1$. $L(D)=(1/(n+1))^{1/2}$ when $D$ is the
unit ball in $\bf{C}^{n}$. One can try to determine the Lu’s constants of all
Cartan domains and all Cartan-Hartogs domains.
2.5. Some years ago S.T.Yau proposed an intricate problem to look for a
characterization of the bounded pseudoconvex domains on which the Bergman
metrics are complete Kaehler-Einstein metric[5].
The following Lu’s theorem can be viewed as a particular case of Yau’s problem
of which the Bergman metric is of constant negative holomorphic sectional
curvature:
Theorem 2.3(Lu Qikeng)[14]: Let $D$ be a bounded domain in $\bf{C}^{n}$ with a
complete Bergman metric $B_{D}$. If the holomorphic sectional curvature is
equal to a negative constant $-c^{2}$, then $D$ is biholomorphic to the
Euclidean ball $B_{n}$ and $c^{2}=\frac{2}{n+1}$.
S.Y.Cheng conjectures that a strangle pseudoconvex domain whose Bergman metric
is Kaehler-Einstein must be biholomorphic to the Euclidean ball[5].
We can also prove that if the Bergman metric of Cartan-Hartogs domain is
Kaehler-Einstein, then this Cartan-Hartogs domain must be homogeneous(See
below).
## III. Generalized Cartan-Hartogs domain
Some years ago we generate the Cartan-Hartogs domain to the Hua domain as
follows[3]:
$\begin{array}[]{lll}\\{W_{j}\in{\bf{C}^{N_{j}}},Z\in{R_{s}}:\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{r}\frac{||W_{j}||^{2p_{j}}}{[N_{s}(Z,\overline{Z})]^{K_{j}}}<1,\\\
p_{j}>0,K_{j}>0,j=1,\dots,r\\}.s=I,II,III,IV.\end{array}$
Right now we will generate the Cartan-Hartogs domain from another way.
Let $\Omega$ be a domain in $\bf{C}^{n}$, $\rho$ a positive continuous
function on $\Omega$, and let $D$ be a (fixed) irreducible bounded symmetric
domain in $\bf{C}^{d}$. Then Roos, Engli$\breve{s}$ and Zhang define a new
domain in $\bf{C}^{n+d}$ as follows[15,16]:
$None$ $\Omega^{D}:=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{d}\times\Omega}:\frac{w}{\rho(z)}\in
D\\}.$
Let $B(0,1)$ be the unit ball in $\bf{C}^{d}$, and let
$D=B(0,1),\rho(z)=N_{j}(z,z)^{1/(2K)},$
then one has
$None$
$\Omega^{B(0,1)}:=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{d}\times\Omega}:\frac{w}{N_{j}(z,z)^{1/(2K)}}\in
B(0,1)\\}.$
The $\frac{w}{N_{j}(z,z)^{1/(2K)}}\in B(0,1)$ can be denoted by
$(\frac{w}{N_{j}(z,z)^{1/(2K)}})\overline{(\frac{w}{N_{j}(z,z)^{1/(2K)}})}^{\prime}<1.$
That is
$|w|^{2K}<N_{j}(z,z).$
Therefore
$None$
$\Omega^{B(0,1)}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{d}\times\Omega}:|w|^{2K}<N_{j}(z,z)\\}.$
Above (3.3) is the definition of Cartan-Hartogs domain.
Let
$D=R_{j},\rho(z)=N_{i}(z,z)^{1/(2K)},d=dimD,\Omega=R_{i},$
then we get the following new domain, which generalizes the Cartan-Hartogs,
and is called generalized Cartan-Hartogs domain:
$None$ $R_{i}^{R_{j}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{d}\times
R_{i}}:\frac{w}{N_{i}(z,z)^{1/(2K)}}\in R_{j}\\}.$
where $i,j=I,II,III,IV$. Therefore we get 16 types of generalized Cartan-
Hartogs domain as follows:
$Y(I,I)=R_{I}^{R_{I}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{mn}\times
R_{I}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(m)}\\}.$
$Y(I,II)=R_{I}^{R_{II}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{p(p+1)/2}\times
R_{I}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(p(p+1)/2)}\\}.$
$Y(I,III):=R_{I}^{R_{III}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{q(q-1)/2}\times
R_{I}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(q(q-1)/2)}\\}.$
$Y(I,IV):=R_{I}^{R_{IV}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{N}\times
R_{I}}:2det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}w\overline{w^{\prime}}-|ww^{\prime}|^{2}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{2/(K)},$
$|ww^{\prime}|<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}\\}.$
$Y(II,I):=R_{II}^{R_{I}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{mn}\times
R_{II}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(m)}\\}.$
$Y(II,II):=R_{II}^{R_{II}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{p(p+1)/2}\times
R_{II}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(p)}\\}.$
$Y(II,III):=R_{II}^{R_{III}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{q(q-1)/2}\times
R_{II}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(q)}\\}.$
$Y(II,IV):=R_{II}^{R_{IV}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{N}\times
R_{II}}:2det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}w\overline{w^{\prime}}-|ww^{\prime}|^{2}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{2/(K)},$
$|ww^{\prime}|<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}\\}.$
$Y(III,I):=R_{III}^{R_{I}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{mn}\times
R_{III}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(m)}\\}.$
$Y(III,II):=R_{III}^{R_{II}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{p(p+1)/2}\times
R_{III}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(p)}\\}.$
$Y(III,III):=R_{III}^{R_{III}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{q(q-1)/2}\times
R_{III}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(q)}\\}.$
$Y(III,IV):=R_{III}^{R_{IV}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{N}\times
R_{III}}:2det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}w\overline{w^{\prime}}-|ww^{\prime}|^{2}<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{2/(K)},$
$|ww^{\prime}|<det(I-z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}\\}.$
$Y(IV,I):=R_{IV}^{R_{I}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{mn}\times
R_{IV}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<(1+|zz^{\prime}|^{2}-2z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(m)}\\}.$
$Y(IV,II):=R_{IV}^{R_{II}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{p(p+1)/2}\times
R_{IV}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<(1+|zz^{\prime}|^{2}-2z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(p)}\\}.$
$Y(IV,III):=R_{IV}^{R_{III}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{q(q-1)/2}\times
R_{IV}}:w\overline{w^{\prime}}<(1+|zz^{\prime}|^{2}-2z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}I^{(q)}\\}.$
$Y(IV,IV):=R_{IV}^{R_{IV}}=\\{(w,z)\in{\bf{C}^{N}\times
R_{IV}}:2(1+|zz^{\prime}|^{2}-2z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}w\overline{w^{\prime}}-|ww^{\prime}|^{2}<(1+|zz^{\prime}|^{2}-2z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{2/(K)},$
$|ww^{\prime}|<(1+|zz^{\prime}|^{2}-2z\overline{z^{\prime}})^{1/(K)}\\}.$
These are the new research fields, one can seeks the Bergman kernel,
Szeg$\ddot{o}$ and consider other topics.
## IV. The centre of representative domain and applications
The Riemann mapping theorem characterizes the planar domains that are
biholomorphically equivalent to the unit disk. In the higher dimensions, there
is no Riemann mapping theorem, and the following problem arise:
Are there canonical representatives of biholomorphic equivalence classes of
domains?
In the dimension one, if $K(z,w)$ is the Bergman kernel function of simply
connected domain $D\neq{\bf{C}}$, it is well known that the biholomorphic
mapping
$F(z)=\frac{1}{K(t,t)}\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{w}}log\frac{K(z,w)}{K(w,w)}|_{w=t}$
maps the $D$ onto unit disk.
In the higher dimensions, Stefan Bergman introduced the notion of a
”representative domain” to which a given domain may be mapped by
”representative coordinates”. If $D$ is a bounded domain in ${\bf{C^{n}}}$,
$K(Z,W)$ is the Bergman kernel function of $D$, let
$T(Z,Z)=(g_{ij})=(\frac{\partial^{2}logK(Z,W)}{\partial
z_{i}\partial\overline{z_{j}}})$
and its converse is $T^{-1}(Z,W)=(g^{-1}_{ji})$. Then the local representative
coordinates based at the point $t$ is
$f_{i}(Z)=\sum^{n}_{j=1}g^{-1}_{ji}\frac{\partial}{\partial{\overline{W_{j}}}}log\frac{K(Z,W)}{K(W,W)}\mid_{W=t},i=1,\dots,n.$
Or
$F(Z)=(f_{1},\dots,f_{n})=\frac{\partial}{\partial{\overline{W}}}log\frac{K(Z,W)}{K(W,W)}\mid_{W=t}T^{-1}(t,t),$
where
$\frac{\partial}{\partial{\overline{W}}}=(\frac{\partial}{\partial{\overline{W_{1}}}},\frac{\partial}{\partial{\overline{W_{2}}}},\dots,\frac{\partial}{\partial{\overline{W_{n}}}}).$
These coordinates take $t$ to $0$ and have complex Jacobian matrix at $t$ is
equal to the identity. The $F(D)$ is called the representative domain of $D$.
If $D$ is biholomorphic equivalent to $D_{1}$, then $D$ and $D_{1}$ have same
representative domain.
Zeroes of the Bergman kernel function $K(Z,W)$ evidently pose an obstruction
to the global definition of Bergman representative coordinates. This
observation was Lu Qi-Keng’s motivation for asking which domains have zero-
free Bergman kernel functions. This problem is called Lu Qi-Keng conjecture by
M.Skwarczynski in 1969 in his paper [17]. If the Bergman kernel function of
$D$ is zero-free, that means the Lu Qi-Keng conjecture has a positive answer,
then the domain $D$ is called the Lu Qi-Keng domain.
4.1. In 1981 Lu Qikeng introduces an another definition of ”representative
domain”[18].
Definition: A bounded domain in $\bf{C}^{n}$ is called a representative
domain, if there is a point $t\in{D}$ such that the matrix of the Bergman
metric tensor $T(z,\overline{t})$ is independent of $z\in{D}$. The point $t$
is called the centre of the representative domain.
If $D$ is representative domain in the sense of Lu, and $D_{1}$ is the
representative domain of $D$ in the sense of Bergman, then $D$ is same as the
$D_{1}$ under an affine transformation.
4.2. In 1981, Lu Qikeng[18] proved the following
Theorem 4.1: Let $D$ be a bounded domain and $D_{1}$ be a representative
domain of Lu in $\bf{C}^{n}$ with centre $s_{0}$. If $f:D\longrightarrow
D_{1}$ is a biholomorphic mapping, then $f$ is of the form
$f(z)=s_{0}+[\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{t}}log\frac{K(z,\overline{t})}{K(t,\overline{t})}]_{t=t_{0}}T^{-1}(t_{0},\overline{t_{0}})A.$
Moreover $K(z,\overline{t_{0}})$ is zero free when $z\in D$. Where
$s_{0}=f(t_{0})$, $A=(\frac{\partial f}{\partial z})_{z=t_{0}}$, and
$\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{t}}=(\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{t_{1}}},\dots,\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{t_{n}}})$.
Corollary 1: Let $D$ be a bounded domain and $D_{1}$ be a representative
domain of Lu in $\bf{C}^{n}$ with centre $s_{0}$, if $D$ is biholomorphic
equivalent $D_{1}$, the Bergman kernel of $D_{1}$ is $K_{1}(w,\overline{s})$,
then $K_{1}(w,\overline{s_{0}})$ is zero free when $w\in{D_{1}}$.
Corollary 2: If $s_{0}=0$, $D=D_{1}$, then $A=I$, and the holomorphic
automorphism $f(z)$ of $D$ has the following form:
$f(z)=[\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{t}}log\frac{K(z,\overline{t})}{K(t,\overline{t})}]_{t=t_{0}}T^{-1}(t_{0},\overline{t_{0}}).$
Where $0=f(t_{0})$.
4.3. If the full group of holomorphic automorphism is denoted by $Aut(D)$, and
let $S=\\{z:f(z)=0,f\in Aut(D)\\}$. Then the $Aut(D)$ is constituted by
$f(z)=[\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{t}}log\frac{K(z,\overline{t})}{K(t,\overline{t})}]_{t=t_{0}}T^{-1}(t_{0},\overline{t_{0}}).$
Where $t_{0}$ spreads all over $S$.
Therefore if $0$ is the centre of representative domain $D$, and the set $S$
is got explicitly, then the $Aut(D)$ can be got explicitly as above. From
this, we can get the $Aut(D)$ with explicit form if $D$ is the Cartan-Hartogs
domain.
## V. The solution of Dirichlet’s problem of complex Monge-Ampère equation on
Cartan-Hartogs domain and Kaehler-Einstein metric with explicit formula
Complex Monge-Ampère equation is the nonlinear equation with high degree,
therefore to get its solution is very difficult.
S.Y.Cheng, N.M. Mok, S.T. Yau consider the following Dirichlet’s problem of
the complex Monge-Ampère equation:
$\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\displaystyle{\rm{det}}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}g}{\partial
z_{i}\partial\overline{z}_{j}}\right)=e^{(n+1)g}&z\in D,\\\ \displaystyle
g=\infty&z\in\partial D,\\\ \end{array}\right.$
And they proved that the above problem exists unique solution[19,20], where
the $g$ can induce the Kaehler-Einstein metric as follows:
$(KE_{D})^{2}=dz(\frac{\partial^{2}g}{\partial
z_{i}\partial\overline{z}_{j}})\overline{dz}^{t}.$
We consider the explicit solution of Dirichlet’s problem of complex Monge-
Ampère equation on $Y_{I}$:
$None$
$\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\displaystyle{\rm{det}}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}g}{\partial
z_{i}\partial\overline{z}_{j}}\right)_{1\leq i,j\leq M}=e^{(M+1)g}&z\in
Y_{I},\\\ \displaystyle g=\infty&z\in\partial Y_{I},\\\ \end{array}\right.$
where $M=N+mn$ is the complex dimension of $Y_{I}$.
Because $Y_{I}$ is pseudoconvex domain. Therefore the solution of problem
(5.1) is existent and unique.
5.1. We prove that the solution of problem (5.1) can be got in semi-explicit
formula, and the explicit solution is obtained in special case. That is the
following theorem is proved[21]:
Theorem 5.1: If $G(X)$ is the solution of the following problem
$None$
$\left\\{\begin{array}[]{lll}(M+1)^{-M}[\frac{X}{K}G^{\prime}+(m+n+\frac{N}{K})G]^{mn}[GG^{\prime}+(GG^{\prime\prime}-(G^{\prime})^{2})X]\frac{(G^{\prime})^{N-1}}{G^{M+1}}=G,\\\
G(0)=\displaystyle K^{-mn};\displaystyle lim_{X\rightarrow
1}G(X)=\infty,\end{array}\right.$
then
$g=(M+1)^{-1}log[G(X)det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t})^{-(m+n+N/K)}]$
is the solution of the problem (5.1); if $K=\frac{mn+1}{m+n}$, and
$G(X)=(\frac{m+n}{mn+1})^{mn}(1-X)^{-(M+1)},$
then the following $g$ is the special solution of the problem (5.1):
$g=(M+1)^{-1}log[(\frac{m+n}{mn+1})^{mn}(1-X)^{-(M+1)}det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t})^{-(m+n+N/K)}]$
$None$
$=log[(1-X)^{-1}det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t})^{-\frac{m+n}{mn+1}}(\frac{m+n}{mn+1})^{\frac{mn}{M+1}}],$
where
$X=X(Z,W)=|W|^{2}[det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t})]^{-1/K},G^{\prime}=\frac{dG(X)}{dX},G^{\prime\prime}=\frac{d^{2}G(X)}{dX^{2}}.$
Remark 1: The complex Monge-Ampère equation is the nonlinear equation, hence
to get its explicit solution is very difficult. Therefore mathematicians hope
to get the solutions for the problem (5.1) by using the numerical method. Due
to the above results the numerical method of the problem (5.1) is reduced to
the numerical method of the problem (5.2). Which reduce the complexity of the
numerical method of problem (5.1) consumedly. Next, if the numerical method of
problem (5.1) or the numerical method of problem (5.2) is appeared in the
future, then the special solution $g$ (see (5.3)) can be used to check these
numerical methods. And if one reduces the complex Monge-Ampère equation in
(5.1) by the linearization method, then the $g$ of (5.3) can be also to check
the precision and the rationality for the linearization method.
Remark 2: Although the problem (5.1) have not been got the explicit solution
in general case, but its semi-explicit solution has the form
$g=(M+1)^{-1}log[G(X)det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t})^{-(mn+N/K)}],$
where $G(X)$ satisfies the (5.2).
Remark 3: The Bergman kernel function of $Y_{I}(N,m,n;K)$ is
$K_{I}(W,Z;\overline{W},\overline{Z})=K^{-mn}\pi^{-(mn+N)}G(X)det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t})^{-(m+n+N/K)}.$
Where
$G(X)=\sum_{i=0}^{mn+1}b_{i}\Gamma(N+i)(1-X)^{-(N+i)},X=X(W,Z)=|W|^{2}[det(I-Z\overline{Z}^{t})]^{-1/K},$
$|W|^{2}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}|W_{j}|^{2},$
and $b_{i}$ are constants.
If $Y_{I}$ is homogeneous domain, then its Bergman metric is equal to its
Kaehler-Einstein metric, that is
$G(X)=\sum_{i=0}^{mn+1}b_{i}\Gamma(N+i)(1-X)^{-(N+i)}$ must satisfies the
equation (5.2). If $G(X)$ is not satisfies (5.2), then $Y_{I}$ is not
homogeneous.
If $G(X)$ is satisfies (5.2), then the Bergman metric of $Y_{I}$ is equal to
the Kaehler-Einstein metric.
By computations, we prove that the $G(X)$ satisfies the equation (5.2) if and
only if $m=1$.That is the $Y_{I}$ is the unit ball(homogeneous domain).
## References
* [1] HUA L K. Harmonic Analysis of Functions of Several Complex Variables in Classical Domains. Providence: Amer.Math.Soc., 1963.
* [2] YIN Weiping. The Bergman kernels on super-Cartan domain of the first type, Science in China(series A), 2000, 43(1): 13-21.
* [3] YIN Weiping. Lu Qikeng conjecture and Hua domain. Science in China Series A: Mathematics, 2008, 51(4): 803-818
* [4] BEDFORD E., PINCHUK S.I.. Domains in $\bf{C^{2}}$ with noncompact group of automorphism. (Russian) Mat.Sb., 1988, 135: 147-157; (English) Math. USSR Sbornik, 1989, 63:141-151.
* [5] CHEUNG Wing-Sum, WONG Bun. Remarks on two theorems of LU Qikeng. Science in China Series A: Mathematics, 2008, 51(4):773-776.
* [6] YIN Weiping, WANG An, ZHAO Xiaoxia. The comparison theorem for the Bergman and Kobayashi metrics on Cartan-Hartogs domains of the first type. Science in China (Series A), 2001, 44(5): 587-598.
* [7] ZHAO Xiaoxia, DING Li, YIN Weiping. The comparison theorem on Cartan-Hartogs domain of the second type. Progress in Natural Science, 2004, 14(2): 105-112.
* [8] YIN Weiping, ZHAO Xiaoxia. The comparison theorem on Cartan-Hartogs domain of the third type. Complex Variables, 2002, 47(3): 183-201.
* [9] LIN Ping, YIN Weiping. The comparison theorem on Cartan-Hartogs domain of the fourth type(In Chinese). Advanced in Mathematics(CHINA), 2003,32(6):739-750.
* [10] YIN Weiping, WANG An. The equivalence on classical metrics, Science in China Series A: Mathematics, 2007, 50(2): 183-200.
* [11] LIU Kefeng, SUN Xiaofeng, YAU Shing-Tung. Geometric aspects of the moduli space of Riemann surfaces. Science in China Ser.A Mathematics, 2005, 48(Supp): 97-122.
* [12] YAU Shing-Tung. Canonical metrics on complex manifolds. Science in China Series A: Mathematics, 2008, 51(4): 503-508.
* [13] LU Qikeng. Schwarz lemma and analytic invariants. Scientia Sinica, 1957,7: 453-504.
* [14] LU Qi-Keng. On Kähler manifolds with constant curvature(in Chinese). Acta Mathematica Sinica, 1966, 16:269-281. Translated as ”Chinese Mathematics”, 1966,8:283-298.
* [15] ROOS Guy. Weighted Bergman kernels and virtual Bergman kernels. Science in China Ser.A Mathematics, 2005, 48(Supp.): 225-237.
* [16] ENGLI$\breve{S}$ Miroslav, ZHANG Genkai. On a generalized Forelli-Rudin construction. Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, 2006, 51(3):277-294.
* [17] M.Skwarczynski. The distance in theory of pseu-conformal transformations and the Lu Qi-Keng conjecture . Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 1969, 22: 305-310.
* [18] Lu Qikeng. On the representative domain. In Several Complex Variables Proceedings of the 1981 Hangzhou Conference, Eds: J.J.Kohn, Q.-K. Lu, R.Remmert, Y.-T. Siu, Boston: Birkh$\ddot{a}$user Boston, Inc., 1984.
* [19] CHENG S.Y. and YAU S.T. On the existence of a complete Kähler metric on non-compact complex manifolds and the regularity of Fefferman’s equation. Comm. Pure App. Math., 1980, 33: 507-544.
* [20] MOK N. and YAU S. T. Completeness of the Kähler-Einstein metric on bounded domain and the characterization of domain of holomorphy by curvature conditions. Proc Symposia Pure Math., 1983, 39: 41-59.
* [21] YIN Weiping, YIN Xiaolan. On the solution of Dirichlet’s problem of complex Monge-Ampere equation for Cartan-Hartogs domain of the first type with Yin Xiaolan Nonlinear Analysis Series A Theory, Methods and Applications(to appear).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-09T03:02:26 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.708446 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Weiping Yin",
"submitter": "Liyou Zhang",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1269"
} |
0805.1359 | # Canonical triangulations of Dehn fillings
François Guéritaud and Saul Schleimer
(Date: December 2006)
###### Abstract.
Every cusped, finite–volume hyperbolic three–manifold has a canonical
decomposition into ideal polyhedra. We study the canonical decomposition of
the hyperbolic manifold obtained by filling some (but not all) of the cusps
with solid tori: in a broad range of cases, generic in an appropriate sense,
this decomposition can be predicted from that of the unfilled manifold.
## 0\. Introduction
Let $M$ be a complete cusped hyperbolic $3$–manifold of finite volume, and
endow the cusps $c_{1},\dots,c_{k}$ of $M$ with disjoint simple horoball
neighborhoods $H_{1},\dots,H_{k}$. The Ford–Voronoi domain $\mathcal{F}\subset
M$ consists of all points of $M$ having a unique shortest path to the union of
the $H_{i}$. The complement of $\mathcal{F}$ is a compact complex $C$ of
totally geodesic polygons. By definition, the canonical decomposition
$\mathcal{D}$ of $M$ with respect to the $H_{i}$ has one $3$–dimensional cell
(an ideal polyhedron) per vertex of $C$, one face per edge of $C$, and one
edge per (polygonal) face of $C$. We say that $\mathcal{D}$ is _dual_ to $C$.
In [EP], Epstein and Penner gave a precise description of $\mathcal{D}$ in
terms of convex hulls in Minkowski space $\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$. Other names for
$\mathcal{D}$ are the geometrically canonical decomposition, or Delaunay (or
Delone) decomposition.
The combinatorics of $\mathcal{D}$, when the mutual volume ratios of the
$H_{i}$ are fixed, gives a complete topological invariant of the manifold $M$,
by Mostow’s rigidity theorem. The canonical decomposition $\mathcal{D}$ thus
shows an interplay between combinatorics on one hand, and hyperbolic geometry
and three–dimensional topology on the other. This motivates the study of
$\mathcal{D}$, and suggests that it is a difficult problem in general. Yet it
seems that $\mathcal{D}$ can be determined in any particular case by
computation using, say, Jeffrey Weeks’ computer program SnapPea [We]. General
results are known only when $M$ is restricted to belong to certain classes of
manifolds: punctured–torus bundles, two–bridge link complements, certain
arborescent link complements and related objects, or covers of any of these
spaces [J2, A1, La, ASWY1, ASWY2, GF, G2, G3]. In fact, the combinatorics
underlying all the above examples are to a large extent the same. More
examples, often using symmetry, are compiled in [SW].
In the present paper, we will be interested in how the canonical decomposition
$\mathcal{D}$ changes when the last cusp $c_{k}$ (where $k\geq 2$) undergoes a
Dehn filling of slope $s$. To this end, we choose the reference horoball
neighborhoods $\\{H_{i}\\}_{1\leq i<k}$ of the remaining cusps after filling
to have the same volumes as before filling. Moreover, we make the running
assumption that the horoball neighborhood $H_{k}$, before filling, had much
smaller volume than all the other $H_{i}$ (by a result of Akiyoshi [A2], the
combinatorics of $\mathcal{D}$ can assume only a finite number of different
“values” as the volumes of the $\\{H_{i}\\}_{1\leq i\leq k}$ vary). Thurston
showed that the metric of the Dehn filling converges, in the sense of Gromov,
to the metric of the unfilled manifold as the filling slope goes to infinity
(choosing basepoints appropriately). Accordingly, our philosophy will be that
as $c_{k}$ is filled, and thus replaced by a Margulis tube, only the
combinatorics inside or near the Margulis tube change, and only in predictable
fashion. Cells away from the Margulis tube undergo only a small geometric
perturbation.
To ensure this, we will have to make the following “genericity” assumptions:
1. (I)
The decomposition $\mathcal{D}$ (before filling) consists only of ideal
_tetrahedra_ ;
2. (II)
There exists a unique shortest path from $H_{k}$ to $\bigcup_{i=1}^{k-1}H_{i}$
in $M$.
Of course, the above notion of genericity is problematic, since there are only
countably many complete finite–volume cusped hyperbolic $3$–manifolds $M$ to
choose from, and certainly, infinitely many of them will be non–generic.
Still, we have checked that 12 out of the 15 twice–cusped manifolds in the
five–tetrahedron census of SnapPea are generic.
###### Theorem 1.
Under the genericity assumptions _(I–II)_ above, if the volume of the cusp
neighborhood $H_{k}$ is small enough, then the decomposition $\mathcal{D}$
(before filling) contains exactly two ideal tetrahedra
$\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}$ that have a vertex in the cusp $c_{k}$. Moreover,
$\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}$ are isometric, each of $\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}$ has
exactly one vertex in $c_{k}$, and $\partial(\Delta\cup\Delta^{\prime})$ is a
once-punctured torus. For any sufficiently large filling slope $s$ in the cusp
$c_{k}$, the canonical decomposition $\mathcal{D}_{s}$ of the manifold
obtained by Dehn filling along $s$ is combinatorially of the form
$\mathcal{D}_{s}=\left(\mathcal{D}\smallsetminus\\{\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}\\}\right)\cup\mathcal{T}$
where $\mathcal{T}=\Delta_{1}\cup\dots\cup\Delta_{N}$ is a solid torus minus
one boundary point, and the combinatorial gluing of the $\Delta_{i}$ is
dictated by the continued fraction expansion of the slope $s$, with respect to
a certain basis of the first homology of the cusp $c_{k}$ depending only on
$\mathcal{D}$.
Geometrically, the tetrahedra of $\mathcal{D}_{s}\smallsetminus\mathcal{T}$
are small deformations of the tetrahedra of
$\mathcal{D}\smallsetminus(\Delta\cup\Delta^{\prime})$. Section 2 will make
explicit how the continued fraction expansion of $s$ dictates a triangulation.
To predict $\mathcal{D}_{s}$ when genericity is not satisfied, or even to
estimate the number of slopes $s$ which fail to be sufficiently large in the
sense of Theorem 1 (their number may not be universally bounded), remains very
challenging.
We will prove Theorem 1 in Section 4. Moreover, an analogous statement
(Theorem 26) will still hold when more than one cusp is filled. In Section 5,
we will treat a real–life family of examples by showing
###### Theorem 2.
If $M$ is a hyperbolic Dehn filling of one cusp of the Whitehead link
complement in $\mathbb{S}^{3}$, the canonical decomposition of $M$ is dictated
by the continued fraction expansion of the filling slope.
The Whitehead link complement actually violates both conditions of the
genericity assumption, but its symmetry compensates this inconvenience. In
fact, we will construct a certain triangulated solid torus, also denoted
$\mathcal{T}$, that serves as a proxy for the Margulis (filling) tube itself:
in the case of the Whitehead link complement, it turns out that the filled
manifold consists only of $\mathcal{T}$ (with some exterior faces pairwise
identified), i.e. no combinatorics outside $\mathcal{T}$ need to be remembered
from the unfilled manifold. However, $\mathcal{T}$ can be slightly more
complicated than in Theorem 1 — see Section 5 for details.
Historically, the first avatar of the triangulation $\mathcal{T}$ of Theorem 1
seems to go back to [J1] where Jørgensen briefly described the Ford–Voronoi
domain of the quotient of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ by a loxodromy, with respect to an
ideal point. Full proofs of his results were since given, and the case of
non–ideal points included, by Drumm and Poritz in [DP]. Setting aside the case
of non–ideal points, we use _angle structures_ and ideal triangulations
(combinatorially dual to the Ford–Voronoi domain) to obtain new and quite
different proofs of their results. Additionally, our paper provides the
following improvements over the existing literature:
* •
Suppose that $\Gamma$ is a Kleinian group and $Z\subset\Gamma$ an infinite
cyclic subgroup resulting from a Dehn filling. Then the canonically
triangulated solid torus corresponding to $Z$ is incorporated into the
canonical triangulation of $\mathbb{H}^{3}/\Gamma$. Under the genericity
assumption this incorporation explains how, in the program SnapPea, the
picture of a triangulated cusp neighborhood changes under Dehn filling.
* •
In Section 5.4, we sketch an extension to the case where $Z$ is virtually
cyclic.
* •
The convex hull in $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ of an ideal loxodromic orbit always admits
a canonical triangulation by the Epstein–Penner construction (extended to the
infinite–covolume case by Akiyoshi and Sakuma [AS]). However, some of the
outermost tetrahedra may be _timelike_ or _lightlike_ , not _spacelike_ , in
which case they do not correspond to vertices of the Ford–Voronoi domain
(which indeed may have no vertices at all!). Although this case does not arise
in the context of Dehn fillings because the covolume stays finite [EP], it is
covered at no extra cost by our methods, and apparently eludes those of [DP].
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section 1 we recall the definition of
the space $W$ of _angle structures_ on a combinatorial ideal triangulation,
and explain (following Rivin [R1]) how to find the hyperbolic structure by
maximizing a volume functional $\mathcal{V}$ on $W$; an application is given
for solid tori. In Section 2 we recall the combinatorics of the Farey graph in
$\mathbb{H}^{2}$ and use it to describe an ideal triangulation of a solid
torus $\mathcal{T}$. In Section 4, using results from [G2], we check that the
decomposition of $\mathcal{T}$ is geometrically canonical, and describe how to
insert $\mathcal{T}$ as a proxy Margulis tube of a filled manifold, under the
“genericity” assumptions. In Section 5, we adapt the method to treat all Dehn
fillings on one component of the Whitehead link complement.
### Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to PCMI (Park City), where this work originated during
the summer of 2006. This project would have been impossible without Jeff
Weeks’ program SnapPea [We].
This work is in the public domain.
## 1\. Angle structures and volume maximization
In Section 1.1 we give basic definitions and quote Theorem 5 (due to Rivin),
the cornerstone of our method to find ideal triangulations. In Section 1.2, we
parametrize the deformation space of certain hyperbolic solid tori; the
method, while not a direct application of Theorem 5, follows from the same
ideas and from the concept of “spun” triangulations [Th].
### 1.1. Rivin’s theorem
###### Definition 3.
A _(combinatorial) ideal tetrahedron_ is a space diffeomorphic to an ideal
tetrahedron of hyperbolic space $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ (i.e. with vertices at
infinity); the faces of such an ideal tetrahedron are called ideal triangles.
Consider an oriented combinatorial ideal tetrahedron $\Delta$, and copies
$\Delta_{1},\dots,\Delta_{N}$ of $\Delta$: the $\partial\Delta_{i}$ naturally
receive consistent orientations. A _gluing_ of the $\Delta_{i}$ is an
equivalence relation on $\bigsqcup_{i=1}^{N}\Delta_{i}$ generated by
orientation–reversing identifications $\phi_{FG}:G\rightarrow F$ of pairs of
faces $F\neq G$ of the $\Delta_{i}$, in such a way that
* •
For each face $F$ of each $\Delta_{i}$, there is at most one face $G$ (resp.
$G^{\prime}$) of some $\Delta_{j}$ such that $\varphi_{FG}$ (resp.
$\varphi_{G^{\prime}F}$) is defined; moreover $G$ exists if and only if
$G^{\prime}$ exists and one then has $G=G^{\prime}$ and
$\varphi_{G^{\prime}F}=\varphi_{FG}^{-1}$;
* •
Whenever
$\varphi:=\varphi_{F_{1}F_{2}}\circ\varphi_{F_{2}F_{3}}\circ\dots\circ\varphi_{F_{n-1}F_{n}}\circ\varphi_{F_{n}F_{1}}$
is well–defined on an edge $\epsilon$ of $\Delta_{i}$, then $\varphi$ is the
identity of $\epsilon$.
The last condition is called the trivial holonomy condition.
Let $\sim$ be a gluing: then
$M:=\left.\bigsqcup_{i=1}^{N}\Delta_{i}\right/\\!\sim$ is a manifold (possibly
with boundary). We say that the $\Delta_{i}$ endow $M$ with an ideal
triangulation. The $6N$ edges of the $\Delta_{i}$ define edges in $M$, which
we call boundary edges if they belong to $\partial M$, and interior edges
otherwise.
Let us denote by $\epsilon^{1}_{i},\dots,\epsilon^{6}_{i}$ the six edges of
$\Delta_{i}$ (before gluing), and by $E$ the set of all
$\epsilon^{\kappa}_{i}$ (so $|E|=6N$). We say that $\epsilon\in E$ is
_incident_ to an edge $e$ of $M$ if $\epsilon$ projects to $e$ under the
gluing “$\sim$”. Fix a map $\alpha\colon\\{\text{boundary edges of
}M\\}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}^{*}$.
###### Definition 4.
An _angle structure_ on $M$ with respect to $\alpha$ is a map
$\theta:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}^{*}$ such that
* •
If the edges $\epsilon,\epsilon^{\prime},\epsilon^{\prime\prime}$ of
$\Delta_{i}$ share a vertex, then
$\theta(\epsilon)+\theta(\epsilon^{\prime})+\theta(\epsilon^{\prime\prime})=\pi$;
* •
If $\epsilon_{1},\dots,\epsilon_{n}\in E$ is the full list of edges incident
to an interior edge $e$ of $M$, then
$\sum_{i=1}^{n}\theta(\epsilon_{i})=2\pi$;
* •
If $\epsilon_{1},\dots,\epsilon_{n}\in E$ is the full list of edges incident
to a boundary edge $e$ of $M$, then
$\sum_{i=1}^{n}\theta(\epsilon_{i})=\pi-\alpha(e)$.
The $\theta(\epsilon)$, for $\epsilon\in E$, are called the dihedral angles of
the $\Delta_{i}$. Given an angle structure, we can realize each $\Delta_{i}$
by an ideal hyperbolic tetrahedron $\delta_{i}$ of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ with
dihedral angles $\theta(\epsilon^{1}_{i}),\dots,\theta(\epsilon^{6}_{i})$;
however, when the face identifications $\varphi_{FG}$ are the corresponding
hyperbolic isometries, the trivial holonomy condition may be violated. The
following theorem tells us exactly for which angle structures this problem
disappears.
###### Theorem 5 (Rivin, [R1]).
Suppose the space $W$ of angle structures is non–empty. Then every critical
point $\theta\in W$ of the volume functional
$\mathcal{V}(\theta):=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\epsilon\in
E}\int_{0}^{\theta(\epsilon)}\log|2\sin u|\,du~{}>0$
defines a complete hyperbolic metric with polyhedral boundary on $M$, with
dihedral angle $\alpha(e)$ at each exterior edge $e$. Conversely, if $M$
admits such a complete hyperbolic metric in which the $\Delta_{i}$ are
realized by totally geodesic ideal tetrahedra $\delta_{i}$ with disjoint
interiors, then the dihedral angles of the $\delta_{i}$ define a critical
point of $\mathcal{V}$.
Note that in an angle structure, the dihedral angles at opposite edges of any
tetrahedron $\Delta_{i}$ are equal; if $\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3}$ are
the dihedral angles at the edges coming into one (and therefore any) vertex of
$\Delta_{i}$, then
$\mathcal{V}_{0}(\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3}):=-\sum_{i=1}^{3}\int_{0}^{\theta_{i}}\log|2\sin
u|\,du$ is the volume of the ideal tetrahedron of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ with those
dihedral angles. This tetrahedron is unique up to isometry of
$\mathbb{H}^{3}$.
###### Fact 6.
The function $\mathcal{V}_{0}$ is convex on
$\Theta:=\\{(\theta_{1},\theta_{2},\theta_{3})\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{3}~{}|~{}\theta_{1}+\theta_{2}+\theta_{3}=\pi\\}$,
strictly convex on the interior of $\Theta$, and vanishes on $\partial\Theta$.
For any $x\in(0,\pi)$ and any $\omega\in\mathbb{R}$ one has
${\frac{d}{dt}}_{|t=0^{+}}\mathcal{V}_{0}(\pi-x-\omega
t~{},~{}x-(1-\omega)t~{},~{}t)=+\infty.$
This expresses the fact that if exactly one angle of an ideal tetrahedron
$\Delta$ is $0$, increasing that angle to $\varepsilon<<1$ yields a volume
increase much greater than $\varepsilon$; note that the same statement is
false when _two_ angles of $\Delta$ are $0$.
Fact 6 implies that the volume functional $\mathcal{V}:W\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
of Theorem 5 is concave and positive, and extends continuously to a concave
function on the (compact) closure $\overline{W}$ of $W$. It moreover implies
###### Proposition 7 (Rivin, [R1]).
Suppose $W\neq\emptyset$ and let $\theta_{0}\in\overline{W}$ be a point where
$\mathcal{V}$ reaches its maximum. Either
* •
$\theta_{0}$ belongs to $W$, i.e. $\theta_{0}(E)\subset\mathbb{R}_{+}^{*}$, in
which case $\theta_{0}$ is a (necessarily unique) critical point for
$\mathcal{V}$ in $W$; or
* •
there exists a non–empty list of tetrahedra
$\Delta_{i_{1}},\dots,\Delta_{i_{s}}$ that have an edge $\epsilon$ such that
$\theta_{0}(\epsilon)=0$: then, each $\Delta_{i_{k}}$ also has an edge
$\epsilon^{\prime}$ such that $\theta_{0}(\epsilon^{\prime})=\pi$.
### 1.2. Rigidity of solid tori
In this section we prove a rigidity result for hyperbolic polyhedral solid
tori with given dihedral angles (and one ideal vertex). The method is a
special case of a generalization of Theorem 5 to spun triangulations.
Consider a once–punctured torus $\tau$ with three ideal edges
$e,e^{\prime},e^{\prime\prime}$ running from the puncture to itself: these
edges divide $\tau$ into two ideal triangles. Let $\gamma$ be a non–oriented
free homotopy class of simple closed curves in $\tau$, and let
$n,n^{\prime},n^{\prime\prime}\in\mathbb{N}$ be the minimal intersection
numbers of $\gamma$ with $e,e^{\prime},e^{\prime\prime}$ respectively. It is
well–known that the triple $(n,n^{\prime},n^{\prime\prime})$ determines the
class $\gamma$, and that the largest among $n,n^{\prime},n^{\prime\prime}$ is
the sum of the other two terms.
Let $a,b,c\in[0,\pi)$ be such that $a+b+c=\pi$. We aim to construct a
punctured solid torus $X$ (namely a solid torus minus one point of its
boundary) with the following properties: the punctured torus $\partial X$ has
three ideal edges with exterior dihedral angles $a,b,c$, and there exist
coprime positive integers $n_{a},n_{c}$ such that the meridian of $X$
intersects these three edges minimally in $n_{a},\,n_{a}+n_{c},\,n_{c}$ points
respectively. We write $n_{b}:=n_{a}+n_{c}$.
###### Proposition 8.
A hyperbolic solid torus $X$ as above exists if and only if
$a\,n_{a}+b\,n_{b}+c\,n_{c}>2\pi$. This solid torus is then unique up to
isometry.
###### Remark 9.
The left member of the inequality is the sum of exterior dihedral angles met
by a meridian in $\partial X$: the inequality can thus be seen as a sort of
Gauss-Bonnet condition for the compression disk of the solid torus $X$ (see
[FG] for a more general construction). In Section 2, we will check that the
same condition is enough for a certain (non–spun) ideal triangulation of $X$
to have angle structures (with respect to $a,b,c$), and indeed to be
geometrically realized.
###### Proof.
If $X$ exists, we can consider its universal cover $U$ which is a complete
hyperbolic manifold with locally convex boundary and is thus, by a standard
argument, naturally embedded in $\mathbb{H}^{3}$. This space $U$ is the convex
hull of the orbit of an ideal point of
$\partial_{\infty}\mathbb{H}^{3}\simeq\mathbb{S}^{2}$ under a certain
loxodromic $\varphi$ (corresponding to the core curve of $X$). We can stellate
$U$ with respect to the attractive fixed point of $\varphi$: this yields a
$\varphi$–invariant decomposition of $U$ (minus the axis of $\varphi$) into
tetrahedra, hence, quotienting out by $\varphi$, a decomposition of the solid
torus $X$ (minus the core axis) into two ideal tetrahedra
$\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}$. Note that this decomposition has only one interior
edge $L$, originating at the puncture of $\partial X$ and spinning towards the
core of $X$. Thus, constructing $X$ in general amounts to finding positive
dihedral angles for $\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}$ such that
1. (i)
the holonomy around $L$ is the identity of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$, i.e. the complex
angles around $L$ sum to $2\pi$;
2. (ii)
the boundary of $\Delta\cup\Delta^{\prime}$ has interior dihedral angles
$\pi-a,\,\pi-b,\,\pi-c$;
3. (iii)
the holonomy around the core curve of $X$ is also the identity of
$\mathbb{H}^{3}$.
(One may refer e.g. to Definition 6.3 of [GF] for a precise definition of
holonomy.) Condition (i) above is automatically satisfied because each
dihedral angle of $\Delta$ and $\Delta^{\prime}$ is incident to $L$ exactly
once. To study Condition (ii), let us fix some notation: let $ABC$ and $ACD$
be two counterclockwise oriented triangles in
$\mathbb{C}\subset\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{C}\simeq\partial_{\infty}\mathbb{H}^{3}$;
we identify $\Delta$ with the tetrahedron $\infty ABC$ and $\Delta^{\prime}$
with $\infty ACD$, gluing the ideal triangles $\infty AB$ and $\infty DC$
(resp. $\infty AD$ and $\infty BC$) together. The interior angles at $A,B,C$
of $\Delta$ are noted $\delta_{a},\delta_{b},\delta_{c}$ respectively. The
interior angles at $A,C,D$ of $\Delta^{\prime}$ are noted
$\delta^{\prime}_{c},\delta^{\prime}_{a},\delta^{\prime}_{b}$ respectively
(see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The cusp shapes of $\Delta$ and $\Delta^{\prime}$.
Condition (ii) can then be written
$\delta_{a}+\delta^{\prime}_{a}=\pi-a~{};~{}\delta_{b}+\delta^{\prime}_{b}=\pi-b~{};~{}\delta_{c}+\delta^{\prime}_{c}=\pi-c.$
This implies
(1)
$\left\\{\begin{array}[]{rcl}(\delta_{a},\delta_{b},\delta_{c})&=&\left(\frac{\pi-a}{2}+\alpha~{},~{}\frac{\pi-b}{2}+\beta~{},~{}\frac{\pi-c}{2}+\gamma\right)\\\
(\delta^{\prime}_{a},\delta^{\prime}_{b},\delta^{\prime}_{c})&=&\left(\frac{\pi-a}{2}-\alpha~{},~{}\frac{\pi-b}{2}-\beta~{},~{}\frac{\pi-c}{2}-\gamma\right)\end{array}\right.$
where
(2)
$\textstyle{|\alpha|<\frac{\pi-a}{2}~{},~{}|\beta|<\frac{\pi-b}{2}~{},~{}|\gamma|<\frac{\pi-c}{2}}~{},~{}\text{
and }\alpha+\beta+\gamma=0.$
The space of solutions $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ to (2) is the interior of a
centrally symmetric affine hexagon $P$ whose edges are given by
(3)
$\textstyle{\alpha=\frac{\pi-a}{2}~{},~{}\beta=-\frac{\pi-b}{2}~{},~{}\gamma=\frac{\pi-c}{2}~{},~{}\alpha=-\frac{\pi-a}{2}~{},~{}\beta=\frac{\pi-b}{2}~{},~{}\gamma=-\frac{\pi-c}{2}}$
in that order. (It is easy to check that these edges are all non–empty
segments if $a,b,c>0$, and that e.g. the first and fourth edges are reduced to
points if and only if $a=0$.) See Figure 2.
Figure 2. The hexagon $P$ of solutions $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ to (2), and the
segment $S$ of spun angle structures. At most one pair of opposite sides of
$P$ can be reduced to points, because $a,b,c<\pi$.
Condition (iii) has two components: first, an angular component (affine in
terms of the dihedral angles of $\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}$) which will narrow
down the space of solutions $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ to the intersection of the
interior of $P$ with a certain line. This intersection will be non–empty
(namely, an open segment $S$) exactly when the inequality of Proposition 8 is
satisfied. Second, a scaling component which we will solve by seeking a
critical point of a volume functional on $S$.
Angular component. Following the notation above (and Figure 1), we refer to
the three exterior edges of $X$ as $AB,BC,CA$: the corresponding exterior
dihedral angles are $c,a,b$ respectively. The angular holonomy map is a group
homomorphism $h:H_{1}(\partial X,\mathbb{Z})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. Let the
oriented closed curve $\lambda_{a}$ (resp. $\lambda_{c}$) be a boundary
component of a regular neighborhood of the oriented edge $\overrightarrow{BC}$
(resp. $\overrightarrow{BA}$), as in Figure 1. By the conventions (2) above,
$h([\lambda_{a}])=\delta_{a}-\delta^{\prime}_{a}=2\alpha$ and
$h([\lambda_{c}])=-\delta_{c}+\delta^{\prime}_{c}=-2\gamma$. The meridian
$\mu$ of $X$ is homotopic to $n_{c}[\lambda_{a}]+n_{a}[\lambda_{c}]$ (where
$n_{a},n_{c}>0$), because this class intersects $n_{a}$ times the edge $BC$,
$n_{b}=n_{a}+n_{c}$ times the edge $AC$, and $n_{c}$ times the edge $BA$.
Hence,
$h([\mu])=2(n_{c}\alpha-n_{a}\gamma).$
Using (3), and considering the appropriate vertex of the space $P$ of angle
structures, the largest (resp. smallest) possible value of $h([\mu])$ on the
closure of $P$ is therefore
$2\left(n_{c}\frac{\pi-a}{2}+n_{a}\frac{\pi-c}{2}\right)=an_{a}+bn_{b}+cn_{c}$
(resp. the negative of that number), where we used $a+b+c=\pi$ and
$n_{b}=n_{a}+n_{c}$. We conclude that $h([\mu])=2\pi$ is satisfiable on the
interior of $P$ if and only if $a\,n_{a}+b\,n_{b}+c\,n_{c}>2\pi$, as wished.
Scaling component. The scaling holonomy map is a group homomorphism
$\eta:H_{1}(\partial X,\mathbb{Z})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}^{*}$. The sine
formula for triangles yields
$\eta([\lambda_{a}])=\frac{\sin\delta_{b}}{\sin\delta_{c}}\,\frac{\sin\delta^{\prime}_{c}}{\sin\delta^{\prime}_{b}}$
and
$\eta([\lambda_{c}])=\frac{\sin\delta_{b}}{\sin\delta_{a}}\,\frac{\sin\delta^{\prime}_{a}}{\sin\delta^{\prime}_{b}}$,
hence
$\eta([\mu])=\eta([\lambda_{a}])^{n_{c}}\eta([\lambda_{c}])^{n_{a}}=\left(\frac{\sin\delta_{b}}{\sin\delta^{\prime}_{b}}\right)^{n_{a}+n_{c}}\left(\frac{\sin\delta_{c}}{\sin\delta^{\prime}_{c}}\right)^{-n_{c}}\left(\frac{\sin\delta_{a}}{\sin\delta^{\prime}_{a}}\right)^{-n_{a}}.$
On the other hand, let $S$ be the open segment defined by the intersection of
the interior of $P$ with the condition $h([\mu])=2\pi$, i.e. $n_{c}\alpha-
n_{a}\gamma=\pi$. The tangent space of $S$ is generated by the vector
$(\dot{\alpha},\dot{\beta},\dot{\gamma})=(n_{a},-n_{a}-n_{c},n_{c})$. Let
$\Lambda$ be the Lobachevski function defined by
$\Lambda(x)=-\int_{0}^{x}\log|2\sin t|\,dt$. The volume functional is by
definition
$\begin{array}[]{rrcl}&S&\longrightarrow&\mathbb{R}^{+}\\\
\mathcal{V}:&(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)&\longmapsto&\mathcal{V}_{0}(\delta_{a},\delta_{b},\delta_{c})+\mathcal{V}_{0}(\delta^{\prime}_{a},\delta^{\prime}_{b},\delta^{\prime}_{c})\end{array}$
where $\mathcal{V}_{0}(x,y,z)=\Lambda(x)+\Lambda(y)+\Lambda(z)$ is the volume
of one ideal tetrahedron, and $\delta_{a},\dots,\delta^{\prime}_{c}$ are given
by (1). By Fact 6, $\mathcal{V}$ is strictly concave on the segment $S$ and
achieves its maximum in $S$ (indeed, the endpoints of $S$ belong to the
perimeter of the hexagon $P$, but at any point of $\partial P$, at least one
of the tetrahedra $\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}$ has exactly one angle whose value
is $0$: therefore, $\mathcal{V}$ has unbounded derivative near each endpoint
of $S$). As a result, $\mathcal{V}$ has a unique (critical) maximum in the
open segment $S$.
At that critical point, since
$(\dot{\alpha},\dot{\beta},\dot{\gamma})=(n_{a}~{},~{}-n_{a}-n_{c}~{},~{}n_{c})$,
we have
$\displaystyle 0=d\mathcal{V}(\dot{\alpha},\dot{\beta},\dot{\gamma})$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\dot{\alpha}\Lambda^{\prime}(\delta_{a})+\dot{\beta}\Lambda^{\prime}(\delta_{b})+\dot{\gamma}\Lambda^{\prime}(\delta_{c})-\dot{\alpha}\Lambda^{\prime}(\delta^{\prime}_{a})-\dot{\beta}\Lambda^{\prime}(\delta^{\prime}_{b})-\dot{\gamma}\Lambda^{\prime}(\delta^{\prime}_{c})$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\dot{\alpha}\log|2\sin\delta_{a}|-\dot{\beta}\log|2\sin\delta_{b}|-\dot{\gamma}\log|2\sin\delta_{c}|$
$\displaystyle+\dot{\alpha}\log|2\sin\delta^{\prime}_{a}|+\dot{\beta}\log|2\sin\delta^{\prime}_{b}|+\dot{\gamma}\log|2\sin\delta^{\prime}_{c}|$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\log\left[\left(\frac{\sin\delta_{a}}{\sin\delta^{\prime}_{a}}\right)^{-n_{a}}\,\left(\frac{\sin\delta_{b}}{\sin\delta^{\prime}_{b}}\right)^{n_{a}+n_{c}}\,\left(\frac{\sin\delta_{c}}{\sin\delta^{\prime}_{c}}\right)^{-n_{c}}\right]=\log\eta([\mu]).$
At the critical point of $\mathcal{V}$ in $S$, we therefore have the following
values for the holonomy maps: $h([\mu])=2\pi$ (rotational component) and
$\eta([\mu])=1$ (scaling component). This precisely means that the metric
completion of $\Delta\cup\Delta^{\prime}$ is the solid torus $X$ endowed with
a spun triangulation of two tetrahedra whose tips spin around the core curve.
Moreover, since the critical point of $\mathcal{V}$ in $S$ is unique, we have
in fact proved that $X$ is unique up to isometry. ∎
## 2\. Farey combinatorics in solid tori
Let $X$ be a compact solid torus, minus one point of its boundary; call this
removed point the _puncture_.
In this section we will first describe a certain combinatorial decomposition
$\mathcal{D}$ of $X$ into ideal tetrahedra, relative to a given ideal
triangulation of $\partial X$ (into two ideal triangles). This decomposition
has previously been described, and studied in great detail, by Jaco and
Rubinstein [JR]. We will then go on to find a geometric realization of
$\mathcal{D}$, using the ideas of Section 1.
### 2.1. The Farey graph
Identify the boundary at infinity of the hyperbolic plane $\mathbb{H}^{2}$ to
the circle $\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{R}$, endowed with the action of
$PSL_{2}(\mathbb{Z})$. We assume that $0,1,\infty$ lie counterclockwise in
that order on $\partial_{\infty}\mathbb{H}^{2}\simeq\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{R}$.
Consider the subset $\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ of $\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{R}$.
We measure the “proximity” of two elements $q=\frac{y}{x}$ and
$q^{\prime}=\frac{y^{\prime}}{x^{\prime}}$ of $\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$
(given as ratios of coprime integers) by computing their wedge
(4) $q\wedge q^{\prime}:=\left|\left|\begin{array}[]{cc}y&y^{\prime}\\\
x&x^{\prime}\end{array}\right|\right|\>\in\mathbb{N}\hskip
20.0pt\text{(absolute value of the determinant).}$
If we draw a straight line in $\mathbb{H}^{2}$ from $q$ to $q^{\prime}$ each
time $q\wedge q^{\prime}=1$, we obtain the _Farey triangulation_ of
$\mathbb{H}^{2}$. Alternatively, this triangulation can be defined by
reflecting the ideal triangle $1\infty 0$ in its sides _ad infinitum_.
Fix an identification (homeomorphism) between the punctured torus $\partial X$
and $\mathbb{T}:=(\mathbb{R}^{2}\smallsetminus\mathbb{Z}^{2})/\mathbb{Z}^{2}$.
We assume that the canonical orientation of $\mathbb{T}$ (induced by
$\mathbb{R}^{2}$), followed by the outward–pointing normal of $\partial X$,
coincides with the positive orientation on $X$. The segment from $(0,0)$ to
$(x,y)$ in $\mathbb{R}^{2}$ (where $x,y$ are coprime integers) projects to a
properly embedded line $\gamma$ in $\partial X$: we say that
$\frac{y}{x}\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ is the _slope_ of $\gamma$. An edge
$E$ of the Farey triangulation (or: a Farey edge) corresponds to a pair of
disjoint lines $\gamma,\gamma^{\prime}$ in $\partial X$, whose slopes are the
two ends of $E$ in $\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$, and whose complement in
$\partial X$ is an ideal quadrilateral. Similarly, Farey triangles (such as
$1\infty 0$), having three vertices in $\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$, correspond
to triples of disjoint lines $\gamma,\gamma^{\prime},\gamma^{\prime\prime}$ in
$\partial X$ which define a decomposition of $\partial X$ into two ideal
triangles. Finally, note that we can also associate a slope in
$\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ to the meridinal closed curve $\mu$ of the solid
torus $X$: namely, the slope of the unique properly embedded line
$\mu^{\prime}$ which (possibly after isotopy) does not intersect $\mu$.
Let $pqr$ be a Farey triangle, and suppose
$m\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}\smallsetminus\\{p,q,r\\}$ is the slope of the
meridian of $X$. By convention, we will suppose that the Farey edge $pq$
separates $r$ from $m$, and that $pqm$ is not a Farey triangle (so $m$ is “far
enough” from the triangle $pqr$). Endow the punctured torus $\partial X$ with
the ideal triangulation associated to $pqr$ (which we call the
$pqr$–triangulation). In Section 2.2, we will be preoccupied with decomposing
$X$ into ideal tetrahedra with faces (ideal triangles) glued in pairs, in such
a way that exactly two ideal triangles remain free, and give the
$pqr$-triangulation of $\partial X$.
### 2.2. An ideal triangulation of the solid torus
The idea is to follow a path $\ell$ in the Farey triangulation, transverse to
the Farey edges, from the ideal vertex $r$ to the ideal vertex $m$. We assume
that the path $\ell$ crosses each Farey triangle at most once, i.e. never
backtracks. The sequence of Farey triangles that $\ell$ encounters is then
completely determined (so we can take $\ell$ to be e.g. a geodesic ray): these
triangles are
$(T_{0},T_{1},\dots,T_{N})=(pqr,pqr^{\prime},\dots,mst)$
where $s,t$ belong to $\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ and the symmetry of axis $pq$
takes $r$ to $r^{\prime}$. Note that by assumption, $N\geq 2$.
For each $0<i<N$, we can then consider a properly embedded punctured torus
$\tau_{i}\subset X$ isotopic to $\partial X$ (properness here means that by
intersectiong $\tau_{i}$ with a basis of neighborhoods of the puncture of $X$,
we get a basis of neighborhoods of the puncture of $\tau_{i}$). We can assume
that the $\tau_{i}$ are disjoint and that $\tau_{i}$ separates $\partial X$
from $\tau_{i+1}$ (i.e. $\tau_{i+1}$ lies in $X$ “inward” from $\tau_{i}$).
Endow $\tau_{i}$ with the triangulation associated to the Farey triangle
$T_{i}$ — for that purpose we also rechristen $\partial X$ as $\tau_{0}$. Note
that two consecutive punctured tori $\tau_{i-1},\tau_{i}$ always have two edge
slopes in common (these slopes are the ends of the Farey edge $T_{i-1}\cap
T_{i}$). Thus, we can isotope $\tau_{1}$ until its edges of slopes $p,q$
coincide with those of $\tau_{0}=\partial X$; then isotope $\tau_{2}$ until
two of its edges coincide with the edges of similar slopes in $\tau_{1}$; then
isotope $\tau_{3}$ until it intersects $\tau_{2}$ along two edges, etc.
At the end of this process, the space comprised between $\tau_{i-1}$ and
$\tau_{i}$, for each $0<i<N$, is a (combinatorial) ideal tetrahedron
$\Delta_{i}$ with four of its edges identified in opposite pairs. These
tetrahedra $\Delta_{i}$, with the combinatorial gluing that arises from the
construction above, are those of our decomposition $\mathcal{D}$ of $X$.
(Since $N\geq 2$, there is at least one tetrahedron $\Delta_{i}$. Our
“half–shift” convention $\partial\Delta_{i}=\tau_{i-1}\cup\tau_{i}$, or
equivalently $\tau_{i}=\Delta_{i}\cap\Delta_{i+1}$, is arbitrary). In order to
homotopically “kill” the meridian of the solid torus $X$, it only remains to
describe the gluing of the last surface $\tau_{N-1}$ to itself.
If $T_{N}=mst$ is the last Farey triangle, let $T_{N-1}=m^{\prime}st$ be the
next-to-last, associated to the surface $\tau_{N-1}$. We fold $\tau_{N-1}$
along its edge of slope $m^{\prime}$, gluing the two adjacent faces (ideal
triangles) $F^{\prime},F^{\prime\prime}$ to one another to obtain a single
ideal triangle $F$. Intrinsically, $F$ is an ideal Möbius band, i.e. a compact
Möbius band minus one point of its boundary. Indeed, from an (ideal) triangle
$ABC$, one can construct an (ideal) Möbius band $F$ with boundary $AC$, by
gluing the oriented edge $AB$ to $BC$: the (punctured) torus
$\tau_{N-1}=F^{\prime}\cup F^{\prime\prime}$ then just wraps around this
(ideal) Möbius band $F$, like the boundary of a regular neighborhood of an
embedding of $F$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. See Figure 3.
Figure 3. Left: a punctured torus (shown are 3 folded copies of a fundamental
domain; arrows are identified) wraps around an ideal Möbius band. The meridian
line $\mu$, of slope $m$, becomes homotopically trivial. The dotted folding
line $AC$ has slope $m^{\prime}$. Right: part of the universal cover of the
same Möbius band (shaded) and the tetrahedron $\Delta_{N-1}$ glued to it.
### 2.3. Angle structures
We proceed to describe positive angle structures for the tetrahedra
$\Delta_{i}$, where $1\leq i\leq N-1$ (the argument is reminiscent of [GF] and
[G2], although the solution space will look quite different). More precisely,
consider reals
(5) $\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r}~{}\text{ such that
}\left\\{\begin{array}[]{rcl}\theta_{p}+\theta_{q}+\theta_{r}&=&\pi~{};\\\
\theta_{p}~{},~{}\theta_{q}&\geq&0~{};\\\
\pi~{}>~{}\theta_{r}&>&0~{}.\end{array}\right.$
We will look for angle structures on the $\Delta_{i}$ such that the interior
dihedral angles of $X$ at the edges of slope $p,q,r$ in $\partial X$ are
$\pi-\theta_{p},\pi-\theta_{q},\pi-\theta_{r}$ respectively. Note that we do
not allow $\theta_{r}$ to vanish: indeed, $\pi-\theta_{r}$ will be a dihedral
angle of the first tetrahedron $\Delta_{1}$. (If the solid torus $X$ admits a
geometric realization in which $\theta_{r}=0$, we can always remove this flat
tetrahedron $\Delta_{1}$ and see $\partial X$ as being endowed with the
$pqr^{\prime}$–triangulation, where $r^{\prime}\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ is
the symmetric of $r$ with respect to the Farey edge $pq$.)
###### Proposition 10.
An angle structure satisfying (5), also called a
$(\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r})$–angle structure, exists if and only if
$(m\wedge p)\theta_{p}+(m\wedge q)\theta_{q}+(m\wedge r)\theta_{r}>2\pi$.
###### Remark 11.
It is easy to check that $m\wedge r=(m\wedge p)+(m\wedge q)$ — e.g. by
reducing to the case $(p,q)=(0,\infty)$ and using the
$PSL_{2}(\mathbb{Z})$–invariance of the $\wedge$–notation. Thus, by (5), the
inequality of Proposition 10 is automatically true unless
$\text{min}\,\\{m\wedge p,m\wedge q\\}=1$. For example, if $(m\wedge p,m\wedge
q)=(1,1)$, the condition is always false (recall we required that $pqm$ not be
a Farey triangle); if $(m\wedge p,m\wedge q)=(2,1)$, it amounts to
$\theta_{r}>\theta_{q}$. The equilateral triangle in Figure 4 shows the full
parameter space for the triple $(\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r})$: shades
indicate how many slopes $m$ fail to satisfy the condition of Proposition 10,
where we allow $m$ to range over all of $\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ rather than
just over the arc $\overset{\frown}{pq}$ (when $m$ belongs to one of the arcs
$\overset{\frown}{qr},\overset{\frown}{rp}$, we construct the same ideal
triangulations, up to a permutation of $p,q,r$).
Figure 4. Parameter space for the triple $(\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r})$,
and numbers of “forbidden” slopes $m$ (the brighter, the fewer).
###### Proof.
(Prop. 10). The tetrahedra $\Delta_{i}$ are naturally associated to the Farey
edges $e_{i}=T_{i-1}\cap T_{i}$ that the path $\ell$ crosses. Orient $\ell$
from $T_{0}$ to $T_{N}$. If $e_{i}$ and $e_{i+1}$ share their Right (resp.
Left) end with respect to the orientation of $\ell$, we say that $\ell$ _makes
a Right_ (resp. _a Left_) between $e_{i}$ and $e_{i+1}$ (or: at $T_{i}$).
Thus, $\ell$ defines a word $\Omega=RLL...R$ of length $N-1$ in the letters
$R,L$: for each $i\in\\{1,2,\dots,N-1\\}$ there is a tetrahedron $\Delta_{i}$
and a letter $\Omega_{i}\in\\{R,L\\}$. If $(p,q,r)=(0,\infty,-1)$, then the
lengths of the syllables $R^{n}$ and $L^{n}$ of $\Omega$ are exactly the
integers in the continued fraction expansion of the rational $m$, as referred
to in Theorem 1.
Note that no letter $R$ or $L$ is associated to the very first Farey triangle
$T_{0}=pqr$, because the line $\ell$ does not “enter” $T_{0}$ through $pr$
rather than through $qr$. We nevertheless decide to place an extra letter
$\Omega_{0}\in\\{R,L\\}$ in front of the word $\Omega$, so that $\Omega$
becomes of length $N$ and starts with either $RR$ or $LL$. This convention is
totally artificial (the other choice would be equally good), but making a
choice here will allow us to streamline the notation in our argument. Up to
switching $p$ and $q$, we can now assume that $\ell$ enters the Farey triangle
$T_{0}$ through the edge $pr$, and leaves through $pq$. See Figure 5
Figure 5. The Farey graph. The $5$ thick lines $T_{i-1}\cap T_{i}$ (where
$1\leq i\leq 5$) correspond to the tetrahedra $\Delta_{i}$.
###### Definition 12.
If $\Omega_{i-1}\neq\Omega_{i}$, we say that $\Delta_{i}$ is a _hinge_
tetrahedron. Otherwise, we call $\Delta_{i}$ _non–hinge_. For example,
following our convention, $\Delta_{1}$ is non–hinge.
To compute angle structures, it will be useful to describe the cusp
triangulation associated to the ideal triangulation $\\{\Delta_{i}\\}_{1\leq
i\leq N-1}$ of $X$. Since each pleated punctured torus $\tau_{i}$ has one
ideal vertex and three edges, each with two ends, the link of the ideal vertex
of $\tau_{i}$ is a hexagon $H_{i}$ (the pleating angles of $\tau_{i}$ are the
exterior angles of $H_{i}$). We are going to define the dihedral angles of the
ideal tetrahedra $\Delta_{i}$ in terms of the pleating angles of the
$\tau_{i}$. Note that the hexagon $H_{i}$ has a central symmetry induced by
the hyperelliptic involution of the punctured torus $\tau_{i}$ (rotation of
$180^{\circ}$ around the puncture, which exchanges the ends of each edge of
$\tau_{i}$).
Let $\xi\eta\zeta=T_{i-1}$ and $\xi\eta\zeta^{\prime}=T_{i}$ be two
consecutive Farey triangles, so that the Farey vertex $\xi$ (resp. $\eta$)
lies to the right (resp. left) of the oriented axis $\ell$. The tetrahedron
$\Delta_{i}$ has:
* •
two opposite edges carrying the same dihedral angle $x_{i}$ and identified to
just one edge, of slope $\xi$, in the triangulation of the solid torus (for
the time being, $x_{i}$ is just a formal variable);
* •
two opposite edges carrying the same dihedral angle $y_{i}$ and identified to
just one edge, of slope $\eta$, in the triangulation (similarly, $y_{i}$ is
formal);
* •
two opposite edges which carry the same (formal) dihedral angle $z_{i}$, and
which coincide with the edges of slope $\zeta$ and $\zeta^{\prime}$ in the
triangulation.
As in any angle structure, the relationship $x_{i}+y_{i}+z_{i}=\pi$ must hold
between the formal variables.
The vertices of the hexagon $H_{i-1}$ (resp. $H_{i}$) are the links of edges
of slopes $\xi,\eta,\zeta$ (resp. $\xi,\eta,\zeta^{\prime}$). We can write
these labels $\xi,\eta,\zeta,\zeta^{\prime}$ at the vertices of $H_{i-1}$ and
$H_{i}$: see Figure 6 (left).
###### Observation 13.
By construction, the vertex of the hexagon $H_{i-1}$ labelled $\zeta$ has an
interior angle of $z_{i}$, while the vertex of hexagon $H_{i}$ labelled
$\zeta^{\prime}$ has an interior angle of $2\pi-z_{i}$. This comes from the
fact that the boundary of the tetrahedron $\Delta_{i}$ is exactly the union of
the two pleated punctured tori $\tau_{i-1}$ and $\tau_{i}$ (with vertex links
$H_{i-1},H_{i}$).
As a consequence, we can determine the three angles of the hexagon $H_{i}$
(each angle occurs, by central symmetry of $H_{i}$):
(6) $2\pi-z_{i}\hskip 8.0pt;\hskip 8.0ptz_{i+1}\hskip 8.0pt;\hskip
8.0ptz_{i}-z_{i+1}\>.$
Indeed, the first two of these numbers are given by Observation 13 (shifting
indices by one for $z_{i+1}$); the third is given by the property that the six
angles of $H_{i}$ should add up to $4\pi$. See Figure 6, (right).
Figure 6. Left: two consecutive hexagons $H_{0},H_{1}$ in the cusp link, with
vertices labelled by elements of $\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$. The four
(similar) grey triangles are the vertex links of the ideal tetrahedron
$\Delta_{1}$. Right: the full sequence of hexagons $H_{0},\dots,H_{3}$, where
$H_{3}$ is collapsed to a broken line of $3$ segments. The angles $z_{1}$ and
$z_{2}$ of the tetrahedra $\Delta_{1}$ and $\Delta_{2}$ are marked; together
they determine the interior angles (6) of $H_{1}$.
We can in turn write the numbers (6) in the corners of the Farey triangle
$T_{i}$: namely, $2\pi-z_{i}$ is in the corner opposite the Farey edge
$T_{i-1}\cap T_{i}$; similarly $z_{i+1}$ is in the corner opposite the Farey
edge $T_{i}\cap T_{i+1}$; and $z_{i}-z_{i+1}$ is in the third corner, at the
Farey vertex $T_{i-1}\cap T_{i+1}$. See Figure 7.
The above operation can be performed for all indices $i\in\\{1,\dots,N-2\\}$.
For $i=N-1$, there is no tetrahedron “$\Delta_{N}$”; hence, a priori, no
parameter $z_{N}$. However, if $m^{\prime}\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ is the
vertex of the Farey triangle $T_{N-1}$ opposite the Farey edge $T_{N-1}\cap
T_{N}$ in $T_{N-1}$, then the interior angle of the (collapsed) hexagon
$H_{N-1}$ at the vertex labelled $m^{\prime}$ is precisely $0$, by definition
of our folding of the pleated surface $\tau_{N-1}$ onto itself. This folding
thus corresponds to asking that
$z_{N}=0~{}.$
Under this convention, the other angles of the collapsed hexagon $H_{N-1}$ are
then given by the same formulas (6), with $i=N-1$.
Finally, we perform an analogous construction at $i=0$ (it follows from our
assumptions that $H_{0}$ is convex, with angles
$\pi-\theta_{p},\pi-\theta_{q},\pi-\theta_{r}$). There is no tetrahedron
“$\Delta_{0}$”; hence, a priori, no parameter $z_{0}$. However, the interior
angle of $H_{0}$ at the vertex labelled $r$ is $\pi-\theta_{r}$, which entails
$z_{1}=\pi-\theta_{r}$. Similarly, the interior angle of $H_{0}$ at the vertex
labelled $q$ is $\pi-\theta_{q}$, which entails
$z_{0}=2\pi-(\pi-\theta_{q})=\pi+\theta_{q}$. To summarize,
###### Proposition 14.
Under the full set of assumptions
(7)
$\begin{array}[]{rrrrrrr}(&z_{0}~{},&z_{1}~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{N-1}~{},&z_{N}~{})\\\
=~{}(&\pi+\theta_{q}~{},&\pi-\theta_{r}~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{N-1}~{},&0~{})\end{array}$
(where the values of $(z_{2},\dots,z_{N-1})$ remain to be chosen), the angles
of the hexagons $\\{H_{i}\\}_{0\leq i\leq N-1}$ given by (6) define all the
$(\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r})$–angle structures. ∎
To get angle structures, we must only choose the $z_{2},\dots,z_{N-1}$ in the
interval $(0,\pi)$ so that all dihedral angles of $\Delta_{i}$ are positive
for $1\leq i\leq N-1$, which we do now.
Denote by $\xi$ (resp. $\eta$) the right (resp. left) end of the Farey edge
$T_{i-1}\cap T_{i}$. By construction, $x_{i}$ (resp. $y_{i}$) is half the
difference between the angles of hexagons $H_{i-1}$ and $H_{i}$ at the vertex
labelled $\xi$ (resp. $\eta$) in the cusp link, i.e. half the difference
between the numbers written in the $\xi$–corner (resp. the $\eta$–corner) of
the Farey triangles $T_{i-1}$ and $T_{i}$ in the Farey diagram. (The factor
one–half comes from the identification of pairs of opposite edges in the ideal
tetrahedron $\Delta_{i}$.) In Figure 7 we show what these numbers are,
according to whether the line $\ell$ makes Rights or Lefts at the Farey
triangles $T_{i-1}$ and $T_{i}$: we use only (6) and the shorthand
(8) $(a,b,c):=(z_{i-1}~{},~{}z_{i}~{},~{}z_{i+1})~{}.$
Figure 7. The Farey triangles $T_{i-1}$ (lower) and $T_{i}$ (upper), with
corner labels.
It follows that the values of $x_{i}$ and $y_{i}$ in terms of the $z_{i}$ are
given by Table (9) — in the first line of the table, we recall the nature of
the tetrahedron (or cell) $\Delta_{i}$, and the natural positions of $a,b,c$,
interspersed with the letters of the word $\Omega$.
(9) $\begin{array}[]{c|cccc}\underset{\text{Cell $\Delta_{i}$
is...}}{\overset{z_{i\text{-}\\!1}\hskip 6.0ptz_{i}\hskip
6.0ptz_{i+\\!1}}{\underbrace{\Omega_{i-1}\>,\>\Omega_{i}}}}&\underset{\text{Non
--hinge}}{\overset{a\hskip 12.0ptb\hskip 12.0ptc}{\underbrace{R\hskip
3.0pt,\hskip 3.0ptR}}}&\underset{\text{Non--hinge}}{\overset{a\hskip
12.0ptb\hskip 12.0ptc}{\underbrace{L\hskip 3.0pt,\hskip
3.0ptL}}}&\underset{\text{Hinge}}{\overset{a\hskip 12.0ptb\hskip
12.0ptc}{\underbrace{R\hskip 3.0pt,\hskip
3.0ptL}}}&\underset{\text{Hinge}}{\overset{a\hskip 12.0ptb\hskip
12.0ptc}{\underbrace{L\hskip 3.0pt,\hskip 3.0ptR}}}\\\ \hline\cr
x_{i}&\displaystyle{\frac{a-2b+c}{2}}&\pi-\displaystyle{\frac{a+c}{2}}&\displaystyle{\frac{a-b-c}{2}}&\pi-\displaystyle{\frac{a+b-c}{2}}\\\
y_{i}&\pi-\displaystyle{\frac{a+c}{2}}&\displaystyle{\frac{a-2b+c}{2}}&\pi-\displaystyle{\frac{a+b-c}{2}}&\displaystyle{\frac{a-b-c}{2}}\\\
z_{i}&b&b&b&b\end{array}$
From Table (9), we can read off the condition for all $x_{i}$ and $y_{i}$ and
$z_{i}$ to be positive. Still using the notation
$(a,b,c)=(z_{i-1}~{},~{}z_{i}~{},~{}z_{i+1})$, these conditions are
(10) $\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\bullet\hskip 8.0pta>b+c&\text{if
$\Delta_{i}$ is a hinge cell (\emph{hinge condition});}\\\ \bullet\hskip
8.0pta+c>2b&\text{if $\Delta_{i}$ is not a hinge (\emph{convexity
condition});}\\\ \bullet\hskip 8.0pt0<z_{i}<\pi&\text{for all $2\leq i\leq
N-1$ (\emph{range condition});}\\\ \bullet\hskip
8.0ptz_{2}<\pi-\theta_{q}&\text{(follows from the case $i=1$, a non--hinge
index).}\end{array}\right.$
The last condition is needed for $\pi-\frac{z_{0}+z_{2}}{2}$ (namely, $x_{1}$
or $y_{1}$) to be positive, because $z_{0}=\pi+\theta_{q}$ (unlike other
$z_{i}$) is larger than $\pi$. Note that by (7), the convexity condition at
$i=1$ also implies $z_{2}>\pi-\theta_{q}-2\theta_{r}$. This is compatible with
the last condition of (10) since $\theta_{r}>0$ by (5).
* •
Case 1: none of the $\Delta_{i}$ are hinge cells. In this case, we are reduced
to finding a sequence of the form (7) that is convex, decreasing, and
satisfies $z_{2}<\pi-\theta_{q}$. This is clearly possible if and only if
$\begin{array}[]{rrcl}&(\pi+\theta_{q})-N(\theta_{r}+\theta_{q})&<&0~{},\\\
\text{i.e.}&(N-1)\theta_{q}+N\theta_{r}&>&\pi~{},\\\
\text{i.e.}&\theta_{p}+N\theta_{q}+(N+1)\theta_{r}&>&2\pi~{},\end{array}$
where the last line follows from (5). It is easy to check that under the
normalization $(p,q)=(\infty,0)$ and $r\in\\{+1,-1\\}$ (one of which can be
assumed up to applying an element of $PSL_{2}(\mathbb{Z})$), the slope
$m\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ is, up to sign, the integer $N$: indeed, all
the letters of the word $\Omega$ are equal and the Farey triangle $T_{i}$ has
vertices $\infty,i,i-1$ if $r=1$ (and $\infty,-i,-i+1$ if $r=-1$). The last
line of the computation above thus becomes
$(m\wedge p)\theta_{p}+(m\wedge q)\theta_{q}+(m\wedge r)\theta_{r}>2\pi~{},$
proving Proposition 10 in this case.
* •
Case 2: some $\Delta_{i}$ are hinge cells. By Remark 11, the inequality of
Proposition 10 is vacuous in this case. Let us therefore just construct a
sequence of the form (7) that satisfies (10). Let $h\in\\{2,3,\dots,N-1\\}$ be
the smallest hinge index. We can easily choose a strictly convex, positive,
decreasing sequence
$\begin{array}[]{rrrrrrr}(&z_{0}~{},&z_{1}~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{h-1}~{},&z_{h}~{})\\\
=~{}(&\pi+\theta_{q}~{},&\pi-\theta_{r}~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{h-1}~{},&z_{h}~{})\end{array}$
satisfying $z_{2}<\pi-\theta_{q}$. We construct the rest of the sequence
$(z_{i})$ backwards, descending from the index $i=N$ down to $i=h$. First set
$z^{\prime}_{N}=0$ and $z^{\prime}_{N-1}=1$. For each $i$ such that $N-2\geq
i\geq h+1$, pick (inductively) a value of $z^{\prime}_{i}$ such that
$(a,b,c):=(z^{\prime}_{i},z^{\prime}_{i+1},z^{\prime}_{i+2})$ satisfies the
concavity or hinge condition of (10), according to whether $\Delta_{i+1}$ is a
hinge cell or not (for example, $z^{\prime}_{i}=3z^{\prime}_{i+1}$ will do).
The sequence $(z^{\prime}_{h+1},\dots,z^{\prime}_{N-1})$ is clearly positive
and decreasing. We then set
$z_{i}:=\varepsilon z^{\prime}_{i}~{}\text{ for all }~{}h+1\leq i\leq N~{}:$
it is immediate to check that the hinge condition “$a>b+c$” of (10) is
verified by the triple $(a,b,c)=(z_{h-1},z_{h},z_{h+1})$ as soon as
$0<\varepsilon<\frac{z_{h-1}-z_{h}}{z^{\prime}_{h+1}}.$
Thus, by choosing such an $\varepsilon$, we have found a sequence $(z_{i})$ of
the form (7).
Proposition 10 is proved. ∎
### 2.4. Volume maximization
Denote by (10’) the system (10) in which all strong inequalities have been
replaced by weak ones, and let $W$ denote the compact polyhedron of solutions
$(z_{i})$ of the form (7) to the system (10’) — so the interior of $W$ is the
_space of angle structures_. The volume functional
$\mathcal{V}:W\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{+}$ associates to every point $z$ of $W$
the sum of the volumes of the ideal tetrahedra $\Delta_{i}$ with non-negative
angles $x_{i},y_{i},z_{i}$ given by Table 9.
Suppose that $\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r}$ satisfy (5) and the inequality
of Proposition 10 (hence $W\neq\emptyset$). We henceforth assume that the
point $z=(z_{i})\in W$ realizes the maximum of $\mathcal{V}$ over $W$, and we
aim to prove
###### Proposition 15.
The point $z$ is a solution of (10), not just (10’) — i.e., all $\Delta_{i}$
have only positive angles.
###### Proof.
Observe that the sequence $(z_{0},\dots,z_{N})$ is non-negative and non-
increasing. This follows from (10’) by an immediate downward induction
(starting at $z_{N}$).
By Proposition 7, we know that if $\Delta_{i}$ is _flat_ , i.e. has a
vanishing dihedral angle, then its triple of angles is of the form
$(0,0,\pi)$, up to permutation. Thus, by Table (9), $\Delta_{i}$ is flat
exactly when $z_{i}\in\\{0,\pi\\}$. By monotonicity, since
$z_{1}=\pi-\theta_{r}<\pi$, the only flat tetrahedra $\Delta_{i}$ actually
satisfy $z_{i}=0$. Still by monotonicity, it then follows that $z_{i+1}=0$ as
well. Let $i$ be the _smallest_ index such that $z_{i}=0$. An easy discussion,
using Table (9), shows that the only possible value of $z_{i-1}$ that implies
$\\{x_{i}\,y_{i}\\}=\\{0,\pi\\}$ is $z_{i-1}=2\pi$ (recall here the
$a$-$b$-$c$–notation 8). This is impossible: only $z_{0}=\pi+\theta_{q}$ is
allowed to be larger than $\pi$, but we have $\theta_{q}<\pi$ by (5). ∎
###### Corollary 16.
The point $z$ defines a complete hyperbolic structure on the punctured solid
torus $X=\Delta_{1}\cup\dots\cup\Delta_{N-1}$, with exterior dihedral angles
$\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r}$ on $\partial X$.
###### Proof.
By Theorem 5, this follows from the fact that $z$ is critical for the volume
functional $\mathcal{V}:W\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$. ∎
## 3\. Handedness
In this section, we discuss the _handednesses_ of certain elements in the
fundamental group of the (complete, hyperbolic) punctured solid torus $X$.
These results will be useful in establishing the inequalities leading to
Theorem 1 (which is proved in the next section).
###### Definition 17.
For any $g\in GL_{2}(\mathbb{C})$, define the handedness of $g$ by
${\sf hand}\,(g):=\frac{(\text{Tr}\,g)^{2}}{\text{Det}\,g}~{}.$
Note that ${\sf hand}\,(g)={\sf hand}\,(g^{-1})={\sf hand}\,(rg)$ for all
$r\in\mathbb{C}^{*}$. Therefore, ${\sf hand}$ factors through a map
$PSL_{2}(\mathbb{C})\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$, also noted ${\sf hand}$. Call a
loxodromy of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ _left–handed_ (resp. _right–handed_) when it is
conjugate to $z\mapsto\alpha z$ with $|\alpha|>1$ and $\text{Im}\,(\alpha)>0$
(resp. $|\alpha|>1$ and $\text{Im}\,(\alpha)<0$). Left–handed loxodromies are
“corkscrew” motions, the motion of a dancer who jumps upwards while spinning
to his left. It is easy to check that the Möbius transformation associated to
$g$ is left– (resp. right–) handed if and only if $\text{Im}\,({\sf
hand}\,(g))$ is positive (resp. negative).
Let $U$ be a universal cover of the solid torus
$X=\bigcup_{i=1}^{N-1}\Delta_{i}$. Since $U$ is a complete hyperbolic manifold
with locally convex boundary, the developing map $U\rightarrow\mathbb{H}^{3}$
is an embedding. Thus $U\subset\mathbb{H}^{3}$ is the convex hull in
$\mathbb{H}^{3}$ of the orbit of an ideal point $v$ under a certain loxodromy
$\varphi\in\text{Isom}^{+}(\mathbb{H}^{3})\simeq PSL_{2}(\mathbb{C})$
(typically extremely short, corresponding to the core curve of the solid
torus). Make the attractive (resp. repulsive) fixed point of $\varphi$
coincide with the North pole $P^{+}$ (resp. the South pole $P^{-}$) of
$\mathbb{S}^{2}\simeq\partial_{\infty}\mathbb{H}^{3}$; assume that $v$ lies on
the Equator at longitude $0$, and orient the Equator along increasing
longitudes. As a cover of the space $X$ which is triangulated, $U$ comes with
a natural, $\varphi$–invariant decomposition into ideal tetrahedra.
The projection with respect to the center of Poincaré’s ball model sends
$\partial U$ homeomorphically to
$\mathbb{S}^{2}\smallsetminus\\{P^{+},P^{-}\\}\smallsetminus\\{\varphi^{n}(v)\\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}$.
For each edge $vv^{\prime}$ of $\partial U$ (between ideal points
$v,v^{\prime}\in\mathbb{S}^{2}$), this projection sends $vv^{\prime}$ to the
short great–circle arc $\overset{\frown}{vv^{\prime}}$ in $\mathbb{S}^{2}$. If
$vv^{\prime\prime}$ is another edge of $\partial U$, this allows us to speak
about the _angle_ $\widehat{v^{\prime}vv^{\prime\prime}}\in(-\pi,\pi]$ between
$v^{\prime}$ and $v^{\prime\prime}$, as seen from $v$ (i.e. in
$T_{v}\mathbb{S}^{2}$).
The punctured torus $\tau_{0}=\partial U/\varphi$ has three ideal edges, each
endowed with a positive dihedral angle. Therefore the ideal vertex $v$ of $U$
is connected to six other vertices of $U$ by edges of $\partial U$, and there
is a natural cyclic order on these six vertices. The equatorial plane
intersects $\partial U$ along a broken line $J$ from $v$ to $v$ which is
properly embedded in $\partial U$ (with ideal endpoints). We can orient $J$
along increasing longitudes.
###### Definition 18.
Let $v_{1},\dots v_{6}$ (with indices seen modulo $6$) denote the six
neighbors of $v$ that are met, in that order, when turning counterclockwise
around $v$, starting in the direction of the initial segment of $J$. For each
$i$ in $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$, there is an integer $n_{i}\in\mathbb{Z}$ such
that $\varphi^{n_{i}}$ sends the following points to one another:
$\begin{array}[]{cc}&~{}v_{i+2}\mapsto v_{i+1}\\\ \varphi^{n_{i}}~{}:&v_{i\pm
3}\longmapsto v\longmapsto v_{i}{}\\\ &~{}v_{i-2}\mapsto v_{i-1}.\end{array}$
Of course, $n_{i}=-n_{i+3}$. See Figure 8.
###### Claim 19.
The longitudes $l_{1},l_{6}$ of $v_{1}$ and $v_{6}$ are both in $(0,\pi)$. The
latitude of $v_{1}$ (resp. $v_{6}$) is positive (resp. negative).
Figure 8. Left: one cannot have $l_{6}\leq 0<l_{1}$. Right: the actual
situation (only some ideal vertices of $U$ are shown).
###### Proof.
Since a half-turn around $v$ sends each $v_{i}$ to $v_{i+3}$, no angle
$\widehat{v_{i-1}vv_{i}}$ in the tangent space to $\mathbb{S}^{2}$ at $v$ can
exceed (or even reach) the value $\pi$: taking $i=1$, this proves the
statement about latitudes. Therefore $v_{1}$ (resp. $v_{6}$) lies above (resp.
below) the equatorial plane, and it also follows that $n_{6}<0<n_{1}$.
Let $l_{i}\in(-\pi,\pi]$ denote the longitude of $v_{i}$: clearly, $l_{i}<\pi$
since no edge of $\partial U$ can cross the North-South axis. The longitudes
$l_{1}$ and $l_{6}$ cannot be both nonpositive, otherwise
$\widehat{v_{6}vv_{1}}\geq\pi$. Therefore, assume
$l_{6}\leq 0<l_{1}$
and aim at a contradiction.
Note that on $\mathbb{S}^{2}$, for each $n>0$, the transformation
$\varphi^{n}$ increases latitudes, and adds a constant angle to all longitudes
(modulo $2\pi$). Recall the relationships $v_{3}=\varphi^{-n_{6}}(v)$ and
$v_{2}=\varphi^{n_{1}}(v_{3})=\varphi^{-n_{6}}(v_{1})$: they imply that
$v_{2}$ has highest _latitude_ among $v_{1},v_{2},v_{3}$ (all three latitudes
being positive). They also imply $l_{2}\equiv l_{1}-l_{6}~{}[\text{mod
}2\pi]$: but $l_{2}$ cannot belong to $(\pi,l_{1}+\pi)+2\pi\mathbb{Z}$ since
the ideal triangle $vv_{1}v_{2}\subset\partial U$ cannot meet the North-South
axis. Therefore, $l_{2}=l_{1}-l_{6}=l_{1}+l_{3}$ belongs to $(l_{1},\pi)$, and
the point $v_{2}$ also has the largest _longitude_ among $v_{1},v_{2},v_{3}$,
possibly tying with $v_{1}$ (and all three longitudes belong to $[0,\pi)$).
It follows that the hyperbolic line $vv_{2}$ comes closer to the North-South
axis than the hyperbolic line $v_{1}v_{3}$, which contradicts the convexity of
$U$ near the edge $vv_{2}$: absurd. See Figure 8. ∎
###### Remark 20.
Claim 19 implies that $\varphi^{\pm n_{1}}$ and $\varphi^{\pm n_{6}}$ are,
respectively, left– and right-handed.
Recall the sequence of Farey triangles $pqr=T_{0},T_{1},\dots,T_{N}=mst$. All
$T_{i}$ for $i\geq 1$ have their vertices in the arc
$\overset{\frown}{pq}\subset\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ that does not contain
$r$ (in particular, the meridinal slope $m$ belongs to that arc). For every
$i\in\\{1,2,\dots,N\\}$ and every vertex $x$ of the Farey triangle $T_{i}$, we
can draw a properly embedded intrinsic geodesic $g_{x}$ of slope $x$ in the
punctured torus $\partial U/\varphi$: this $g_{x}$ has a lift
$\widehat{g_{x}}\subset\partial U$ that connects the ideal vertex $v$ to some
$\varphi$–iterate of $v$, and whose initial (ideal) segment is contained in
the ideal triangle $vv_{1}v_{6}$ of $\partial U$. We orient $\widehat{g_{x}}$
from $v$ to its other end.
###### Definition 21.
When $x\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ is a vertex of some Farey triangle $T_{i}$
as above, define $\nu_{x}\in\mathbb{Z}$ as the integer such that the oriented
curve $\widehat{g_{x}}$ runs from the ideal vertex $v$ to
$\varphi^{\nu_{x}}(v)$.
We also define $\lambda_{x}\in\mathbb{R}$ as the integral of the longitude
$1$–form in $\mathbb{S}^{2}\smallsetminus\\{P^{+},P^{-}\\}$ along the closure
of $\pi(\widehat{g_{x}})$, where $\pi:\partial U\rightarrow\mathbb{S}^{2}$ is
the central projection.
###### Proposition 22.
Suppose $1\leq i\leq N-1$ so that $T_{i}=abc$ and $T_{i+1}=bcd$ are two
consecutive Farey triangles. Then $\nu_{d}=\nu_{b}+\nu_{c}$ and
$\lambda_{d}=\lambda_{b}+\lambda_{c}$.
Moreover, if $x\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ is a vertex of $T_{i}$ for some
$i\in\\{1,\dots,N\\}$, then $0<\lambda_{x}\leq 2\pi$, with equality (for the
upper bound) if and only if $x$ is the meridinal slope $m$.
###### Proof.
Consider the ideal quadrilateral $Q:=(\partial
U/\varphi)\smallsetminus(g_{b}\cup g_{c})$. The orientations of $g_{b}$ and
$g_{c}$ induce orientations on the four edges of (the metric completion of)
$Q$. Observe that $g_{d}$ runs diagonally across $Q$, from the vertex with two
outgoing edges, to the vertex with two incoming edges: as a result, the
closure of $\pi(\widehat{g_{d}})$ in
$\mathbb{S}^{2}\smallsetminus\\{P^{+},P^{-}\\}$ is isotopic with endpoints
fixed to the closure of
$\pi\left(\widehat{g_{b}}\cup\varphi^{\nu_{b}}(\widehat{g_{c}})\right)~{}\text{
or, indifferently, of
}~{}\pi\left(\widehat{g_{c}}\cup\varphi^{\nu_{c}}(\widehat{g_{b}})\right).$
The exponent identity $\nu_{d}=\nu_{b}+\nu_{c}$ follows and, since $\varphi$
increases longitudes by a constant, so does the longitude identity
$\lambda_{d}=\lambda_{b}+\lambda_{c}$.
By Claim 19, we have $\lambda_{p},\lambda_{q}\in(0,\pi)$, so an immediate
upward induction on $i$ now implies $\lambda_{x}>0$ for each vertex $x$ of
$T_{i}$ (with $1\leq i\leq N$). But $\lambda_{m}=\pm 2\pi$, because the
meridian curve $\widehat{g_{m}}$ runs exactly once around the infinite
polyhedron $U$: therefore, $\lambda_{m}=2\pi$. Downward induction on $i$
finally yields $\lambda_{x}<2\pi$ for $x\neq m$. ∎
###### Proposition 23.
Suppose $1\leq i\leq N-1$. Let $x\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ be the Farey
vertex common to $T_{i-1},T_{i},T_{i+1}$. Then,
1. (i)
one has $\lambda_{x}\in(0,\pi);$
2. (ii)
if the Farey triangle $T_{i}$ carries an $L$ (resp. an $R$), then $\nu_{x}>0$
(resp. $\nu_{x}<0$);
3. (iii)
if $T_{i}$ carries an $L$ (resp. an $R$), then $\varphi^{\nu_{x}}$ is
left–handed (resp. right–handed).
###### Proof.
We name the vertices of the Farey triangles so that $T_{i}=xyz$ and
$T_{i+1}=xzt$. By Proposition 22, one has
$\lambda_{z}=\lambda_{x}+\lambda_{y}$ and
$2\pi\geq\lambda_{t}=\lambda_{x}+\lambda_{z}=2\lambda_{x}+\lambda_{y}$. Since
$\lambda_{x},\lambda_{y}>0$, this yields (i).
Assertion (ii) follows from the following claim: if
$l_{i},r_{i}\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ are the left and right endpoints of
the Farey edge $T_{i-1}\cap T_{i}$ (for the transverse orientation towards
$m$), then $\nu_{r_{i}}<0<\nu_{l_{i}}$. This is clearly true for $i=1$ (in
that case, $\nu_{l_{i}}=n_{1}$ and $\nu_{r_{i}}=n_{6}$, in the notation of
Definition 18). For $i>1$, observe that
* •
one has $\nu_{m}=0$ because the curve $\widehat{g_{m}}$ is a closed curve
around the ideal polyhedron $U$;
* •
by Proposition 22, the number $\nu_{m}$ is always a linear combination of
$\nu_{l_{i}}$ and $\nu_{r_{i}}$ with positive integer coefficients;
* •
one has $\nu_{l_{i}}\neq 0$ and $\nu_{r_{i}}\neq 0$ because the curves
$\widehat{g_{l_{i}}}$ and $\widehat{g_{r_{i}}}$ are _not_ closed curves in
$\partial U$.
These observations put together imply $\nu_{r_{i}}<0<\nu_{l_{i}}$ or
$\nu_{l_{i}}<0<\nu_{r_{i}}$. The first is clearly the case by induction on
$i$, because one always has $l_{i}=l_{i+1}$ (resp. $r_{i}=r_{i+1}$) if the
Farey triangle $T_{i}$ carries an $L$ (resp. an $R$).
Assertion (iii) is an immediate consequence of (i)–(ii). ∎
## 4\. Canonical decomposition of a generic Dehn filling
In this section we prove Theorem 1: to show that a given triangulation is
Delaunay (or geometrically canonical), we essentially must prove a certain
number of inequalities, which will boil down to statements of handedness as
given by Proposition 23.
Consider a hyperbolic manifold $M$ with $k\geq 2$ cusps, endowed with horoball
neighborhoods, such that the genericity assumption of Theorem 1 is satisfied.
Let $\mathcal{D}$ denote the canonical triangulation of $M$. We assume that
$H_{k}$, the horoball neighborhood of the $k$–th cusp $c_{k}$, has much
smaller volume than all other $H_{i}$.
### 4.1. A generic small cusp
First we prove that $\mathcal{D}$ contains exactly two ideal tetrahedra
$\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}$ that have a vertex in $c_{k}$.
Consider a universal covering $\pi:\mathbb{H}^{3}\rightarrow M$ such that (in
the upper half–space model) the point at infinity lies above the cusp $c_{k}$.
Let $\Lambda$ be the rank–$2$ lattice of deck transformations of the form
$z\mapsto z+\lambda$. Let $\\{\eta_{i}\\}_{i\in I}$ be the collection of all
horoballs of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ lying above some $H_{i}$ with $i<k$ (the
$\eta_{i}$ are Euclidean balls tangent to the boundary $\mathbb{C}$ of the
model half–space.) By the genericity assumption of Theorem 1, there is a
unique shortest path in $M$ from $H_{k}$ to $\bigcup_{i=1}^{k-1}H_{i}$:
therefore the largest $\eta_{i}$ (for the Euclidean metric) is unique modulo
$\Lambda$.
We can assimilate $\Lambda$ to a lattice of $\mathbb{C}$, and assume that the
largest $\eta_{i}$’s are centered exactly at the points of $\Lambda$.
The Delaunay decomposition $D_{\Lambda}$ of $\mathbb{C}$ with respect to the
vertex set $\Lambda$ consists either of isometric rectangles (all belonging to
the same $\Lambda$–orbit), or of isometric triangles (belonging to two
$\Lambda$–orbits) with strictly acute angles. We claim that the latter is the
case: indeed, let $P\subset\mathbb{C}$ be a convex polygon of $D_{\Lambda}$:
the vertices of $P$, which are points of $\Lambda$, are on the boundary of a
disk that contains no other points of $\Lambda$. Using the fact that the
horoball $\eta_{\infty}$ centered at infinity stays very high above
$\mathbb{C}$ in the half–space model (because $H_{k}$ has very small volume),
it is easy to construct a ball of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ that is tangent to the
horoballs $\eta_{i}$ centered at the vertices of $P$, disjoint from all other
$\eta_{i}$, and tangent to the horoball $\eta_{\infty}$. The center of this
ball is a vertex of the Ford domain. Hence, there exists a cell of the
Delaunay decomposition $\mathcal{D}$ of $M$ (more precisely, a lift
$\widehat{\Delta}$ of such a cell to $\mathbb{H}^{3}$) whose vertices are
precisely $\infty$ and the vertices of $P$. By the genericity assumption,
$\widehat{\Delta}$ must be an ideal tetrahedron, so $P$ is a triangle, and has
strictly acute angles. The two (isometric) $\Lambda$–orbits of triangles in
the Delaunay decomposition $D_{\Lambda}$ of $\mathbb{C}$ correspond to two
ideal tetrahedra $\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}$ in $\mathcal{D}$. Note that
$\Delta\cup\Delta^{\prime}$ is a neighborhood of the cusp $c_{k}$.
The space $T=\partial(\Delta\cup\Delta^{\prime})\subset M$ is the quotient by
$\Lambda$ of the union of all ideal triangles of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ that project
vertically to triangles of $D_{\Lambda}$ (contained in $\mathbb{C}$):
therefore, $T$ is a hyperbolic once–punctured torus bent along three lines,
and its interior dihedral angles are twice those of $\Delta$ (or
$\Delta^{\prime}$).
### 4.2. Triangulation of the Dehn filling
It is well–known that almost all (hyperbolic) Dehn fillings $M_{s}$ of $M$ at
the cusp $c_{k}$ admit a _spun_ decomposition $\mathcal{D}_{s}^{\text{spun}}$
into ideal, positively–oriented tetrahedra: namely,
$\mathcal{D}_{s}^{\text{spun}}$ is obtained from $\mathcal{D}$ by letting the
tips of $\Delta$ and $\Delta^{\prime}$ (formerly in $c_{k}$) spin
asymptotically along the geodesic core of the filling solid torus of $M_{s}$ —
actually, there are two such spun triangulations, spinning in opposite
directions (see e.g. [Th], Chap. V). Moreover, the cross–ratios of the
tetrahedra of $\mathcal{D}_{s}^{\text{spun}}$ become (uniformly) close to
those of $\mathcal{D}$ as the slope $s$ goes to infinity, i.e. gets more and
more complicated. In particular, the punctured torus $T$, equal to the union
of the bases of $\Delta$ and $\Delta^{\prime}$, is still embedded in $M_{s}$,
with bending angles close to those in $M$.
Therefore, we can remove the solid torus $\Delta\cup\Delta^{\prime}$ from the
spun triangulation of $M_{s}$, and replace it with the solid torus $X$
constructed in Section 2 (with the same dihedral angles as $T$). By
Proposition 8, $X$ is isometric to the closure of $\Delta\cup\Delta^{\prime}$,
so after replacement we obtain a geometric ideal triangulation
$\mathcal{D}_{s}$ of the filling $M_{s}$ (as in Theorem 1). In the remainder
of Section 4, we check that $\mathcal{D}_{s}$ is Delaunay.
### 4.3. Minkowski space
Our pictures (e.g. of the cusp link in Figure 6) are drawn in the upper half-
space model of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$, but we will check geometric canonicity
through a computation in the Minkowski space model. This section is only a
quick reminder of the formulas relating the two models, and of
Epstein–Penner’s convex hull construction.
Endow ${\mathbb{R}}^{4}=\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$ with the Lorentzian product
$\left\langle(x,y,z,t)|(x^{\prime},y^{\prime},z^{\prime},t^{\prime})\right\rangle:=xx^{\prime}+yy^{\prime}+zz^{\prime}-tt^{\prime}$.
Define
$\mathcal{X}:=\\{v=(x,y,z,t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{4}~{}|~{}t>0\text{ and }\langle
v|v\rangle=-1\\}.$
Then $\langle.|.\rangle$ restricts to a Riemannian metric on $\mathcal{X}$ and
there is an isometry $\mathcal{X}\simeq{\mathbb{H}}^{3}$, with
$\text{Isom}^{+}(\mathcal{X})$ a component of $SO_{3,1}({\mathbb{R}})$. We
will identify the point $(x,y,z,t)$ of $\mathcal{X}$ with the point at
Euclidean height $\frac{1}{t+z}$ above the complex number $\frac{x+iy}{t+z}$
in the Poincaré upper half-space model. Under this convention, the closed
horoball $H_{d,\zeta}$ of Euclidean diameter $d$ centered at
$\zeta=\xi+i\eta\in{\mathbb{C}}$ in the half-space model corresponds to
$\\{v\in\mathcal{X}~{}|~{}\langle v|v_{d,\zeta}\rangle\geq-1\\}$, where
(11)
$v_{d,\zeta}=\frac{1}{d}\left(2\xi,2\eta,1-|\zeta|^{2},1+|\zeta|^{2}\right).$
We therefore identify the horoball $H_{d,\zeta}$ with the point $v_{d,\zeta}$
of the isotropic cone (check $\langle v_{d,\zeta}|v_{d,\zeta}\rangle=0$).
Similarly, the closed horoball $H_{h,\infty}$ of points at Euclidean height no
less than $h$ in the half-space model corresponds to
$\\{v\in\mathcal{X}~{}|~{}\langle v|v_{h,\infty}\rangle\geq-1\\}$ where
$v_{h,\infty}=(0,0,-h,h)$, so we identify $H_{h,\infty}$ with $v_{h,\infty}$.
Consider the following objects: a complete, oriented, cusped, finite–volume
hyperbolic $3$-manifold $M$, a horoball neighborhood $H_{c}$ of each cusp $c$,
a universal covering $\pi:{\mathbb{H}}^{3}\rightarrow M$, and the group
$\Gamma\subset\text{Isom}^{+}({\mathbb{H}}^{3})\subset SO_{3,1}(\mathbb{R})$
of deck transformations of $\pi$. The $H_{c}$ lift to an infinite family of
horoballs $(H_{i})_{i\in I}$ in ${\mathbb{H}}^{3}$, corresponding to a family
of isotropic vectors $(v_{i})_{i\in I}$ in Minkowski space, by the above
construction. The closed convex hull $C$ of $\\{v_{i}\\}_{i\in I}$ in
$\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$ is $\Gamma$-invariant, and its boundary $\partial C$ comes
with a natural decomposition $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$ into polyhedral cells.
In [EP, A2], Epstein, Penner and Akiyoshi proved
###### Proposition 24.
The simplicial complex $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$ defines a decomposition
$\mathcal{D}$ of $M$ into convex ideal hyperbolic polyhedra, by projection of
each face of $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$ to $\mathcal{X}\simeq\mathbb{H}^{3}$
(with respect to $0\in\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$), and thence to $M$. The decomposition
$\mathcal{D}$ of $M$ is dual to the Ford–Voronoi domain; $\mathcal{D}$ depends
only on the mutual volume ratios of the $H_{c}$, but only a finite number of
decompositions $\mathcal{D}$ arise as these volume ratios vary. ∎
Conversely, given a decomposition $\mathcal{D}$ of the manifold $M$ (still
endowed with the cusp neighborhoods $H_{c}$) into ideal polyhedra with
vertices in the cusps, in order to prove that $\mathcal{D}$ is the
Epstein–Penner decomposition, we only need to consider the decomposition
$\widehat{\mathcal{D}}:=\pi^{*}(\mathcal{D})$ of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ with vertex
set the centers of the horoballs $\\{H_{i}\\}_{i\in I}$, lift
$\widehat{\mathcal{D}}$ to an infinite simplicial complex
$\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$ in Minkowski space $\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$ (the vertices
$\\{v_{i}\\}_{i\in I}$ of $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$ lying over the $H_{i}$ in
the isotropic cone, and the faces of $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$ being affine
polyhedra), and show that $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$ is locally convex at each
dimension–$2$ face: indeed, the projection with respect to the origin provides
a homeomorphism between $\mathcal{X}\simeq\mathbb{H}^{3}$ and
$\mathcal{D}\smallsetminus\\{v_{i}\\}_{i\in I}$; the disjoint union
$\bigcup_{t\geq 1}t\widetilde{D}$ is then automatically a convex body, and its
faces are exactly the cells of $\widetilde{D}$. In that case, we call
$\mathcal{D}$ _geometrically canonical_.
###### Proposition 25.
The codimension–one simplicial complex
$\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}\subset\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$, defined by a decomposition
of $M$ into polyhedra, is locally convex if and only if for every
$2$–dimensional facet $F=A_{1}\dots A_{\sigma}$ of $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$
(a planar polygon in $\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$), there exists a vertex $P\notin F$ of
a $3$–dimensional face of $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$ containing $F$, and a
vertex $Q\notin F$ of the other $3$–dimensional face of
$\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$ containing $F$, such that an identity of the form
(12) $\lambda P+(1-\lambda)Q=\sum_{i=1}^{\sigma}\alpha_{i}A_{i}~{}\text{ where
}~{}\lambda\in(0,1)~{}\text{ and }~{}\sum_{i=1}^{\sigma}\alpha_{i}>1$
holds (some $\alpha_{i}$’s can be negative, however).
###### Proof.
A more geometric way of stating the identity is as follows: if the hyperplane
$\Pi\simeq\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is the linear span of the $A_{i}$’s, then the affine
span of the $A_{i}$’s separates (in $\Pi$) the origin from the intersection of
$\Pi$ with the segment $PQ$. This clearly expresses local convexity at the
facet $A_{1}\dots A_{\sigma}$, since $P$ and $Q$ are always on opposite sides
of $\Pi$ (indeed their projections to
$\partial_{\infty}\mathbb{H}^{3}\simeq\mathbb{S}^{2}$ are on opposite sides of
the projection of $\Pi$ to $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ which is a plane). We express (12)
by saying that $A_{1}\dots A_{\sigma}$ lies _below_ $PQ$ (as seen from the
origin). ∎
### 4.4. Proving convexity in $\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$
We now return to the ideal triangulation $\mathcal{D}_{s}$ of our Dehn
filling, with the solid torus
$X=\Delta_{1}\cup\dots\cup\Delta_{N-1}\subset\mathcal{D}_{s}$. For each
(triangular) face $F$ of $\mathcal{D}_{s}$ we must prove the convexity
inequality (12) of Proposition 25 (applied to adjacent _tetrahedra_ only,
hence $\sigma=3$).
If $F$ does not belong to $X$, recall that cross–ratios of tetrahedra outside
$X$ in the filling $\mathcal{D}_{s}$ are close to what they were before
filling in $\mathcal{D}$, while the volumes of the (remaining) cusp
neighborhoods in the filled manifold $M_{s}$ are the same as in the unfilled
manifold $M$: therefore, the convexity inequality (12) in $\mathcal{D}_{s}$,
for large enough $s$, just follows from the analoguous inequality in
$\mathcal{D}$.
If $F$ is one of the two faces of $\partial X$, the inequality in
$\mathcal{D}_{s}$ again follows from the geometric canonicity of
$\mathcal{D}$. Indeed, check first that the two faces of $X$ are not glued to
one another: if they were (by an orientation–reversing isometry), then the sum
of angles around one of the three edges of $\partial X$ would be less than or
equal to $\pi$. Therefore, the face $F$ separates a tetrahedron of $X$ from a
tetrahedron outside $X$. Next, consider a cover $\pi:\mathbb{H}^{3}\rightarrow
M$ sending infinity to $c_{k}$ (in the upper half–space model), and the
induced decomposition $\widehat{\mathcal{D}}:=\pi^{*}(\mathcal{D})$ of
$\mathbb{H}^{3}$ into ideal tetrahedra. Consider a tetrahedron $\infty ABC$ of
$\widehat{\mathcal{D}}$, and the neighboring tetrahedron $ABCD$ (where
$A,B,C,D\in\mathbb{C}$ and $ABC$ is an acute triangle). Define
$A^{\prime}:=B+C-A$, the symmetric of $A$ with respect to the midpoint of $B$
and $C$. Recall the tetrahedra of the solid torus $X$ are obtained by
successive diagonal exchanges, beginning at the ideal triangulation of
$\partial X$. Therefore, up to a permutation of $A,B,C$, the neighbor across
$ABC$ of the tetrahedron corresponding (combinatorially) to $ABCD$ in
$\mathcal{D}_{s}$, is the tetrahedron corresponding (combinatorially) to
$ABCA^{\prime}$. Recall the infinite simplicial complex
$\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}\subset\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$. If
$a,b,c,d,a^{\prime},f\in\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$ are the isotropic vectors lying
above the horoballs centered at $A,B,C,D,A^{\prime},\infty$ (respectively),
then $abcf$ and $abcd$ are neighboring faces of $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$ (in
particular, $abc$ lies _below_ the segment $fd$ as seen from the origin). But
by convexity of $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$, the facet $abc$ of
$\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$ also lies below _any_ segment between vertices of
$\widetilde{\mathcal{D}}$, provided this segment intersects the linear span of
$a,b,c$. In particular, $abc$ lies below $a^{\prime}d$ (because $A^{\prime},D$
lie on opposite sides of the hyperbolic plane through $A,B,C$). This is still
true for the lift $\widetilde{\mathcal{D}_{s}}$ of the filled triangulation
$\mathcal{D}_{s}$ if the filling slope $s$ is large enough, because the
cross–ratios in $\mathcal{D}_{s}$ are close to those in $\mathcal{D}$. Local
convexity at the face $F=ABC$ of $\mathcal{D}_{s}$ is proved.
The only cases remaining are those when $F$ is an interior face of the solid
torus $X$. We postpone to the end of the section the (easier) case of the
“last” face, along which $\Delta_{N-1}$ is glued to itself, and focus on the
other faces inside $X$.
Consider adjacent ideal tetrahedra $\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}$ in
${\mathbb{H}}^{3}$ which are lifts from tetrahedra of the manifold $M_{s}$
that are consecutive tetrahedra $\Delta_{i}$ and $\Delta_{i+1}$ of the filling
solid torus. We must prove that the dihedron in $\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$ between the
lifts of $\Delta,\Delta^{\prime}$ points “downward”, using the criterion of
Proposition 25.
We will assume that the letter $\Omega_{i}$ on the Farey triangle $T_{i}$ is
an $L$ and proceed to a careful description of the cusp link, in Figure 9. Let
us describe the figure.
Figure 9. A “Left” in the Farey graph corresponds to a left–handed power of
$\varphi$.
* •
The top panel of Figure 9 shows a portion of the Farey graph; we name the
Farey vertices $a,b,c,d,e$ so that $T_{i-1}=abc$, $T_{i}=acd$, $T_{i+1}=ade$
(enumerating the vertices of each triangle counterclockwise).
* •
The left (resp. right) panel shows four adjacent lifts of the ideal
tetrahedron $\Delta_{i}$ (resp. $\Delta_{i+1}$) in $\mathbb{H}^{3}$. The
vertices are ideal. The direction of the equator of
$\mathbb{S}^{2}\simeq\partial_{\infty}\mathbb{H}^{3}$ is materialized by a
grey line. The directions $a,b,c,d,e$ of some of the ideal edges are shown.
The tetrahedra in the right panel lie glued behind the tetrahedra in the left
panel; the triangulation in front of the right panel thus agrees with the
triangulation in the back of the left panel. In each panel, the central ideal
vertex $v$, assumed to lie on the equator, has been blown up (or truncated) to
depict its link, which consists of four similar Euclidean triangles drawn in
grey.
* •
The bottom panel puts these two ideal links together in one diagram consisting
of three nested hexagons (we artificially draw each hexagon a tiny bit apart
from the next one, even though they share four vertices). Each vertex of this
figure corresponds to an ideal edge issued from $v$, and is marked with the
slope ($a$, $b$, $c$, $d$ or $e$) of that ideal edge. (Also compare these
labels with the first panel of Figure 6 page 6.) The four triangles between
two consecutive hexagons have the same triple of angles.
* •
The bottom panel also represents, up to a similarity, the endpoints in
$\mathbb{C}$ of ideal edges whose other endpoint is $\infty$ in the upper
half–space model of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ (the point $\infty$ corresponds to the
central, blown–up vertex $v$ of the previous two panels). Each triangle of the
bottom panel is the vertical projection to $\mathbb{C}$ of an ideal triangle
of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ which, once coned off to $\infty$, yields a tetrahedron of
$\mathbb{H}^{3}$ isometric to $\Delta_{i}$ (outer triangles) or $\Delta_{i+1}$
(inner triangles).
* •
In the left (resp. right) panel we have decorated edges of slope $a$ and $c$
(resp. $a$ and $d$) with arrows. In the notation of Proposition 23, the
loxodromy $\varphi^{\nu_{a}}$ is _left–handed_ (because $\Omega_{i}=L$). In
these two panels, $\varphi^{\nu_{a}}$ acts by sending the central vertex $v$
(tail of the edge marked $a$) to the head of the edge marked $a$, and by
translating all other vertices along the same direction: for example, the head
of the edge marked $c$ goes to the head of the edge marked $d$.
* •
This last observation allows us to understand the action of
$\varphi^{\nu_{a}}$ on the Riemann sphere $\mathbb{C}\cup\\{\infty\\}$: in the
bottom panel, where $v$ has been sent to $\infty$, the arrows indicate how
$\varphi^{\nu_{a}}$ acts on the vertices of the Euclidean triangle (and
$\infty$). For example, $\infty$ goes to a vertex marked $a$ and the
bottom–most vertex marked $c$ goes to a vertex marked $d$. In the sequel, we
must make sense of the left–handedness of this loxodromic action.
In order to shift to the “Minkowski space” aspect, we must take yet a closer
look at the geometry of the link of the cusp (the following argument is taken
from [G2]). In the link of the cusp, up to a complex similarity, the link of
the pleated surface $\tau_{i}$ between $\Delta_{i}$ and $\Delta_{i+1}$ is the
centrally–symmetric hexagon
$(-1,\zeta,\zeta^{\prime},1,-\zeta,-\zeta^{\prime})$ in ${\mathbb{C}}$, as in
Figure 10 (which reproduces the bottom panel of Figure 9): we assume that the
vertices $-1,1$ both belong to the base segments of the Euclidean triangles
just inside and just outside the hexagon.
Figure 10. Adjacent tetrahedra $\Delta_{i}$ and $\Delta_{i+1}$ (cusp view).
Let us introduce the notation
$\displaystyle\zeta+1$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\overrightarrow{a}=a\,e^{iA}$
$\displaystyle\zeta^{\prime}-\zeta$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\overrightarrow{b}=b\,e^{iB}$ $\displaystyle 1-\zeta^{\prime}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\overrightarrow{c}=c\,e^{iC}$
where $a,b,c\in\mathbb{R}^{>0}$ (so far $A,B,C$ are only defined modulo
$2\pi$). The map $f:=\varphi^{\nu_{a}}$ now satisfies $f(-1)=\infty$ ;
$f(\infty)=1$ ; $f(\zeta)=\zeta^{\prime}$: namely,
$f:u\mapsto
1+\frac{(\zeta+1)(\zeta^{\prime}-1)}{u+1}=1+\frac{\overrightarrow{a}\,\overrightarrow{c}}{u+1}~{}.$
Therefore, using the notation $H_{\text{diameter, center}}$ for the horoballs
of the upper half–space model (as in Section 4.3), we have
$f(H_{1,\infty})=H_{|\overrightarrow{a}\overrightarrow{c}|,f(\infty)}=H_{ac,1}$.
In other words, the Euclidean diameter of the horoball centered at the vertex
$1$ of the hexagon is $ac$, the product of the lengths of the adjacent edges
of the hexagon. (By an easy argument, this relationship persists if the
hexagon is scaled up or down, as long as the horoball centered at infinity is
$H_{1,\infty}$.) For the same reason, the following horoballs are all sent to
one another by deck transformations (in fact, by appropriate powers of
$\varphi$):
(13)
$H_{1,\infty}~{};~{}H_{ac,-1}~{};~{}H_{ab,\zeta}~{};~{}H_{bc,\zeta^{\prime}}~{};~{}H_{ac,1}~{}.$
If $\zeta=\xi+\eta\sqrt{-1}$ and
$\zeta^{\prime}=\xi^{\prime}+\eta^{\prime}\sqrt{-1}$, the isotropic vectors in
Minkowski space corresponding to these horoballs are respectively, using (11):
(14) $\begin{array}[]{lcccccccl}v_{\infty}&=&&(&0,&0,&-1,&1&)\\\
v_{-1}&=&\frac{1}{ac}&(&-2,&0,&0,&2&)\\\
v_{\zeta}&=&\frac{1}{ab}&(&2\xi,&2\eta,&1-|\zeta|^{2},&1+|\zeta|^{2}&)\\\
v_{\zeta^{\prime}}&=&\frac{1}{bc}&(&2\xi^{\prime},&2\eta^{\prime},&1-|\zeta^{\prime}|^{2},&1+|\zeta^{\prime}|^{2}&)\\\
v_{1}&=&\frac{1}{ac}&(&2,&0,&0,&2&).\end{array}$
By Proposition 25, to prove that the dihedron at the codimension–two face (in
$\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$) projecting to $(\zeta\zeta^{\prime}\infty)$ is convex, it
is enough to show that if $\alpha v_{\zeta}+\beta v_{\zeta^{\prime}}+\gamma
v_{\infty}=\lambda v_{1}+(1-\lambda)v_{-1}$ then $\alpha+\beta+\gamma>1$
(moreover, this will in fact take care of _both_ faces along which
$\Delta_{i}$ touches $\Delta_{i+1}$ in the filling solid torus $X$). One
easily finds the unique solution
$\alpha=\frac{b\eta^{\prime}}{c(\eta^{\prime}-\eta)}~{};~{}\beta=\frac{-b\eta}{a(\eta^{\prime}-\eta)}~{};~{}\gamma=\frac{\eta^{\prime}(1-|\zeta|^{2})-\eta(1-|\zeta^{\prime}|^{2})}{ac(\eta^{\prime}-\eta)}$
(we will not need the value of $\lambda$), hence
$\alpha+\beta+\gamma=1+\frac{Z}{ac(\eta^{\prime}-\eta)}~{}~{}\text{ where
}Z=ab\eta^{\prime}-bc\eta+\eta^{\prime}(1-|\zeta|^{2})-\eta(1-|\zeta^{\prime}|^{2})-ac(\eta^{\prime}-\eta).$
Observe that $\eta^{\prime}>\eta$ because the triangles
$-1\zeta\zeta^{\prime}$ and $1\zeta^{\prime}\zeta$ are counterclockwise
oriented. So it is enough to prove that $Z>0$. Endow
${\mathbb{C}}\simeq{\mathbb{R}}^{2}$ with the usual scalar product, denoted
“$\diamond$” to avoid confusion with scalar multiplication, and observe that
$1-|\zeta|^{2}=\overrightarrow{a}\diamond(\overrightarrow{b}+\overrightarrow{c})$
and
$1-|\zeta^{\prime}|^{2}=(\overrightarrow{a}+\overrightarrow{b})\diamond\overrightarrow{c}$.
Hence
$\displaystyle Z$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\eta^{\prime}(ab+\overrightarrow{a}\diamond\overrightarrow{b})-\eta(bc+\overrightarrow{b}\diamond\overrightarrow{c})-(\eta^{\prime}-\eta)(ac-\overrightarrow{a}\diamond\overrightarrow{c})$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
abc\left[\frac{\eta^{\prime}}{c}(1+\cos(A-B))-\frac{\eta}{a}(1+\cos(B-C))-\frac{\eta^{\prime}-\eta}{b}(1-\cos(A-C))\right]$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-abc[\sin C(1+\cos(A\\!-\\!B))+\sin
A(1+\cos(B\\!-\\!C))+\sin B(1-\cos(A\\!-\\!C))]$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-4abc\,\sin\frac{A+C}{2}\cos\frac{B-A}{2}\cos\frac{B-C}{2}$
by standard trigonometric formulae. Observe that the last expression is a
well–defined function of $A,B,C\in\mathbb{R}/2\pi\mathbb{Z}$ (although each
factor is defined only up to sign). Next, however, we will be careful which
representatives of $A,B,C$ in $\mathbb{R}$ we pick. First, we choose for $B$
the smallest positive representative. Since the triangles
$-1\zeta\zeta^{\prime}$ and $1\zeta^{\prime}\zeta$ are counterclockwise
oriented, it follows that $B\in(0,\pi)$ and we can pick $A,C$ in $(B-\pi,B)$.
Since $\overrightarrow{a}+\overrightarrow{b}+\overrightarrow{c}=2$ must also
have an argument in $(B-\pi,B)$, one necessarily has
(15) $-\pi<\text{min}\,\\{A,C\\}<0<B<\pi\hskip 8.0pt\text{and}\hskip
8.0ptA,C\in(B-\pi,B).$
In particular, to prove that $Z>0$, it only remains to show that
(16) $-\pi<\frac{A+C}{2}<0~{}.$
For the deck transformation $f:u\mapsto
1+\frac{\overrightarrow{a}\overrightarrow{c}}{u+1}$ studied above, Definition
17 yields ${\sf hand}\,(f)=\frac{4}{\overrightarrow{a}\overrightarrow{c}}$.
But $f$ is left–handed by Proposition 23, so
$\text{Im}\,(\overrightarrow{a}\overrightarrow{c})<0$ i.e.
$A+C\in(-\pi,0)+2\pi\mathbb{Z}$. By (15), we have $-2\pi<A+C<\pi$ _a priori_ ,
hence in fact $-\pi<A+C<0$. Therefore (16) must hold. Geometric canonicity at
the interface of tetrahedra $\Delta_{i}$ and $\Delta_{i+1}$ is proved (the
argument is similar if the Farey triangle $T_{i}$ carries an $R$ instead of an
$L$).
It remains to prove geometric canonicity at the core of the filling solid
torus itself, where the last tetrahedron $\Delta_{N-1}$ is glued to itself
along an ideal triangle. The “hexagon” $H_{N-1}$ of $\mathbb{C}$ has two
opposite interior angles equal to $0$ and is therefore collapsed to a broken
line of three segments. In (14) (and Figure 10), this simply translates as the
identity $\zeta^{\prime}=-1$; the collapsed hexagon is the broken line
$(\zeta,-1,1,-\zeta)$. The radii of the horoballs centered at these vertices
are computed exactly as in (13), under the extra assumption
$\zeta^{\prime}=-1$.
The tetrahedra with ideal vertices $(\infty,1,-1,\zeta)$ and
$(\infty,1,-1,-\zeta)$ are glued along the face $(\infty,1,-1)$, and the
isotropic vectors in Minkowski space corresponding to their vertices are,
following (14):
(17) $\begin{array}[]{lcccccccl}v_{\infty}&=&&(&0,&0,&-1,&1&)\\\
v_{1}&=&\frac{1}{2|1+\zeta|}&(&2,&0,&0,&2&)\\\
v_{-1}&=&\frac{1}{2|1+\zeta|}&(&-2,&0,&0,&2&)\\\
v_{\zeta}&=&\frac{1}{|\zeta+1|^{2}}&(&2\xi,&2\eta,&1-\xi^{2}-\eta^{2},&1+\xi^{2}+\eta^{2}&)\\\
v_{-\zeta}&=&\frac{1}{|\zeta+1|^{2}}&(&-2\xi,&-2\eta,&1-\xi^{2}-\eta^{2},&1+\xi^{2}+\eta^{2}&)~{}.\end{array}$
The equation $\lambda v_{\zeta}+(1-\lambda)v_{-\zeta}=\alpha v_{\infty}+\beta
v_{1}+\gamma v_{-1}$ has a unique solution, namely $\lambda=1/2$ and
$\alpha=\frac{|\zeta|^{2}-1}{|\zeta+1|^{2}}~{}\text{ and
}~{}\beta=\gamma=\frac{1}{|\zeta+1|.}$
Clearly, one will have $\alpha+\beta+\gamma>1$ if and only if
$|\zeta|^{2}-1+2|\zeta+1|>|\zeta+1|^{2}$, or equivalently,
$|\zeta|^{2}>(|\zeta+1|-1)^{2}$: but this relationship follows from the
triangular inequality in the Euclidean triangle $(0,-1,\zeta)$. Therefore, by
Proposition 25, the convexity inequality in Minkowski space is satisfied.
Theorem 1 is proved.
### 4.5. Filling on several cusps
An analogue of Theorem 1 holds when several cusps undergo Dehn filling. The
genericity assumptions (I–II), however, must be suitably extended.
Let $M$ be a complete hyperbolic $3$–manifold with cusps $c_{1},\dots,c_{k}$,
endowed with horoball neighborhoods $H_{1},\dots,H_{k}$ (where $k\geq 2$). Let
$l$ be an integer, $1<l\leq k$. Make the following assumptions
1. (I)
The horoball neighborhoods $H_{l},\dots,H_{k}$ are much smaller than
$H_{1},\dots,H_{l-1}$;
2. (II)
The decomposition $\mathcal{D}$ (before filling) consists only of ideal
_tetrahedra_ ;
3. (III)
For each integer $j$ such that $l\leq j\leq k$, there exists a unique shortest
path from $H_{j}$ to $\bigcup_{i=1}^{l-1}H_{i}$ in $M$;
###### Theorem 26.
Under the assumptions (I–III) above, for each integer $j$ such that $l\leq
j\leq k$, the canonical decomposition $\mathcal{D}$ of $M$ (before filling)
contains exactly two tetrahedra $\Delta_{j},\Delta^{\prime}_{j}$ with a vertex
in the cusp $c_{j}$; moreover, $\Delta_{j}$ and $\Delta^{\prime}_{j}$ are
isometric and have each exactly one vertex in $c_{j}$ and three vertices in
$\bigcup_{i=1}^{l-1}c_{i}$.
Moreover, for each $l\leq j\leq k$ there exists a finite set of slopes
$\mathcal{X}_{j}$ in the cusp $c_{j}$ such that for any choice of slopes
$s_{l},\dots,s_{k}$ in $c_{l},\dots,c_{k}$ satisfying
$c_{j}\notin\mathcal{X}_{j}$ for each $j$, the canonical decomposition
$\mathcal{D}_{s}$ obtained by Dehn filling along the slopes
$s_{l},\dots,s_{k}$ is combinatorially of the form
$\mathcal{D}_{s}=\left(\mathcal{D}\smallsetminus\bigcup_{j=l}^{k}\\{\Delta_{j},\Delta^{\prime}_{j}\\}\right)\cup\bigcup_{j=l}^{k}\mathcal{T}_{j}$
where $\mathcal{T}_{j}=\Delta_{1}^{(j)}\cup\dots\cup\Delta_{N_{j}-1}^{(j)}$ is
a solid torus minus one boundary point, and the combinatorial gluing of the
$\Delta_{i}^{(j)}$ (for $j$ fixed) is dictated by the continued fraction
expansion of the slope $s_{j}$, with respect to a basis of the first homology
of the cusp $c_{j}$ depending only on $\mathcal{D}$.
In other words, as long as the cusp neighborhoods $H_{l},\dots,H_{k}$ are
small enough and the slopes $s_{l},\dots,s_{k}$ are long enough, Theorem 1
applies “simultaneously” to all cusps $c_{l},\dots,c_{k}$. The proof of
Theorem 1 transposes without major changes to Theorem 26, using the
multicusped version of Thurston’s hyperbolic Dehn surgery theorem (see e.g.
Theorem 5.8.2 and the discussion immediately following it in [Th]).
## 5\. Fillings of the Whitehead link complement
In this section we describe the Delaunay decompositions of all hyperbolic Dehn
fillings of one cusp of the Whitehead link complement.
### 5.1. Canonical decomposition before filling
The following facts are classical; we refer to [Th] or to Weeks’ program
SnapPea [We] for proofs.
Let $ABCD$ and $DCB^{\prime}A^{\prime}$ be two adjacent unit squares of
$\mathbb{C}$ (vertices enumerated clockwise and belonging to $\mathbb{Z}[i]$,
as in Figure 11). Let $Q,Q^{\prime}$ be the convex hulls of $\infty,A,B,C,D$
and of $\infty,D,C,B^{\prime},A^{\prime}$ respectively. Then $Q\cup
Q^{\prime}$ is a fundamental domain of the hyperbolic Whitehead link
complement $M$; the face identifications are the translations of vector
$\overrightarrow{AB}=i,\overrightarrow{AA^{\prime}}=2$, and the hyperbolic
isometry sending $A,B,C,D$ to $D,A^{\prime},B^{\prime},C$ respectively.
Moreover, the decomposition $Q\cup Q^{\prime}=M$ is the Delaunay decomposition
when the horoball neighborhood of the cusp at $\infty$ is very small.
Note that $M$ has isometries that exchange the two cusps, but has no
orientation–reversing isometries (so the Whitehead link is chiral).
Note also that the decomposition $Q\cup Q^{\prime}$ of $M$ does not satisfy
the first and second “genericity” assumptions of Theorem 1: the cells are not
tetrahedra, and the horoballs centered at $B$ and $C$, while belonging to
different orbits of the stabilizer $2\mathbb{Z}\oplus i\mathbb{Z}$ of $\infty$
in the group of deck transformations, are at the same distance from the
horoball at $\infty$. Thus, Theorem 1 does not apply directly.
###### Proposition 27.
If $k,l$ are coprime integers, let $s$ denote the slope represented by the
vector $k\overrightarrow{AA^{\prime}}+l\overrightarrow{AB}$. The Dehn filling
$M_{s}$ is hyperbolic if and only if
$\pm(k,l)\notin\\{(0,1),(1,0),(1,\pm 1),(1,\pm 2)\\}.$
In the remainder of this section we assume $(k,l)$ satisfies the condition of
Proposition 27 and adapt the argument of Sections 1–4 to describe the Delaunay
decomposition of $M_{s}$. This decomposition will always consist in replacing
$Q\cup Q^{\prime}/\langle z\mapsto z+2,z\mapsto z+i\rangle$ with a
triangulated solid torus $Y$ whose exterior faces are two (triangulated) ideal
quadrilaterals, which we then identify.
Figure 11. Left: cusp view from the common tip of the square–based pyramids
$Q$ and $Q^{\prime}$, i.e. from the cusp that will be filled. The
$\digamma$–shaped symbol drawn on the bases of $Q$ and $Q^{\prime}$ shows
their identification. Right: view of the canonical decomposition from the
other cusp, before (top) and after (bottom) a Dehn filling with
$(k,l)=(11,8)$. In the top panel, the centers of the two squares project to
the cusp that will be filled. In the bottom panel, we see that the tetrahedra
in the decomposition of the filling become very close to flat, very quickly.
### 5.2. First case: $l$ is odd.
If $l$ is odd, then the vector
$k\overrightarrow{AA^{\prime}}+l\overrightarrow{AB}=2k+il\in\mathbb{C}$ is
irreducible in the lattice $\mathbb{Z}[i]$. For that reason, we can take for
$Y$ the double cover of the solid torus $X$ constructed in Section 2.
More precisely, let $m\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ be the Farey vertex
$\frac{l}{2k}$ (irreducible fraction). Then $m$ does not belong to $\\{0,\pm
1,\pm 2,\pm\frac{1}{2},\infty\\}$: the first three are ruled out because $m$
has even denominator; the last two because we assumed
$\pm(k,l)\notin\\{(0,1),(1,\pm 1)\\}$. According to the value of $m$, choose
$(p,q,r)$ as follows:
$\begin{array}[]{r||c|c|c|c}\text{if }&m<-2&-2<m<-1&-1<m<-1/2&-1/2<m<0\\\
(p,q,r)=&(\infty,-1,0)&(-1,\infty,0)&(-1,0,\infty)&(0,-1,\infty)\\\
\hline\cr\text{if }&0<m<1/2&1/2<m<1&1<m<2&2<m\\\
(p,q,r)=&(0,1,\infty)&(1,0,\infty)&(1,\infty,0)&(\infty,1,0)\end{array}$
The relative positions of $p,q,r,m$ are then exactly as in Section 2: namely,
$pq$ separates $r$ from $m$; the point $m$ is not the other common Farey
neighbor $r^{\prime}$ of $p$ and $q$; and the line $rm$ crosses $pr^{\prime}$
(not $qr^{\prime}$). In particular, using the wedge notation (4) one has
$m\wedge r\geq 3$.
Let $\theta\in(0,\pi)$ be a parameter and define
(18)
$(\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r}):=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{rl}(0,\theta,\pi-\theta)&\text{if
}p=\pm 1\text{ i.e. }|m|\in(1/2,2);\\\ (\theta,0,\pi-\theta)&\text{if }q=\pm
1\text{ i.e. }|m|\notin(1/2,2).\end{array}\right.$
This choice will cause the “diagonal” edges of slope $\pm 1$ to be flat, while
the edges of slope $0$ and $\infty$ will be bent. Since $m\wedge r\geq 3$, it
is straightforward to check that $(\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r})$
satisfies the hypothesis $(m\wedge p)\theta_{p}+(m\wedge q)\theta_{q}+(m\wedge
r)\theta_{r}>2\pi$ of Proposition 10 if and only if $\theta$ belongs to some
sub–interval $\Theta=(0,\theta_{\text{max}})\subset(0,\pi)$.
Apply now Proposition 10 and Corollary 16 with $\theta\in\Theta$. We obtain an
ideal hyperbolic solid torus $X$ with dihedral angles $\theta,0,\pi-\theta$.
Let $P$ be the fundamental domain of $\partial X$ defined as the ideal
quadrilateral cut out by the edges of slope $0$ and $\infty$. Let $Y$ be the
double cover of $X$. Since the meridian slope is $m=\frac{l}{2k}$ and the
determinant $\left|{}^{1}_{0}{~{}}^{~{}l}_{2k}\right|$ is even, the curve of
slope $\frac{1}{0}=\infty$ in $\partial X$ is homotopic to an even power of
the core, and therefore lifts to a closed curve in $Y$, while the curve of
slope $\frac{0}{1}=0$ does not (because
$\left|{}^{0}_{1}{~{}}^{~{}l}_{2k}\right|$ is odd). Therefore, a fundamental
domain of $\partial Y$ is obtained by gluing two copies $P,P^{\prime}$ of the
ideal quadrilateral $P$ side by side along the edge of slope $\infty$. We view
$P,P^{\prime}$ as immersed in the twice–punctured torus $\partial Y$.
We now glue $P$ to $P^{\prime}$ by an orientation–reversing isometry, in the
same way the square bases of the pyramids $Q,Q^{\prime}$ were glued together
to yield the Whitehead link complement $M$ (Figure 11, left). By construction,
the quotient of $Y$ under this identification is homeomorphic to the Dehn
filling $M_{s}$. The angular part of the gluing equation is automatically
satisfied, since the two flat edges of $\partial Y$ (diagonals of
$P,P^{\prime}$) are identified, and all four non-flat edges of $\partial Y$
are identified to one edge at which the sum of dihedral angles is
$\theta+(\pi-\theta)+\theta+(\pi-\theta)=2\pi$.
Therefore, the space $W$ of angle structures associated to our triangulation
of $M_{s}$ (as in Theorem 5) is described by setting
$(\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r})$ as in (18) and finding all
$(\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r})$–angle structures in the sense of
Proposition 10 as $\theta$ varies freely in $\Theta\subset(0,\pi)$.
###### Proposition 28.
The volume functional has a critical point, namely a maximum, on $W$.
###### Proof.
Exactly as in Proposition 15, the maximum of the (extended) volume functional
is achieved at some point $z=(z_{i})_{0\leq i\leq N}$ of the closure of $W$.
Using (18), the system of constraints (7) satisfied by $z$ now becomes
$\begin{array}[]{rrrrrrr}(&z_{0}~{},&z_{1}~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{N-1}~{},&z_{N}~{})\\\
=~{}(&\pi~{},&\theta~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{N-1}~{},&0~{})\\\ \text{or
}(&\pi+\theta~{},&\theta~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{N-1}~{},&0~{})\end{array}$
according to whether $|m|\in(1/2,2)$ or not.
In the first case, suppose $\theta=\pi$. By the convexity condition of (10),
one then has $z_{0}=z_{1}=\dots=z_{h}=\pi$ where $\Delta_{h}$ is the first
hinge tetrahedron. The hinge condition of (10) then implies $z_{h-1}\geq
z_{h}+z_{h+1}$, hence $z_{h+1}=0$. That in turn implies $z_{i}=0$ for all
$i>h$ (we observed in the proof of Proposition 15 that the sequence $(z_{i})$
is non–increasing). Therefore all tetrahedra $\Delta_{i}$ are flat, and the
volume is certainly not maximal.
In the second case, suppose $\theta=\pi$. Table (9) implies
$\pi-\frac{z_{0}+z_{2}}{2}\geq 0$ hence $z_{2}=0$ and $z_{i}=0$ for all $i>1$:
again, all $\Delta_{i}$ are flat, so the volume is certainly not maximal.
Therefore, $\theta<\pi$. The argument of Proposition 15 now follows through
unchanged to show that no parameter $z_{i}$ for $0<i<N$ belongs to
$\\{0,\pi\\}$. By Proposition 7, all tetrahedra $\Delta_{i}$ have only
positive angles (i.e. $z\in W$). ∎
Theorem 5 applies: we have found a complete hyperbolic structure on the
triangulated space $M_{s}$. To check that the triangulation is canonical, we
only need to check the Minkowski convexity relationship (12). For interior
faces of the solid torus $Y$, this is already done (Section 4.4). For the
boundary faces, we must describe more precisely the cusp triangulation of
$M_{s}$.
Each of the two ideal vertices of the solid torus $Y$ (projecting to the
single ideal vertex of $X$) has a cusp triangulation made of nested, centrally
symmetric hexagons (as in Figure 6, right). However, by (18), two opposite
angles of the outermost hexagon $H_{0}$ are equal to $\pi$, so the general
cusp shape is a $4$–sided parallelogram. Moreover, the edges
$vv^{\prime},vv^{\prime\prime}$ of $H_{0}$ adjacent to a flat vertex $v$ have
the same length: indeed, the ideal quadrilateral $\infty
v^{\prime}vv^{\prime\prime}$ must be a square (i.e. its diagonals cross at a
right angle), because it is a face of $Y$ and the gluing of the two isometric
faces of $Y$ that yields the Dehn filling $M_{s}$ sends horizontal edges of
one face to vertical edges of the other (e.g. as in Figure 11).
The universal cover of the cusp triangulation of $M_{s}$ is a union of
translated copies of the cusp triangulation of $Y$. For example, up to a plane
similarity, the outermost hexagons in two adjacent translates can be taken to
be (for some $\zeta\in\mathbb{C}\smallsetminus\mathbb{R}$)
$\begin{array}[]{ccrrrrrrc}&(&~{}2\zeta-1~{},&\zeta-1~{},&-1~{},&1~{},&\zeta+1~{},&2\zeta+1&)\\\
\text{and
}&(&-2\zeta-1~{},&-\zeta-1~{},&-1~{},&1~{},&-\zeta+1~{},&-2\zeta+1&)\end{array}$
so the cusp triangles $(-1,1,\zeta+1)$ and $(-1,1,-\zeta-1)$ share an edge
$(-1,1)$. We apply Proposition 25 to the ideal triangle $(\infty,1,-1)$ — by
symmetry this will deal with all four triangular faces of the solid torus $Y$
(note that for proving the Minkowski convexity relationship (12), we do not
care whether the two adjacent hexagons above are in the same orbit of the
stabilizer of $\infty$ or not).
Following the method of Section 4.4 (especially (13) and the discussion that
precedes it), if $\zeta=\xi+i\eta$, the isotropic vectors in
$\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$ corresponding to the horoballs centered at
$\infty,1,-1,\zeta+1,-\zeta-1$ are respectively
$\begin{array}[]{lcccccccl}v_{\infty}&=&&(&0,&0,&-1,&1&)\\\
v_{1}&=&\frac{1}{2|\zeta|}&(&2,&0,&0,&2&)\\\
v_{-1}&=&\frac{1}{2|\zeta|}&(&-2,&0,&0,&2&)\\\
v_{\zeta+1}&=&\frac{1}{|\zeta|^{2}}&(&2\xi+2,&2\eta,&1-|\zeta+1|^{2},&1+|\zeta+1|^{2}&)\\\
v_{-\zeta-1}&=&\frac{1}{|\zeta|^{2}}&(&-2\xi-2,&-2\eta,&1-|\zeta+1|^{2},&1+|\zeta+1|^{2}&)~{}.\end{array}$
The solution to $\lambda v_{\zeta+1}+(1-\lambda)v_{-\zeta-1}=\alpha
v_{1}+\beta v_{\infty}+\gamma v_{-1}$ satisfies
$(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=\left(\frac{1}{|\zeta|},\frac{|\zeta+1|^{2}-1}{|\zeta|^{2}},\frac{1}{|\zeta|}\right)$,
hence
$\alpha+\beta+\gamma=1+\frac{|\zeta+1|^{2}-(|\zeta|-1)^{2}}{|\zeta|^{2}}>1$
according to the triangular inequality in the triangle $(0,\zeta,-1)$: by
Proposition 25, the convexity inequality in Minkowski space is satisfied.
### 5.3. Second case: $l$ is even.
If $l$ is even, then the vector
$k\overrightarrow{AA^{\prime}}+l\overrightarrow{AB}=2k+il\in\mathbb{C}$ is
_twice_ the irreducible vector $k+i\frac{l}{2}$ in the lattice
$\mathbb{Z}[i]$. For that reason, the ideal solid torus $Y$ cannot be taken to
be simply a cover of $X$. Instead, we must introduce a variant of the
construction of Section 2. To give a preview of the difference with Section 2,
if $U\subset\mathbb{H}^{3}$ is a universal cover of the solid torus $Y$ we
will construct below and $\langle\varphi\rangle\simeq\mathbb{Z}$ is the group
of deck transformations of $U$, then for each ideal vertex $v$ of $U$, the
symmetric point $v^{\prime}$ of $v$ with respect to the axis of $\varphi$ is
also a vertex of $U$. Moreover, $vv^{\prime}$ will be an edge of the
$\varphi$–invariant triangulation of $U$, and
$vv^{\prime}\varphi(v)\varphi(v^{\prime})$ will be one of its ideal
tetrahedra.
Let $m\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ be the Farey vertex $\frac{l/2}{k}$
(reduced fraction). We have $m\notin\\{\infty,0,\pm 1\\}$: indeed, $\infty$ is
ruled out because $m$ has odd denominator $k$ (coprime to $l$); the other
possibilities are ruled out because we assumed $\pm(k,l)\notin\\{(1,0),(1,\pm
2)\\}$. According to the value of $m$, choose $(p,q,r)$ as in Section 5.2,
with the four extra possibilities
$\begin{array}[]{r||c|c|c|c}\text{if }&m=-2&m=-1/2&m=1/2&m=2\\\
\hline\cr(p,q,r)=&(\infty,-1,0)&(0,-1,\infty)&(0,1,\infty)&(\infty,1,0)\end{array}$
(in fact we may switch $p,q$ in these four cases). One then has $m\wedge r\geq
2$. Note that, unlike in Section 2, $m$ is now allowed to be the common Farey
neighbor of $p$ and $q$ opposite $r$.
Below we describe an ideal triangulation $\mathcal{D}$ for a solid torus $Y$
(with two ideal points); Proposition 29 will then be the analogue for
$\mathcal{D}$ of Proposition 10. For convenience, we will first describe a
family of tetrahedra of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ whose vertices are points of
$\mathbb{Z}\left[\sqrt{-1}\right]\subset\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{C}\simeq\partial_{\infty}\mathbb{H}^{3}$,
then only remember the combinatorics of the gluing of these tetrahedra.
The sequence of Farey triangles crossed by the oriented line $\ell$ from $r$
to $m$ is $pqr=T_{0},T_{1},\dots,T_{N}=mst$ (for some Farey vertices $s,t$,
and with $N\geq 1$ — note that in Section 2 we had $N\geq 2$). For every index
$0\leq i\leq N$, let $x_{i},y_{i},z_{i}\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ be the
vertices of $T_{i}$. Consider the triangulation $\mathcal{T}_{i}$ of
$\mathbb{C}$ with vertex set $\mathbb{Z}\left[\sqrt{-1}\right]$ and whose
edges are precisely all segments of slopes $x_{i},y_{i},z_{i}$ between points
of $\mathbb{Z}\left[\sqrt{-1}\right]$. Each triangle of $\mathcal{T}_{i}$ is
the vertical projection of an ideal triangle of $\mathbb{H}^{3}$ with the same
triple of vertices. The union of all these ideal triangles, modulo
$G:=2\mathbb{Z}\oplus\sqrt{-1}\mathbb{Z}$, is a twice–punctured torus
$\tau_{i}$ in $\mathbb{H}^{3}/G$. If $0<i\leq N$ then the space between
$\tau_{i-1}$ and $\tau_{i}$ is the union of two ideal tetrahedra
$\dot{\Delta}_{i}$ and $\ddot{\Delta}_{i}$ (glued together along some of their
edges). Note that the index $i=N$ is now allowed, unlike in Section 2, so that
e.g. the tetrahedron $\dot{\Delta}_{N}$ (belonging to the last pair) has an
edge of slope $m$, the meridian. Also note that since $m=\frac{l/2}{k}$ and
$k+\frac{l}{2}\sqrt{-1}\notin G$ (because $k$ is odd), this edge of slope $m$
runs from one of the punctures of $\tau_{N}$ (or $\tau_{0}$) to the other.
Consider now the triangulation
$\\{\dot{\Delta}_{i},\ddot{\Delta}_{i}\\}_{1\leq i\leq N}$ as a combinatorial
object only. To “kill” the slope $m$, we identify the edges of slope $m$ in
$\dot{\Delta}_{N}$ and $\ddot{\Delta}_{N}$, and fill the remaining space with
a single tetrahedron $\Delta_{N+1}$ all of whose four faces are glued to the
inner faces of $\dot{\Delta}_{N}\cup\ddot{\Delta}_{N}$. This $\Delta_{N+1}$ is
the tetrahedron referred to as “$vv^{\prime}\varphi(v)\varphi(v^{\prime})$” at
the beginning of Section 5.3. We denote by $\mathcal{D}$ the triangulation
$\bigcup_{i=1}^{N}\\{\dot{\Delta}_{i},\ddot{\Delta}_{i}\\}\cup\\{\Delta_{N+1}\\}$
and by $Y$ its underlying space, a twice–punctured solid torus. Note that
$\mathcal{D}$ admits a combinatorial involution $\iota$ exchanging
$\dot{\Delta}_{i}$ with $\ddot{\Delta}_{i}$ for all $1\leq i\leq N$ (and
fixing $\Delta_{N+1}$ setwise): this $\iota$ extends the translation of
$\partial Y$ that shifts one puncture to the other.
The ideal link of each of the two ideal vertices of $Y$ (which are exchanged
by $\iota$) consists of nested hexagons as in Figure 6, but the innermost
hexagon is now $H_{N}$ (not $H_{N-1}$), and is not collapsed to a broken line
of three segments. Instead, the effect of identifying the edges of slope $m$
has been to identify a pair of opposite vertices of $H_{N}$ (namely the
inward–pointing vertices); the inside of $H_{N}$ is the union of two triangles
joined by a vertex. These two triangles are two vertex links of the
tetrahedron $\Delta_{N+1}$ (the other two are in the other ideal vertex of
$Y$). See Figure 12.
Figure 12. The innermost hexagon $H_{N}$ along with $H_{N-1}$ and the links
(Euclidean triangles) of the tetrahedra
$\Delta_{N+1},\dot{\Delta}_{N},\ddot{\Delta}_{N}$. The angles around each
interior vertex sum to $2\pi$.
We will not consider the full space of angle structures for our triangulation
$\mathcal{D}$ of $M_{s}$: rather, we will restrict to $\iota$–invariant angle
structures (i.e. angle structures in which for each $1\leq i\leq N$, the
tetrahedra $\dot{\Delta}_{i}$ and $\ddot{\Delta}_{i}$ have the same dihedral
angles). Note that if there is an angle structure, we can always average it
with its push–forward by $\iota$ to get a $\iota$–invariant angle structure.
###### Proposition 29.
Consider non–negative reals $\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r}$ satisfying (5),
namely $0<\theta_{r}<\pi=\theta_{p}+\theta_{q}+\theta_{r}$. The space of
$\iota$–invariant angle structures on $\mathcal{D}$ that induce exterior
dihedral angles $\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r}$ at the edges of slope
$p,q,r$ of $\partial Y$ (also called
$(\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r})$–angle structures) is non–empty.
###### Proof.
As in Section 2.3, we introduce an angle parameter $z_{i}\in(0,\pi)$ for every
pair of ideal tetrahedra $\dot{\Delta}_{i},\ddot{\Delta}_{i}$ (where $1\leq
i\leq N$). In what follows, $\dot{\Delta}_{i}$ and $\ddot{\Delta}_{i}$ will
always be assumed to have the same dihedral angles (they are exchanged by the
combinatorial symmetry $\iota$). We also denote by $z_{N+1}$ the dihedral
angle of $\Delta_{N+1}$ at the edge whose slope is the only rational (Farey
vertex) in $T_{N}\cap T_{N-1}\smallsetminus T_{N-2}$. Using these conventions
and writing $(a,b,c):=(z_{N-1},z_{N},z_{N+1})$, it is easy to see that the
triples of dihedral angles of the ideal tetrahedra are as follows:
(19)
$\begin{array}[]{ccrrr}\dot{\Delta}_{N},\ddot{\Delta}_{N}&:&(~{}b~{},&\pi-\frac{a+c}{2}~{},&\frac{a-2b+c}{2}~{})\\\
\Delta_{N+1}&:&(~{}c~{},&\pi-b~{},&b-c~{})\end{array}$
(see also Figure 12). For $1\leq i<N$, the dihedral angles of
$\dot{\Delta}_{i},\ddot{\Delta}_{i}$ are simply given by Table (9). In keeping
with Table (9), we consider $z_{N}$ to be a non–hinge parameter.
Recall that $N\geq 1$: analogously to (7) – (10), we are thus looking for
sequences of the form
$\begin{array}[]{rrrrrrr}(&z_{0}~{},&z_{1}~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{N}~{},&z_{N+1}~{})\\\
=~{}(&\pi+\theta_{q}~{},&\pi-\theta_{r}~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{N}~{},&z_{N+1}~{})\end{array}$
subject to the conditions
$\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}z_{i-1}>z_{i}+z_{i+1}&\text{if $z_{i}$ is a hinge
parameter (\emph{hinge condition});}\\\ z_{i-1}+z_{i+1}>2z_{i}&\text{if not
(\emph{convexity condition}), e.g. $i=1$ or $N$ ;}\\\ 0<z_{i}<\pi&\text{for
all $2\leq i\leq N$ (\emph{range condition});}\\\
0<z_{2}<\pi-\theta_{q}&\text{as in (\ref{racohi}) above;}\\\
0<z_{N+1}<z_{N}&\text{which follows from (\ref{eq:last-angles}).}\\\
\end{array}\right.$
To find such a sequence, the argument that finishes Section 2.3 follows
through essentially unchanged: we construct a convex positive decreasing
sequence $(z_{i})_{0\leq i\leq h}$ where $h$ is the smallest hinge index (or
$h=N+1$ if there are no hinges), then set e.g. $z_{i+1}=\varepsilon z_{i}$
(inductively) for all $i\geq h$ and a fixed small $\varepsilon>0$. ∎
Finally, we must glue the faces of the solid torus $Y$ together to form the
Dehn filling $M_{s}$ of the Whitehead link complement. This is performed
exactly as in Section 5.2: we set $(\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r})$ as in
(18) for $0<\theta<\pi$, so that the faces of $\partial Y$ become two ideal
quadrilaterals $P,P^{\prime}$ with edges of slopes $0$ and $\infty$; then glue
$P$ to $P^{\prime}$ by an orientation–reversing homeomorphism sending the
edges of slope $0$ of $P$ to the edges of slope $\infty$ of $P^{\prime}$ (and
conversely). The angular gluing equations are automatically satisfied.
Therefore, the full space $W$ of $\iota$–invariant angle structures for
$\mathcal{D}$ is obtained by letting $\theta$ range over $(0,\pi)$ and finding
all $(\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r})$–angle structures in the sense of
Proposition 29.
###### Proposition 30.
The volume functional has a critical point, namely a maximum, on $W$.
###### Proof.
As in Proposition 15, the maximum of the (extended) volume functional is
achieved at some point $z$ of the closure $\overline{W}$ of $W$. Using (18),
the system of constraints (7) becomes
$\begin{array}[]{rrrrrrr}(&z_{0}~{},&z_{1}~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{N}~{},&z_{N+1}~{})\\\
=~{}(&\pi~{},&\theta~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{N}~{},&z_{N+1}~{})\\\ \text{or
}(&\pi+\theta~{},&\theta~{},&z_{2}~{},&\dots~{},&z_{N}~{},&z_{N+1}~{})\end{array}$
according to the value of $m$.
The assumption $\theta=\pi$ leads to a contradiction exactly as in the proof
of Proposition 28. Therefore $\theta<\pi$.
By (19), $\dot{\Delta}_{N}$ and $\ddot{\Delta}_{N}$ have a dihedral angle
equal to $b:=z_{N}$, while $\Delta_{N+1}$ has an angle $\pi-b$. On the other
hand, a tetrahedron of $\mathcal{D}$ is flat at $z\in\overline{W}$ if and only
if one (and therefore all) of its angles belong to $\\{0,\pi\\}$ (Proposition
7). Thus, $\dot{\Delta}_{N},\ddot{\Delta}_{N}$ are flat if and only if
$\Delta_{N+1}$ is flat (i.e. $b\in\\{0,\pi\\}$). The argument of Proposition
15 then follows through: at $z$, if some tetrahedra were flat, all would be
flat and the volume would be $0$; absurd. Thus $z\in W$. ∎
To apply Theorem 5, we only need to make sure that the critical point
(maximum) of $\mathcal{V}$ on the space $W$ of $\iota$–invariant angle
structures is also critical (maximal) in the space of _all_ angle structures:
but that is clear since by concavity of the volume functional (Fact 6), the
volume can only go up when we average an angle structure with its push–forward
by $\iota$. Theorem 5 does apply: we have found a complete hyperbolic
structure on the triangulated space $M_{s}$. To check that the triangulation
is canonical, we only need to check the Minkowski convexity relationship (12).
For boundary faces of $Y$, the situation is exactly the same as in Case $1$
(odd $l$). For interior faces of $Y$ not bounding the “extra” tetrahedron
$\Delta_{N+1}$, we proceed as in Section 4.4: the only new argument needed is
an analogue of Proposition 23 (predicting the handednesses of powers of the
core curve of $Y$), namely
###### Proposition 31.
Let $T_{i}$ be a Farey triangle such that $0<i<N$ and let
$x\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ be the Farey vertex $T_{i-1}\cap T_{i}\cap
T_{i+1}$. Consider a properly embedded line $\gamma_{x}$ of slope $x$ in
$\partial Y$ (running between two cusps), and a lift $\widehat{\gamma_{x}}$ of
$\gamma_{x}$ to a universal cover $U\subset\mathbb{H}^{3}$ of $Y$ (running
between two ideal points). The deck transformation of $U$ that sends the
initial point of $\widehat{\gamma_{x}}$ to the final point is left–handed
(resp. right–handed) if and only if the Farey triangle $T_{i}$ carries a
letter $L$ (resp. $R$).
###### Proof.
The proof is exactly as in Section 3. The key argument that the integral
$\lambda_{x}$ of the longitude $1$–form along $\widehat{\gamma_{x}}$ stays
less than $\pi$ is only easier, because the “longest” curve $\gamma_{m}$ runs
only around one half, not all, of the meridian of $U$ (connecting some ideal
vertex to its symmetric with respect to the axis of $U$); thus
$\lambda_{m}=\pi$ and $\lambda_{x}<\pi$. ∎
The only remaining case of the Minkowski convexity relationship (12) is at the
faces of $\Delta_{N+1}$. According to our picture of the cusp triangulation
(Figure 12), we can assume that the innermost hexagon $H_{N}$ has vertices at
$-1~{},~{}0~{},~{}\zeta~{},~{}1~{},~{}0~{},~{}-\zeta$
and look at the interface $\zeta\infty 0$ between ideal tetrahedra
$1\zeta\infty 0$ and $-1\zeta\infty 0$.
Following the method of Section 4.4, if $\zeta=\xi+i\eta$, the isotropic
vectors in $\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$ corresponding to the horoballs centered at
$\infty,0,\zeta,1,-1$ are respectively
$\begin{array}[]{lcccccccl}v_{\infty}&=&&(&0,&0,&-1,&1&)\\\
v_{0}&=&\frac{1}{|\zeta|}&(&0,&0,&1,&1&)\\\
v_{\zeta}&=&\frac{1}{|\zeta||\zeta-1|}&(&2\xi,&2\eta,&1-|\zeta|^{2},&1+|\zeta|^{2}&)\\\
v_{1}&=&\frac{1}{|\zeta-1|}&(&2,&0,&0,&2&)\\\
v_{-1}&=&\frac{1}{|\zeta-1|}&(&-2,&0,&0,&2&)~{}.\end{array}$
The solution to $\lambda v_{1}+(1-\lambda)v_{-1}=\alpha v_{\infty}+\beta
v_{0}+\gamma v_{\zeta}$ satisfies
$(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)=\left(\frac{1}{|\zeta-1|},\frac{|\zeta|}{|\zeta-1|},0\right)$,
hence $\alpha+\beta+\gamma=\frac{|\zeta|+1}{|\zeta-1|}>1$ according to the
triangular inequality in the triangle $(0,1,\zeta)$: by Proposition 25, the
convexity inequality in Minkowski space is satisfied.
### 5.4. Delaunay decompositions and elementary Kleinian groups
###### Remark 32.
If $U\subset\mathbb{H}^{3}$ is a (triangulated) universal cover of the solid
torus $Y$ and $\langle\varphi\rangle$ is the group of deck transformations of
$U$, we mentioned at the beginning of Section 5.3 that for each ideal vertex
$v$ of $U$, the symmetric $v^{\prime}$ of $v$ with respect to the axis of
$\varphi$ is also a vertex of $U$, and
$\Delta:=vv^{\prime}\varphi(v)\varphi(v^{\prime})$ is an ideal tetrahedron of
$U$ (projecting to $\Delta_{N+1}$). By duality between the Ford–Voronoi domain
and the canonical triangulation, the last computation of Section 5.3 amounts
to checking the following (easy) fact: if all vertices of $U$ are endowed with
horoballs of the same size, then the center of $\Delta$ is nearer to the
horoballs centered at the vertices of $\Delta$ than to any other horoballs.
More generally, if $n\geq 3$, let
$G:=\langle\varphi,\psi\rangle\subset\text{Isom}^{+}(\mathbb{H}^{3})$ be an
elementary group generated by a loxodromy $\varphi$ and an order–$n$ rotation
$\psi$ with the same axis $\delta$ (note that Section 5.3 amounted to the case
$n=2$, and Section 2 to the case $n=1$). Let
$\mathcal{O}:=Gp\subset\partial_{\infty}\mathbb{H}^{3}$ be a generic ideal
orbit of $G$; if $h_{p}$ is a horoball centered at $p$, all horoballs in the
$G$–orbit of $h_{p}$ come equally close to the line $\delta$. The convex hull
of $\mathcal{O}$ projects modulo $\varphi$ to an $n$–times punctured solid
torus $X$ whose boundary is pleated along a certain ideal triangulation in
which all vertices have the same degree (generically $6$, exceptionally $4$;
for simplicity let us assume the generic situation). The convex hull
construction in Minkowski space $\mathbb{R}^{3+1}$ yields a decomposition of
$X$ into ideal polyhedra with respect to the horoballs $Gh_{p}$. The central
polyhedron is the convex hull $Q$ of $\langle\psi\rangle
p\cup\varphi(\langle\psi\rangle p)$, namely an ideal hyperbolic antiprism with
regular $n$–sided bases (glued together _via_ $\varphi$): indeed, it is easy
to check that the center of $Q$ is closer to the horoballs centered at the
vertices of $Q$ than to any other horoballs of the $G$–orbit.
It is possible that $Q$ is the only cell of $X$. Otherwise, we claim that the
remaining cells between $Q$ and $\partial X$ are tetrahedra glued together
according to diagonal exchanges and Farey–type combinatorics: namely,
$\partial X/\psi$ is a once–punctured torus with ideal edges of slope
$p,q,r\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$ for some arbitrary marking (these slopes
are mutual Farey neighbors). The meridian of X defines the $n$-th power of an
irreducible element of $H_{1}(\partial X/\psi,\mathbb{Z})$, and therefore also
a slope $m\in\mathbb{P}^{1}\mathbb{Q}$. Since $m$ is the slope of the base
edges of the antiprism $Q$, if $Q$ is the only cell in $X$ then
$m\in\\{p,q,r\\}$. Otherwise, we may as in Section 2 assume that the Farey
edge $pq$ separates $m$ from $r$ and follow the line $\ell$ from $r$ to $m$ to
construct a (combinatorial) ideal decomposition $\mathcal{D}$ of $X$.
In fact, the following “Gauss–Bonnet type” result (left as an exercise) is a
simple generalization of the method worked out in this paper. It uses the fact
that the antiprism $Q$ (like any convex ideal hyperbolic polyhedron, see [R2,
G1]) is uniquely determined up to isometry by its dihedral angles.
###### Theorem 33.
Consider non–negative reals $\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r}$ satisfying (5),
namely $0<\theta_{r}<\pi=\theta_{p}+\theta_{q}+\theta_{r}$. There exists a
hyperbolic $n$-times punctured solid torus $X$, decomposed into convex ideal
polyhedra according to the combinatorics of $\mathcal{D}$ and with exterior
dihedral angles $\theta_{p},\theta_{q},\theta_{r}$ at the edges of slope
$p,q,r$, if and only if
$(m\wedge p)\theta_{p}+(m\wedge q)\theta_{q}+(m\wedge
r)\theta_{r}>\frac{2\pi}{n}.$
Moreover, $X$ is then unique up to isometry and $\mathcal{D}$ is the Delaunay
decomposition of $X$. ∎
## References
* [A1] Hirotaka Akiyoshi, _On the Ford domains of once–punctured torus groups_ , in _Hyperbolic spaces and related topics_ , RIMS, Kyoto, Kokyuroku 1104 (1999), 109–121.
* [A2] Hirotaka Akiyoshi, _Finiteness of polyhedral decompositions of cusped hyperbolic manifolds obtained by the Epstein-Penner method_ , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 129, no. 8 (2001), 2431–2439.
* [AS] Hirotaka Akiyoshi, Makoto Sakuma, _Comparing two convex hull constructions of cusped hyperbolic manifolds_ , Proceedings of the Workshop “Kleinian groups and hyperbolic 3-manifolds” (Warwick 2002), Lond. Math. Soc. Lecture Notes 299 (2003), 209–246.
* [ASWY1] Hirotaka Akiyoshi, Makoto Sakuma, Masaaki Wada, Yasushi Yamashita, _Jorgensen’s picture of punctured torus groups and its refinement_ , in _Kleinian Groups and Hyperbolic 3-Manifolds_ , Y. Komori, V. Markovic, C. Series (Ed.), Lond. Math. Soc. Lecture Notes, 299, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003.
* [ASWY2] Hirotaka Akiyoshi, Makoto Sakuma, Masaaki Wada, Yasushi Yamashita, _Punctured torus groups and 2-bridge knot groups_ , preprint.
* [DP] Todd Drumm, Jonathan Poritz, _Ford and Dirichlet domains for cyclic subgroups of $PSL(2,\mathbb{C})$ acting on $\mathbb{H}^{3}_{\mathbb{R}}$ and $\partial\mathbb{H}3_{\mathbb{R}}$_, Conf. Geom. and Dynamics 3 (1999), 116–150.
* [EP] David B.A. Epstein, Robert C. Penner, _Euclidean decompositions of noncompact hyperbolic manifolds_ , J. Diff. Geom. 27 (1988), 67–80.
* [FG] David Futer, François Guéritaud, _Angled decompositions of arborescent link complements_ , arXiv:math.GT/0610775, 2006.
* [G1] François Guéritaud, _On an elementary proof of Rivin’s characterization of convex ideal hyperbolic polyhedra by their dihedral angles_ , Geom. Dedicata 108–1 (2004), 111–124.
* [G2] François Guéritaud, _Triangulated cores of punctured-torus groups_ , arXiv:math.GT/0605481 (2006), to appear in J. Diff. Geom.
* [G3] François Guéritaud, _Géométrie hyperbolique effective et triangulations idéales canoniques en dimension trois_ , doctoral dissertation, Université d’Orsay, 2006.
* [GF] François Guéritaud, with an Appendix by David Futer, _On canonical triangulations of once–punctured torus bundles and two-bridge link complements_ , Geometry & Topology 10 (2006), 1239- 1284.
* [J1] Troels Jørgensen, _On cyclic groups of Möbius transformations_ , Math. Scand. 33 (1973), 250–260.
* [J2] Troels Jørgensen, _On pairs of punctured tori_ (unfinished manuscript), in _Kleinian groups and hyperbolic 3-manifolds_ (Y. Komori, V. Markovic, C. Series, Ed.), Lond. Math. Soc. Lecture notes 299 (2003), 183–207.
* [JR] Bus Jaco, Hyam Rubinstein, _Layered–triangulations of $3$–manifolds_, preprint (2006), 96 pages, available at http://www.math.okstate.edu/~jaco/
* [La] Marc Lackenby, _The canonical decomposition of once–punctured torus bundles_ , Comment. Math. Helv. 78 (2003), 363–384.
* [R1] Igor Rivin, _Euclidean structures on simplicial surfaces and hyperbolic volume_ , Ann. of Math. (2) 139 (1994), 553–580.
* [R2] Igor Rivin, _Combinatorial optimization in Geometry_ , Advances in Applied Math. 31–1 (2003), 242–271.
* [SW] Makoto Sakuma, Jeffrey Weeks, _Examples of canonical decompositions of hyperbolic link complements_ , Japan. J. Math. (N.S.) 21 (1995), no. 2, 393–439.
* [Th] William P. Thurston, _The Geometry and Topology of Three–Manifolds_ , Princeton Univ. Math. Depts. (1978), available at http://www.msri.org/communications/books/gt3m/PDF
* [We] Jeffrey Weeks, _SnapPea_ , a software for the study of hyperbolic manifolds, http://www.geometrygames.org/SnapPea/ .
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-09T14:11:14 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.717503 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Fran\\c{c}ois Gu\\'eritaud, Saul Schleimer",
"submitter": "Fran\\c{c}ois Gu\\'eritaud",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1359"
} |
0805.1375 | # Seidel’s representation on the Hamiltonian group of a Cartesian product
Andrés Pedroza Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad de Colima
Bernal Díaz del Castillo No. 340
Colima, Col., Mexico 28045 andres_pedroza@ucol.mx
###### Abstract.
Let $(M,\omega)$ be a closed symplectic manifold and $\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$
the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms of $(M,\omega)$. Then the Seidel
homomorphism is a map from the fundamental group of $\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$
to the quantum homology ring $QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$. Using this homomorphism we
give a sufficient condition for when a nontrivial loop $\psi$ in
$\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$ determines a nontrivial loop
$\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}$ in $\textup{Ham}(M\times N,\omega\oplus\eta)$,
where $(N,\eta)$ is a closed symplectic manifold such that $\pi_{2}(N)=0$.
###### Key words and phrases:
Seidel’s representation, Hamiltonian diffeomorphism group, quantum homology.
## 1\. Introduction
Let $(M,\omega)$ be a closed symplectic manifold and
$\psi=\\{\psi_{t}\\}_{0\leq t\leq 1}$ a loop about the indentity map in the
group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms $\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$. Then associated
to $\psi$, there is a fibration $\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ with fiber $M$. In [8], P. Seidel
defined a group homomorphism
$\mathcal{S}:\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$, where
$QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$ is the quantum homology ring of $(M,\omega)$. The map
$\mathcal{S}$ is usually called Seidel’s representation, since its image lies
in the subring of units of $QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$, which in turn defines a
homomorphism of the quantum homology ring via quantum multiplication. The
homomorphism $\mathcal{S}$ can be thought as the quantum analog of Weinstein’s
action
$\mathcal{A}:\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\mathbb{R}/P_{\omega}$ of [9]. The
element $\mathcal{S}(\psi)$, is defined in terms of Gromov-Witten invariants
related to the moduli space of holomorphic sections of the induced fibration
$\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$. This homomorphism was used by P.
Seidel to detect nontrivial loops in the group $\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$.
Further, the type of Gromov-Witten invariants involved in the definition of
$\mathcal{S}$, where studied by D. McDuff in [3], to show that the rational
cohomology of a Hamiltonian fibration splits.
For very special symplectic manifolds the fundamental group of
$\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$ is completely known. The easiest case is when $M$ has
dimension 2, since in this case symplectic diffeomorphisms agree with volume
preserving diffeomorphisms. Hence the fundamental group of
$\textup{Ham}(S^{2},\omega)$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$; and
$\textup{Ham}(\Sigma_{g},\omega)$ is contractible for $g\geq 1$. For further
details see [7]. In higher dimensions M. Gromov showed in [1] that the
fundamental group of $\textup{Ham}(\mathbb{C}P^{2},\omega_{FS})$ is isomorphic
to $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$ and the fundamental group of $\textup{Ham}(S^{2}\times
S^{2},\omega\oplus\omega)$ is isomorphic to a semidirect product of
$\mathbb{Z}_{2}$ with itself. The last case is more interesting when the
standard symplectic $\omega\oplus\omega$ on $S^{2}\times S^{2}$ is replaced by
the symplectic form $\lambda\omega\oplus\omega$, where $\lambda$ is a real
constant greater than 1. In this case D. McDuff proved that the fundamental
group of $\textup{Ham}(S^{2}\times S^{2},\omega\oplus\lambda\omega)$ contains
an element of infinite order.
Consider $(M,\omega)$ and $(N,\eta)$ closed symplectic manifolds. Moreover
assume that both manifolds are monotone. If $\psi$ is a loop of Hamiltonian
diffeomorphisms of $(M,\omega)$ based at the identity map, then
$\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}$ is a loop of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms of the
symplectic manifold $(M\times N,\omega\oplus\eta)$. Then both loops $\psi$ and
$\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}$ induce fibrations
$\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ and
$\pi_{1}:P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ with fibers the symplectic
manifolds $M$ and $M\times N$ respectively. This article aims on relating
Seidel’s representations over $\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))$ and
$\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times N,\omega\oplus\eta))$. We show that Seidel’s
representation on $\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times N,\omega\oplus\eta))$
restricted to elements of the form $\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}$ is essentially
the same as Seidel’s representation on $\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))$.
We achieve this by relating the fundamental groups of $\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$
and $\textup{Ham}(M\times N,\omega\oplus\eta)$ and the quantum homology rings
of $M$ and $M\times N$. For, let
$\tau:\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times
N,\omega\oplus\eta))$
be the group homomorphism defined by $\tau(\psi)=\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}$,
and
$\kappa:QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}QH_{*+\textup{dim}(N)}(M\times
N;\Lambda)$
be the map defined on homogeneous elements by $\kappa(\alpha\otimes
q^{s}t^{r})=(\alpha\otimes[N])\otimes q^{s}t^{r}$ where $\alpha\in H_{*}(M)$
and $\alpha\otimes[N]\in H_{*}(M\times N)$. Extend $\Lambda$-linearly the map
$\kappa$ to all the quantum homology ring $QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$. In Section 4 we
show that $\kappa$ is in fact a ring homomorphism under the quantum product,
if both manifolds $(M,\omega)$ and $(N,\eta)$ are monotone with the same
constant. This statement, as others in this article, is a direct consequence
of the fact that the quantum homology ring $QH_{*}(M\times N;\Lambda)$
satisfies the Künneth formula.
###### Theorem 1.1.
Let $(M,\omega)$ and $(N,\eta)$ be closed symplectic manifolds. Assume that
$(M,\omega)$ has dimension $2n$ and is monotone, and that $\pi_{2}(N)=0$. Then
$\mathcal{S}\circ\tau(\psi)=\kappa\circ\mathcal{S}(\psi)$ for every $\psi$ in
$\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))$. That is the following diagram commutes
$\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))\hskip 85.35826pt\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times
N,\omega\oplus\eta))$$QH_{2n}(M;\Lambda)\hskip
113.81102ptQH_{2n+\textup{dim}(N)}(M\times
N;\Lambda)$$\mathcal{S}$$\mathcal{S}$$\tau$$\kappa$
It is important to relate Thm. 1.1 with a result of D. McDuff and S. Tolman.
In [6], McDuff and Tolman found a formula for $\mathcal{S}(\psi)$ in the case
when $\psi$ is a Hamiltonian circle action on $(M,\omega)$. Thus if $\psi$ is
a Hamiltonian circle action on $(M,\omega)$, denote by
$K:M\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\mathbb{R}$ the normalized moment map of
the circle action and by $K_{0}$ the maximum value of $K$. Let
$M_{\textup{max}}$ be the symplectic submanifold on which the moment map $K$
achieves its maximun. Note that $M_{\textup{max}}$ is part of the fixed point
set of the circle action. Finally assume that there is a neighborhood $U$ of
$M_{\textup{max}}$ such that the action of the circle is free on
$U-M_{\textup{max}}$. Under the above assumptions McDuff-Tolman formula for
the circle action $\psi$ reads
$\displaystyle\mathcal{S}(\psi)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle[M_{\textup{max}}]\otimes
q^{\textup{codim}(M_{\textup{max}})/2}t^{-K_{0}}+$
$\displaystyle\sum_{\\{A:\tilde{\omega}(A)>K_{0}\\}}\alpha_{A}\otimes
q^{-c(A)}t^{-\tilde{\omega}(A)}.$
In order to make a clear statement of the goal of this article we postpone to
Section 3, the definitions of the elements $A,c(A)$ and $\tilde{\omega}(A)$
that appear in Eq. (1). Also a word of warning about Eq. (1). We have used the
notation of [5] in stating McDuff-Tolman formula and not that of the original
paper [6]. At then end of Section 3, we clarify how they are related.
Now let $(M,\omega)$ and $\psi$ be as above and $(N,\eta)$ any closed
symplectic manifold. Then $\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}$ is also a Hamiltonian
circle action on $M\times N$ with moment map $H:M\times
N\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\mathbb{R}$ given by $H(p,q)=K(p)$. So
defined, the moment map $H$ is normalized. Also $(M\times
N)_{\textup{max}}=M_{\textup{max}}\times N$ and $H_{0}=K_{0}$. Observe that
$\textup{codim}_{M}(M_{\textup{max}})=\textup{codim}_{M\times
N}(M_{\textup{max}}\times N)$. Thus McDuff-Tolman formula for the circle
action $\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}$ is,
$\displaystyle\mathcal{S}(\psi\times\textup{id}_{N})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle[M_{\textup{max}}\times N]\otimes
q^{\textup{codim}(M_{\textup{max}})/2}t^{-K_{0}}+$
$\displaystyle\sum_{\\{A^{\prime}:\tilde{\omega}^{\prime}(A^{\prime})>K_{0}\\}}\alpha^{\prime}_{A^{\prime}}\otimes
q^{-c^{\prime}(A^{\prime})}t^{-\tilde{\omega}^{\prime}(A^{\prime})}.$
At this point is important to observe that the first term on the right hand
side of Eqs. (1) and (1) only differ by the class $[N]$. Well Thm. 1.1
guarantees that if $\pi_{2}(N)=0$ not only the first terms of
$\mathcal{S}(\psi)$ and $\mathcal{S}(\psi\times\textup{id}_{N})$ differ by
$[N]$, but the equality
$\mathcal{S}(\psi)\otimes[N]=\mathcal{S}(\psi\times\textup{id}_{N})$ holds in
$QH_{*}(M\times N;\Lambda)$ for any loop $\psi$, not just a circle action.
Notice that the map $\kappa:QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}QH_{*+\textup{dim}(N)}(M\times
N;\Lambda)$ so defined is injective. Therefore Thm. 1.1 tells us when a
nontrivial $\psi\in\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))$ induces a nontrivial
element $\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}$ in $\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times
N,\omega\oplus\eta))$.
###### Corollary 1.2.
Let $(M,\omega)$ and $(N,\eta)$ be as in Thm. 1.1. Then if
$\psi\in\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))$ is such that $\mathcal{S}(\psi)\neq
1=[M]$, then the loop $\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}$ is also nontrivial in
$\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times N,\omega\oplus\eta))$.
Hence if the Seidel representation on $\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))$ is
injective, we conclude that the group homomorphism
$\tau:\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times
N,\omega\oplus\eta))$ is also injective. For instance, by the result of McDuff
and Tolman we know that the Seidel representation is injective in the case
when $M=S^{2}$ or $\mathbb{C}P^{2}$. Therefore for any closed symplectic
manifold $(N,\eta)$ such that $\pi_{2}(N)=0$, we have that the group
homomorphism
$\tau:\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times
N,\omega\oplus\eta))$ is injective for $M=S^{2}$ or $\mathbb{C}P^{2}$.
Example. Let $(M,\omega)$ and $(N,\eta)$ be symplectic manifolds as in Thm.
1.1. Moreover assume that there is a loop $\gamma$ in $\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$
such that $\mathcal{S}(\gamma)$ has infinite order in $QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$
under quantum multiplication. Thus the loop $\gamma$ also has infinite order
in the fundamental group of $\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$.
Hence we have that $\mathcal{S}(\gamma^{m})$ is not equal to the identity
$1=[M]$ in $QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$ for all $m\in\mathbb{Z}$ different from zero.
Then by Cor. 1.2, it follows that the loop $\gamma^{m}\times\textup{id}_{N}$
is not homologous to the constant loop in $\textup{Ham}(M\times
N,\omega\oplus\eta)$ for all nonzero $m$. That is,
$\gamma^{m}\times\textup{id}_{N}$ is an element of infinite order in
$\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times N,\omega\oplus\eta))$.
Now consider the case when $M=N$. Hence assume that $(M,\omega)$ is a closed
symplectic manifold such that $\pi_{2}(M)$ is trivial. Thus $(M,\omega)$ is
monotone. We are intrested in understanding when a nontrivial loop $\psi$ in
$\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$ induces a nontrivial loop $\psi\times\psi$ in
$\textup{Ham}(M\times M,\omega\oplus\omega)$. That is, we are intrested in the
image of the group homomorphism
$\tau^{\prime}:\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times
M,\omega\oplus\omega))$
defined by $\tau^{\prime}(\psi)=\psi\times\psi$.
Consider the map
$\kappa^{\prime}:QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}QH_{*+*}(M\times
M;\Lambda)\simeq(H_{*}(M)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}H_{*}(M))\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\Lambda$
defined on homogeneous elements by $\kappa^{\prime}(\alpha\otimes
q^{s}t^{r})=(\alpha\otimes\alpha)\otimes q^{2s}t^{2r}$ where $\alpha\in
H_{*}(M)$. In Section 4 we will review the fact that the Künneth formula holds
in quantum homology. Hence the map $\kappa^{\prime}$ corresponds to the
diagonal map
$\Delta:QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\otimes_{\Lambda}QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\simeq
QH_{*}(M\times M;\Lambda)$
defined by $\Delta(x)=x\otimes x$ for all $x\in QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$ via the
quantum Künneth formula.
###### Theorem 1.3.
Let $(M,\omega)$ be closed symplectic manifold of dimension $2n$ such that
$\pi_{2}(M)$ is trivial. Then
$\mathcal{S}\circ\tau^{\prime}(\psi)=\kappa^{\prime}\circ\mathcal{S}(\psi)$
for every $\psi$ in $\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))$. That is the following
diagram commutes
$\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))\hskip 85.35826pt\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times
M,\omega\oplus\omega))$$QH_{2n}(M;\Lambda)\hskip 113.81102ptQH_{4n}(M\times
M;\Lambda)$$\mathcal{S}$$\mathcal{S}$$\tau^{\prime}$$\kappa^{\prime}$
As in the case of Thm. 1.1, one can use McDuff-Tolman formula to verify that
Thm. 1.3 works in the case when the Hamiltonian loop $\psi$ is a Hamiltonian
circle action. In fact, if $(M,\omega)$, $\psi$, and
$K:M\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\mathbb{R}$ are as above, that is $\psi$
is a Hamiltonian circle action with normalized moment map $K$, then
$\psi\times\psi$ is a Hamiltonian circle action on the product manifold
$(M\times M,\omega\oplus\omega)$ with normalized moment map $H:M\times
M\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\mathbb{R}$ given by
$H(p_{1},p_{2})=K(p_{1})+K(p_{2})$. Hence the maximun value $H_{0}$ of the
moment map $H$ satisfies the relation $H_{0}=2K_{0}$ and also $(M\times
M)_{\textup{max}}=M_{\textup{max}}\times M_{\textup{max}}$. Then in this case
McDuff-Tolman formula for the Hamiltonian circle action $\psi\times\psi$ on
$M\times M$ is given by
(3) $\displaystyle\mathcal{S}(\psi\times\psi)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle[M_{\textup{max}}\times M_{\textup{max}}]\otimes
q^{\textup{codim}_{M\times M}(M_{\textup{max}}\times
M_{\textup{max}})/2}t^{-H_{0}}+$
$\displaystyle\sum_{\\{A:\tilde{\omega}(A)>H_{0}\\}}\alpha_{A}\otimes
q^{-c(A)}t^{-\tilde{\omega}(A)}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle[M_{\textup{max}}\times M_{\textup{max}}]\otimes
q^{\textup{codim}_{M}(M_{\textup{max}})}t^{-2K_{0}}+$
$\displaystyle\sum_{\\{A:\tilde{\omega}(A)>2K_{0}\\}}\alpha_{A}\otimes
q^{-c(A)}t^{-\tilde{\omega}(A)}.$
Comparing the first term on the right hand side of Eqs. (1) and (3), one
checks that they are related by the map $\kappa^{\prime}$. Well according to
Thm. 1.3, $\mathcal{S}(\psi)$ and $\mathcal{S}(\psi\times\psi)$ are related by
the map $\kappa^{\prime}$ for any loop $\psi$ in $\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$, not
just a Hamiltonian circle action.
As before the map $\kappa^{\prime}$ so defined is injective. Hence we have a
criteria to determine when the loop $\psi\times\psi$ is nontrivial in
$\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times M,\omega\oplus\omega))$.
###### Corollary 1.4.
Let $(M,\omega)$ be a closed symplectic manifold such that $\pi_{2}(M)=0$. If
$\psi\in\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))$ is such that $\mathcal{S}(\psi)\neq
1=[M]$, then the Hamiltonian loop $\psi\times\psi$ is nontrivial in
$\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times M,\omega\oplus\omega))$.
The author would like to thank Prof. Dusa McDuff for her patience on reading
the first draft of the manuscript and making valuable observations to it; and
the Referee for the useful comments and suggestions. The author was partially
supported by Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología México grant.
## 2\. Hamiltonian fibrations
Consider $(M,\omega)$ a closed symplectic manifold. Let
$\psi=\\{\psi_{t}\\}_{0\leq t\leq 1}$ be a loop about the indentity map in the
group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms $\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$. Associated to
$\psi$ there is a smooth fibration
$\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ with fiber $M$ defined as
follows. Let $D^{+}=\\{z\in\mathbb{C}\mbox{ }|\mbox{ }|z|\leq 1\\}$ be the
closed unit disk with the positive orientation. Then the total space of the
fibration $P_{\psi}$ is defined as
$(D^{+}\times M)\amalg(D^{-}\times M)/\sim$
where $(e^{it},p)_{+}\sim(e^{-it},\psi_{t}^{-1}(p))_{-}$ and $D^{-}$ stands
for $D^{+}$ with the opposite orientation. This fibration has
$\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$ as structure group, and is called Hamiltonian
fibration. See ([5], p. 251).
In fact there is a one-to-one correspondence between homotopic loops in
$\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$ based at the identity map $\textup{id}_{M}$ and
isomorphic fibrations over $S^{2}$ with fiber $M$ and structure group
$\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$. In order to avoid cumbersome notation we will use
the same notation to denote loops based at the identity in
$\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$ and its homotopy class in
$\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))$, namely $\psi=\\{\psi_{t}\\}_{0\leq t\leq
1}$.
In a Hamiltonian fibration $\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ with fiber the symplectic
manifold $(M,\omega)$, there exists a closed $2$-form $\tilde{\omega}$ on
$P_{\psi}$ such that it restricts to $\omega_{z}$ on every fiber
$(P_{\psi})_{z}$ for $z\in S^{2}$, and such that
$\pi_{!}(\tilde{\omega}^{n+1})=0,$
where $\pi_{!}:H^{*}(P_{\psi})\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}H^{*-\textup{dim(M)}}(S^{2})$ stands for
integration along the fiber $M$. A $2$-form $\tilde{\omega}$ that satisfies
the above conditions is called a coupling form. See [2] for more details. The
coupling form $\tilde{\omega}$ defines a connection on the fibration, where
the horizontal distribution is defined as the $\tilde{\omega}$-complement of
the vertical subspace. That is, for $p\in P_{\psi}$,
$\textup{hor}(T_{p}P_{\psi})=\\{v\in T_{p}P_{\psi}\mbox{ }|\mbox{
}\tilde{\omega}(v,u)=0\textup{ for all }u\in\textup{ker}(\pi_{*,p})\\}.$
There is another canonical class associated to the fibration
$\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$, apart from the cohomology class
determined by coupling form. Recall that the vertical vector bundle of a
fibration is the vector bundle
$T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi}=\\{v\in T_{p}P_{\psi}\mbox{ }|\mbox{
}\pi_{*,p}(v)=0\\}$
over the total space $P_{\psi}$. The coupling form $\tilde{\omega}$ restricted
to this subbundle is nondegenerate. Thus the first Chern class of
$T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi}$ is well defined. This class is denoted by
$c_{\psi}:=c_{1}(T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi})\in H^{2}(P_{\psi};\mathbb{Z})$.
Let $(M,\omega)$ and $(N,\eta)$ be closed symplectic manifolds, then $(M\times
N,\omega\oplus\eta)$ is also a closed symplectic manifold. Note that the
$2$-form $\omega\oplus\eta$ is a shorthand notation for the $2$-form
$(\textup{pr}_{M})^{*}(\omega)+(\textup{pr}_{N})^{*}(\eta)$ on $M\times N$,
where $\textup{pr}_{M}$ and $\textup{pr}_{N}$ are the projection maps from
$M\times N$ to $M$ and $N$ respectively. If $\psi$ is a loop in the group
$\textup{Ham}(M,\omega)$, then $\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}$ is also a loop of
Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms of the symplectic manifold $(M\times
N,\omega\oplus\eta)$. Thus there is a Hamiltonian fibration
$\pi_{1}:P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ with fiber $M\times N$. As before
we have the fiber bundle $\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ with fiber $M$. Define the
fibration $\pi_{0}:P_{\psi}\times N\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ where the projection map is
defined as $\pi_{0}(x,q)=\pi(x)$. So defined $\pi_{0}$ is a fiber bundle with
fiber $M\times N$. Well both fiber bundles $P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}$ and
$P_{\psi}\times N$ are isomorphic.
###### Lemma 2.5.
The fiber bundles $\pi_{0}:P_{\psi}\times N\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ and
$\pi_{1}:P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ with fiber $M\times N$ are
isomorphic fibrations.
Proof. Consider the map $\rho:\left((D^{+}\times M)\amalg(D^{-}\times
M)\right)\times N\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}$ defined
as $\rho((u,p),q)=[u,p,q]$. Then
$\rho((e^{it},p),q)=[e^{it},p,q]=[e^{-it},\psi_{t}^{-1}(p),\textup{id}_{N}(q)]=\rho((e^{-it},\psi_{t}^{-1}(p)),q).$
This means that $\rho$ induces a map on the quotient $P_{\psi}\times N$. We
denote such map by the same letter $\rho$. So defined $\rho:P_{\psi}\times
N\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}$ is smooth
and bijective. Moreover for any $([u,p],q)\in P_{\psi}\times N$ we have that
$\pi_{0}([u,p],q)=\pi([u,p])=u\hbox{ \hskip 17.07182ptand \hskip
17.07182pt}\pi_{1}\circ\rho([u,p],q)=\pi_{1}([u,p,q])=u.$
Therefore $\pi_{0}=\pi_{1}\circ\rho$ and $\rho$ is fiberwise preserving. That
is the fiber bundles $P_{\psi}\times N$ and $P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}$
are isomorphic fibrations. $\Box$
Thus there are two isomorphic fibrations over $S^{2}$ with fiber $M\times N$;
$P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}$ and $P_{\psi}\times N$. Hence both vertical
bundles are isomorphic $T^{\textup{V}}(P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}})\simeq
T^{\textup{V}}(P_{\psi}\times N)$ as vector bundles. In order to compare the
first Chern classes of both fibrations, consider the projections maps
$\lambda_{1}:P_{\psi}\times N\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi}$, $\lambda_{2}:P_{\psi}\times
N\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}N$
and the diagram
$T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi}$$P_{\psi}$$(\lambda_{1})^{*}(T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi})\oplus(\lambda_{2})^{*}(TN)$$P_{\psi}\times
N$$TN$$N$$\lambda_{1}$$\lambda_{2}$
where $(\lambda_{1})^{*}(T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi})$ and $(\lambda_{2})^{*}(TN)$
stand for the pullback bundles.
###### Proposition 2.6.
The vector bundles $T^{\textup{V}}(P_{\psi}\times N)$ and
$(\lambda_{1})^{*}(T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi})\oplus(\lambda_{2})^{*}(TN)$ are
isomorphic vector bundles over $P_{\psi}\times N$.
Proof. Let $x=(p,q)\in P_{\psi}\times N$ and $u=u_{1}+u_{2}\in
T_{x}(P_{\psi}\times N)\simeq T_{p}P_{\psi}\oplus T_{q}N$. Thus the vector $u$
belongs to $T^{\textup{V}}(P_{\psi}\times N)$ if and only if
$(\pi_{0})_{*}(u)=0$. By the definition of the map $\pi_{0}$, we have
$(\pi_{0})_{*,x}(u_{1}+u_{2})=(\pi)_{*,p}(u_{1})=0$. Thus $u=u_{1}+u_{2}$ is
in $T^{\textup{V}}(P_{\psi}\times N)$ if and only if $u_{1}$ is in
$T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi}$ and $u_{2}$ is in $TN$. Therefore
$T^{\textup{V}}(P_{\psi}\times
N)\simeq(\lambda_{1})^{*}(T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi})\oplus(\lambda_{2})^{*}(TN)$
as vector bundles. $\Box$
Let $c_{\psi}\in H^{2}(P_{\psi};\mathbb{Z})$ be the first Chern class of the
vector bundle $T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi}$. And respectively
$c_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}\in
H^{2}(P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}};\mathbb{Z})=H^{2}(P_{\psi}\times
N;\mathbb{Z})$.
###### Lemma 2.7.
On $H^{2}(P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}};\mathbb{Z})$ we have the identity
$c_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}=(\lambda_{1})^{*}(c_{\psi})+(\lambda_{2})^{*}(c_{1}(N))$
where $c_{1}(N)$ stands for the first Chern class of $(N,\eta)$.
Proof. By definition we have
$c_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}=c_{1}(T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}})$.
Then it follows by Prop. 2.6 that
$\displaystyle c_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
c_{1}(T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle
c_{1}((\lambda_{1})^{*}(T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi})\oplus(\lambda_{2})^{*}(TN))$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
c_{1}((\lambda_{1})^{*}(T^{\textup{V}}P_{\psi}))+c_{1}((\lambda_{2})^{*}(TN))$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\lambda_{1})^{*}(c_{\psi})+(\lambda_{2})^{*}(c_{1}(N)).$
$\Box$
A similar result holds for the coupling forms of the fibrations $P_{\psi}$ and
$P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}$.
###### Lemma 2.8.
If $\tilde{\omega}$ is a coupling form of the Hamiltonian fibration
$\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$, then
$(\lambda_{1})^{*}(\tilde{\omega})+(\lambda_{2})^{*}(\eta)$ is a coupling form
of the fibration $\pi_{0}:P_{\psi}\times N\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$.
The proof follows from Lemma 2.5 and the definition of the coupling form. We
will write $\tilde{\omega}\oplus\eta$ for the coupling form
$(\lambda_{1})^{*}(\tilde{\omega})+(\lambda_{2})^{*}(\eta)$ on $P_{\psi}\times
N\simeq P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}.$
Remark. In the proof of the main theorem it will be important to note the
following. Let $A\in H_{2}(P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}};\mathbb{Z})$ be any
class such that $(\lambda_{2})_{*}(A)=0$. Then it follows from Lemmas 2.7 and
2.8 that
(4) $\displaystyle
c_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}(A)=c_{\psi}((\lambda_{1})_{*}(A)),$
and
(5)
$\displaystyle\tilde{\omega}\oplus\eta(A)=\tilde{\omega}((\lambda_{1})_{*}(A)).$
## 3\. Small quantum homology and Seidel’s homomorphism
In this section we will review the concepts needed to define Seidel’s
representation. We will follow closely the exposition and notations of D.
McDuff and D. Salamon [5].
Let $\psi$ be a loop in the group of Hamiltonian diffeomorphisms of
$(M,\omega)$ and $\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ the Hamiltonian fibration
associated to the loop $\psi$. Consider $\tilde{\omega}$ a coupling form on
the fibration. Then for a large positive constant $K$ the form
$\Omega:=\tilde{\omega}+K\pi^{*}(\omega_{0})$ on $P_{\psi}$ is a nondegenerate
$2$-form, where $\omega_{0}$ is an area form on $S^{2}$. Is important to note
that $\Omega$ and $\tilde{\omega}$ induced the same horizontal distribution on
$P_{\psi}$. Denote by $\mathcal{J}(P_{\psi},\pi,\Omega)$ the set of almost
complex structures $J$ on $P_{\psi}$ that are $\Omega$-compatible and such
that the projection map $\pi:(P_{\psi},J)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}(S^{2},j_{0})$ is holomorphic. Here
$j_{0}$ is an arbitrary complex structure on $S^{2}$. Recall that
$\Omega$-compatible means in particular that $\Omega(Ju,Jv)=\Omega(u,v)$; and
$\pi:(P_{\psi},J)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}(S^{2},j_{0})$ is holomorphic if
$j_{0}\circ(d\pi)=(d\pi)\circ J$. Since for any
$J\in\mathcal{J}(P_{\psi},\pi,\Omega)$ the projection map $\pi$ is
holomorphic, then $J$ preserves the vertical tangent space of $P_{\psi}$. Also
since $J$ is a $\Omega$-compatible almost complex structure, $J$ preserves the
horizontal distribution of $P_{\psi}$.
Consider a spherical class $A\in H_{2}(P_{\psi};\mathbb{Z})$, that is $A$ is
in the image of the Hurewicz homomorphism
$\pi_{2}(P_{\psi})\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}H_{2}(P_{\psi})$. Then if
$J\in\mathcal{J}(P_{\psi},\pi,\Omega)$, let $\mathcal{M}(A;J)$ be the moduli
space of $J$-holomorphic sections of $P_{\psi}$ that represent the class $A$,
$\mathcal{M}(A;J)=\\{u:S^{2}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi}\mbox{ }|\mbox{
}\bar{\partial}_{J}(u)=0,\pi\circ u=\textup{id}_{S^{2}},[u]=A\\}.$
Here $\bar{\partial}_{J}$ stands for the Cauchy-Riemann equation
$\bar{\partial}_{J}(u)=\frac{1}{2}\left(du+J\circ du\circ j_{0}\right).$
where $j_{0}$ is a fix complex structure on $S^{2}$.
To assure that the moduli space $\mathcal{M}(A;J)$ is a smooth finite
dimensional manifold, one considers the linearized operator
$D_{u}:\Omega^{0}(S^{2},u^{*}(TP_{\psi}))\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\Omega^{0,1}(S^{2},u^{*}(TP_{\psi}))$
of $\bar{\partial}_{J}$. One finds that there is a subset
$\mathcal{J}_{reg}(P_{\psi},\pi,\Omega)\subset\mathcal{J}(P_{\psi},\pi,\Omega)$
such that if $J$ is in $\mathcal{J}_{reg}(P_{\psi},\pi,\Omega)$, then
$\mathcal{M}(A;J)$ is a smooth manifold of dimension $2n+2c_{\psi}(A),$ where
the symplectic manifold $(M,\omega)$ has dimension $2n$. Moreover
$\mathcal{M}(A;J)$ carries a natural orientation. The set
$\mathcal{J}_{reg}(P_{\psi},\pi,\Omega)$ is characterized by the fact that $J$
is regular if and only if for every holomorphic $J$-curve
$u\in\mathcal{M}(A;J)$ the operator $D_{u}$ is surjective. For the details see
([5], Ch. 3).
Denote by $\mathcal{M}_{k}(A;J)$ be the moduli space of $J$-holomorphic
sections with $k$ marked points. That is
$\mathcal{M}_{k}(A;J)=\\{(u,z_{1},\ldots,z_{k})\mbox{ }|\mbox{
}u\in\mathcal{M}(A;J),z_{i}\in S^{2},z_{i}\neq z_{j},\forall i\neq j\\}.$
This moduli space has dimension $\mu:=2n+2c_{\psi}(A)+2k$. Consider the
evaluation map $ev:\mathcal{M}_{k}(A;J)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}(P_{\psi})^{k}$ given by
$ev(u,z_{1},\ldots,z_{k})=(u(z_{1}),\ldots,u(z_{k}))$. Now one would like the
map $ev$ to represent a cycle in the homology of $(P_{\psi})^{k}$. Actually
the map $ev$ is a pseudocycle if the manifold $P_{\psi}$ is monotone. In the
case at hand, Hamiltonian fibrations, is enough to impose this condition on
the fiber $M$ rather than on the whole manifold $P_{\psi}$. A symplectic
manifold $(M,\omega)$ is said to be monotone if there is $\lambda>0$ such that
$\omega(A)=\lambda c_{1}(A)$
for all $A\in\pi_{2}(M)$. Then if $(M,\omega)$ is monotone, if follows that
$ev$ is a pseudocycle of dimension $\mu$ in $(P_{\psi})^{k}$. That is, it
defines a homology class in $H_{*}((P_{\psi})^{k})$ of degree $\mu$.
With this at hand we can define the corresponding Gromov-Witten invariants of
$P_{\psi}$. However in order to define Seidel’s representation one studies the
moduli space of sections with one fixed marked point. Fix a point $z_{0}$ in
the base $S^{2}$ and let $\iota:M\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi}$ be the inclusion of the fiber
above the base point $z_{0}$. Then the moduli space
$\mathcal{M}_{1}^{\textbf{w}}(A;J)=\\{(u,z_{0})\mbox{ }|\mbox{
}u\in\mathcal{M}(A;J)\\}.$
is a smooth oriented manifold of dimension $2n+2c_{\psi}(A)$, where
$\textbf{w}=\\{z_{0}\\}$ stands for the fixed marked point. Moreover the
evaluation map
$ev_{\textbf{w}}:\mathcal{M}^{\textbf{w}}_{1}(A;J)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi}$ is a pseudocycle in
$P_{\psi}$. If we consider the inclusion map
$\iota:M\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi}$, then $\iota^{-1}\circ
ev_{\textbf{w}}$ represents a pseudocycle in $M$ of degree $2n+2c_{\psi}(A)$.
Let $H_{*}(M)$ be the torsion-free part of the group $H_{*}(M;\mathbb{Z})$.
Then the Gromov-Witten invariant is defined as the homomorphism
$\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi},\textbf{w}}_{A,1}:H_{-2c_{\psi}(A)}(M)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\mathbb{Z}$ given by
$\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi},\textbf{w}}_{A,1}(\alpha)=(\iota^{-1}\circ
ev_{\textbf{w}})\cdot_{M}\alpha$
where $\cdot_{M}$ denotes the cycle intersection product in $H_{*}(M)$ and
$A\in H_{2}(P_{\psi};\mathbb{Z})$ a spherical class. Geometrically,
$\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi},\textbf{w}}_{A,1}(\alpha)$ is the number of holomorphic
sections of $\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ such that $u(z_{0})$ lies in the
cycle $X$, where $\alpha=[X]\in H_{*}(M)$.
Consider the universal Novikov ring $\Lambda^{\textup{univ}}$ defined as
$\Lambda^{\textup{univ}}=\left\\{\sum_{s\in\mathbb{R}}r_{s}t^{s}\mbox{
}|\mbox{ }r_{s}\in\mathbb{Z},\\#\\{s>c:r_{s}\neq 0\\}<\infty\mbox{ for every
}c\in\mathbb{R}\right\\}$
and the graded polynomial ring $\Lambda:=\Lambda^{\textup{univ}}[q,q^{-1}]$
where $q$ has degree 2. Then the small quantum homology of $(M,\omega)$ with
coefficients in $\Lambda$ is defined as
$QH_{*}(M;\Lambda):=H_{*}(M)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\Lambda.$
Actually, $QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$ is a ring under quantum product. The ring
structure of $QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$ will be describe below.
Then Seidel’s homomorphism
$\mathcal{S}:\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$ is defined as
(6) $\displaystyle\mathcal{S}(\psi)=\sum_{A\in
H^{sec}_{2}(P_{\psi})}\mathcal{S}_{A}(\psi)\otimes
q^{-c_{\psi}(A)}t^{-\tilde{\omega}_{\psi}(A)}$
where the sum runs over all spherical classes $A$ that can be realized by a
section. That is, a section $u:S^{2}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi}$ such that $[u]=A$. And
$\mathcal{S}_{A}(\psi)$ is the homology class in $H_{2n+2c_{\psi}(A)}(M)$
determined by the relation
$\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi},\textbf{w}}_{A,1}(\alpha)=\mathcal{S}_{A}(\psi)\cdot_{M}\alpha$
for all $\alpha\in H_{*}(M).$ Observe that $\mathcal{S}(\psi)$ has degree $2n$
in $QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$.
As pointed out in the introduction, at a first glimpse formula (6) of Seidel’s
representation looks different from that of McDuff-Tolman [6]. When
$(M,\omega)$ admits a Hamiltonian circle action $\psi$, then the definition of
$\mathcal{S}(\psi)$ simplifies. For instance $P_{\psi}$ is isomorphic with the
Borel quotient $S^{3}\times_{S^{1}}M$, where $S^{3}$ corresponds to the total
space of the Hopf fibration $S^{3}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$. Hence if $p\in M$, is a fixed
point then the inclusion of $p$ into $M$, induces a section
$\sigma_{\textup{max}}:S^{2}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{3}\times_{S^{1}}M\simeq P_{\psi}$.
Thus there is a preferred section $\sigma_{\textup{max}}$ when $(M,\omega)$
admits a Hamiltonian circle action. Further the index of the summation in Eq.
(6), that is $A\in H^{sec}_{2}(P_{\psi})$ can be substituted by
$\sigma_{\textup{max}}+B$ where $B\in H_{2}(M,\mathbb{Z})$ is a spherical
class. The rest of the details can be found in Prop. 3.3 of [6].
## 4\. Quantum product and the Künneth formula
So far we have only described the additive structure of quantum homology
$QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)=H_{*}(M)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\Lambda$. However
$QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$ has the structure of a ring where the operation is called
quantum product.
The quantum product is defined in terms of Gromov-Witten invariants, which are
a slide different from the ones discussed in the previous section. Consider
$(M,\omega)$ a closed monotone symplectic manifold, homogeneous elements
$a,b,c\in H_{*}(M)$, and $A\in H_{2}(M)$ a spherical class. Then we have the
Gromov-Witten invariant $\textup{GW}^{M}_{A,3}(a,b,c),$ which is the number of
holomorphic curves that represent the class $A$ and intersect the cycles that
represent the classes $a,b$ and $c$. Here the degree of the homology classes
must satisfy the equation
$\textup{deg}(a)+\textup{deg}(b)+\textup{deg}(c)=4n-2c_{1}(A),$ otherwise the
invariant is defined as zero. (See [5], Ch. 7.) Now let $\\{e_{\nu}\\}_{\nu\in
I}$ be a base of the free $\mathbb{Z}$-module $H_{*}(M)$, and
$\\{e^{*}_{\nu}\\}_{\nu\in I}$ be the dual basis with respect to the
intersection product. That is $e^{*}_{\nu}\cdot e_{\mu}=\delta_{\nu,\mu}.$
Then if $a,b\in H_{*}(M)$ are homogeneous classes the quantum product $a*b$ is
defined as
$a*b=\sum_{\nu\in
I}\sum_{A}\textup{GW}^{M}_{A,3}(a,b,e_{\nu})e^{*}_{\nu}\otimes
q^{-c_{1}(A)}t^{-\omega(A)},$
where $c_{1}$ is the first Chern class of $(M,\omega)$, and the sum runs over
all spherical classes $A\in H_{2}(M)$. Observe that
$\textup{deg}(a*b)=\textup{deg}(a)+\textup{deg}(b)-2n$. Finally the quantum
product extends $\Lambda$-linearly to all $QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$. Note that the
identity element under quantum multiplication corresponds to the fundamental
class $1=[M]\in H_{2n}(M)$.
An important fact about quantum homology is that the Künneth formula holds
under a mild constraint. Let $(M,\omega)$ and $(N,\eta)$ be closed symplectic
manifolds which are monotone with the same constant. Thus the Gromov-Witten
invariants of $M\times N$ are well defined. Let $a,b,c\in H_{*}(M\times N)$ be
homogeneous classes such that the projections to $H_{*}(M)$ are denoted by
$a_{1},b_{1}$ and $c_{1}$, and similarly $a_{2},b_{2},c_{2}\in H_{*}(N)$. Then
we have the following relation between the Gromov-Witten invariants of $M,N$
and $M\times N$,
(7) $\displaystyle\textup{GW}^{M\times
N}_{A,3}(a,b,c)=\textup{GW}^{M}_{A_{1},3}(a_{1},b_{1},c_{1})\textup{GW}^{N}_{A_{2},3}(a_{2},b_{2},c_{2})$
where $A\in H_{2}(M\times N)$ is a spherical class and $A_{1},A_{2}$
correspond to the projection of $A$ to $H_{2}(M)$ and $H_{2}(N)$ respectively.
As a consequence we get the Künneth formula for quantum homology
$QH_{*}(M\times N;\Lambda)\simeq
QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\otimes_{\Lambda}QH_{*}(N;\Lambda).$
For more details see [5]. With this at hand we conclude that the maps $\kappa$
and $\kappa^{\prime}$ that appear in the main theorems are ring homomorphisms
under quantum multiplication.
###### Lemma 4.9.
Let $(M,\omega)$ and $(N,\eta)$ be closed symplectic manifolds which are
monotone with the same constant. Then the map of Thm. 1.1,
$\kappa:QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}QH_{*+\textup{dim}(N)}(M\times
N;\Lambda)$
is a ring homomorphism under the quantum product.
Proof. Let $\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}\in H_{*}(M)$. We must show that
$(\alpha_{1}\otimes[N])*(\alpha_{2}\otimes[N])=(\alpha_{1}*\alpha_{2})\otimes[N].$
This is a consequence of the Künneth formula for the quantum homology ring.
For
$\displaystyle(\alpha_{1}\otimes[N])*(\alpha_{2}\otimes[N])$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\alpha_{1}*\alpha_{2})\otimes([N]*[N])$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\alpha_{1}*\alpha_{2})\otimes[N]$
since the fundamental class $[N]$ is the identity in $QH_{*}(N;\Lambda)$ under
quantum multiplication. Thus $\kappa$ is a ring homomorphism. $\Box$
A similar argument shows that the map $\kappa^{\prime}$ is a ring
homomorphism.
###### Lemma 4.10.
Let $(M,\omega)$ be a closed symplectic manifold such that $\pi_{2}(M)$ is
trivial. Then the map of Thm. 1.3,
$\kappa^{\prime}:QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}QH_{*+*}(M\times M;\Lambda)$
is a ring homomorphism under the quantum product.
Proof. By the Künneth formula, write the map $\kappa^{\prime}$ as
$\kappa^{\prime}:QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\otimes_{\Lambda}QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$
where $\kappa^{\prime}(x)=x\otimes x$. If follows again from the Künneth
formula that for $x,y\in QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$,
$\displaystyle\kappa^{\prime}(x*y)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(x*y)\otimes(x*y)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle(x\otimes
x)*(y\otimes y)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\kappa^{\prime}(x)*\kappa^{\prime}(y).$
Therefore $\kappa^{\prime}$ is a ring homomorphism under quantum
multiplication. $\Box$
## 5\. Proof of the main result
Let $(M,\omega)$ and $(N,\eta)$ be closed symplectic manifolds as in Thm. 1.1.
That is $M$ is monotone and $\pi_{2}(N)=0$. Then the product symplectic
manifold $(M\times N,\omega\oplus\eta)$ is also monotone, and therefore
Seidel’s representation is well defined on $(M\times N,\omega\oplus\eta)$.
###### Lemma 5.11.
Let $J\in\mathcal{J}(P_{\psi},\pi,\Omega)$ where $\tilde{\omega}$ is a
coupling form of $\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ and
$\Omega=\tilde{\omega}+K\pi^{*}(\omega_{0})$ as in Section 3. If $J^{\prime}$
is a $\eta$-compatible almost complex structure on $TN$, then $J\oplus
J^{\prime}\in\mathcal{J}(P_{\psi}\times
N,\pi_{0},\tilde{\omega}\oplus\eta+K\pi_{0}^{*}(\omega_{0}))$.
Proof. Let $p:P_{\psi}\times N\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi}$ be the projection map. Then
$\pi\circ p=\pi_{0}$. On $P_{\psi}\times N$ we have the symplectic form
$\Omega^{\prime}=\tilde{\omega}\oplus\eta+K\pi_{0}^{*}(\omega_{0})$. Since
$p^{*}\circ\pi^{*}=\pi_{0}^{*}$ then $\Omega^{\prime}=\Omega\oplus\eta$ on
$T(P_{\psi}\times N)\simeq TP_{\psi}\oplus TN$. Thus if $J$ is an almost
complex structure on $TP_{\psi}$ which is $\Omega$-compatible and $J^{\prime}$
a $\eta$-compatible almost complex structure on $TN$, we have
$\displaystyle\Omega^{\prime}(J\oplus J^{\prime},J\oplus J^{\prime})$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Omega(J,J)\oplus\eta(J^{\prime},J^{\prime})$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Omega\oplus\eta$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Omega^{\prime}.$
Hence $J\oplus J^{\prime}$ is an $\Omega^{\prime}$-compatible almost complex
structure on $T(P_{\psi}\times N).$
Assume that $J$ is such that the projection
$\pi:(P_{\psi},J)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}(S^{2},j_{0})$ is holomorphic. That is
$d\pi\circ J=j_{0}\circ d\pi.$ Since $d\pi_{0}=d\pi\circ dp$, we have
$\displaystyle d\pi_{0}\circ(J\oplus J^{\prime})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle d\pi\circ dp\circ(J\oplus J^{\prime})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(d\pi\circ J)\oplus 0$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(j_{0}\circ d\pi)\oplus 0$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
j_{0}\circ d\pi_{0}.$
Therefore, $J\oplus J^{\prime}\in\mathcal{J}(P_{\psi}\times
N,\pi_{0},\tilde{\omega}\oplus\eta+K\pi_{0}^{*}(\omega_{0}))$. $\Box$
The next proposition, is basically a restatement of Eq. (7), but for the
Gromov-Witten invariants that are involved in the definition of the Seidel
representation.
###### Proposition 5.12.
Let $A\in H_{2}(P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}};\mathbb{Z})$ be a spherical
class. Denote by $A_{1}:=(\lambda_{1})_{*}(A)$ the induced spherical class in
$H_{2}(P_{\psi};\mathbb{Z})$. Then
$\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}},\textup{{w}}}_{A,1}(\alpha\otimes[\textup{pt}])=\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi},\textup{{w}}}_{A_{1},1}(\alpha)$
for all $\alpha\in H_{*}(M)$.
Proof. Let $\tilde{\omega}$ be a coupling form of
$\pi:P_{\psi}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}S^{2}$ and
$J\in\mathcal{J}_{reg}(P_{\psi},\pi,\Omega)$. Thus if $J^{\prime}$ is a
$\eta$-compatible almost complex structure on $TN$, it follows from Lemma
5.11, that $J\oplus J^{\prime}\in\mathcal{J}(P_{\psi}\times
N,\pi_{0},\tilde{\omega}\oplus\eta+K\pi_{0}^{*}(\omega_{0}))$. We must show
that $J\oplus J^{\prime}$ is regular.
Let $u:S^{2}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi}\times N$ be a $(J\oplus
J^{\prime})$-holomorphic section that represents the class $A\in
H_{2}(P_{\psi}\times N;\mathbb{Z})$. Since $\pi_{2}(N)=0$, we may assume that
$u=(u_{0},q_{0})$, where $u_{0}:S^{2}\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}P_{\psi}$ is a $J$-holomorphic section.
Since $J$ is regular and $u_{0}$ is $J$-holomorphic, we know that the
linearized operator
$D_{u_{0}}:\Omega^{0}(S^{2},(u_{0})^{*}(TP_{\psi}))\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\Omega^{0,1}(S^{2},(u_{0})^{*}(TP_{\psi}))$
is onto. For the curve $u=(u_{0},q_{0})$, we have the linearized operator
$D_{u}:\Omega^{0}(S^{2},(u_{0})^{*}(TP_{\psi})\oplus(S^{2}\times\mathbb{R}^{2m}))\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\Omega^{0,1}(S^{2},(u_{0})^{*}(TP_{\psi})\oplus(S^{2}\times\mathbb{R}^{2m}))$
where $\textup{dim}(N)=2m.$ In this situation the operator $D_{u}$ splits as
the sum of $D_{u_{0}}$ and $\bar{\partial}$. See [5], Rmk. 6.7.5. But the
Cauchy-Riemann operator $\bar{\partial}$ is also surjective, thus it follows
that $D_{u}$ is also onto. Therefore $J\oplus J^{\prime}$ is regular.
Henceforth, $\mathcal{M}^{\textbf{w}}_{1}(A;J\oplus J^{\prime})$ and
$\mathcal{M}^{\textbf{w}}_{1}(A_{1};J)$ are smooth oriented manifolds and can
be use to compute the corresponding Gromov-Witten invariant. Let $\alpha\in
H_{*}(M)$, since $\pi_{2}(N)=0$ we have the same intersection points for the
pseudocycle
$\iota^{-1}\circ
ev_{\textbf{w}}:\mathcal{M}^{\textbf{w}}_{1}(A_{1};J)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}M$
with $\alpha$; and the pseudocycle
$\iota_{0}^{-1}\circ ev_{\textbf{w}}:\mathcal{M}^{\textbf{w}}_{1}(A;J\oplus
J^{\prime})\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}M\times N.$
with $\alpha\otimes[\textup{pt}]$. Hence
$\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}},\textup{{w}}}_{A,1}(\alpha\otimes[\textup{pt}])=\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi},\textup{{w}}}_{A_{1},1}(\alpha).$
$\Box$
Now by Prop. 5.12, there is a similar relation between the homology classes
$\mathcal{S}_{A}(\psi)$ and $\mathcal{S}_{A}(\psi\times\textup{id}_{N})$.
###### Lemma 5.13.
Let $A\in H_{2}(P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}};\mathbb{Z})$ and $A_{1}\in
H_{2}(P_{\psi};\mathbb{Z})$ as in Prop. 5.12. Then the identity
$\mathcal{S}_{A}(\psi\times\textup{id}_{N})=\mathcal{S}_{A_{1}}(\psi)\otimes[N]$
holds in $H_{*}(M\times N)$.
Proof. Let $\alpha\in H_{*}(M)$ and $\beta\in H_{*}(N)$ such that the sum of
the degrees of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is $-2c_{\psi}(A_{1})$. Then by the
definition of the invariant $\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi},\textbf{w}}_{A_{1},1}$,
(8) $\displaystyle(\mathcal{S}_{A_{1}}(\psi)\otimes[N])\cdot_{M\times
N}(\alpha\otimes\beta)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\mathcal{S}_{A_{1}}(\psi)\cdot_{M}\alpha)\cdot([N]\cdot_{N}\beta)$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi},\textbf{w}}_{A_{1},1}(\alpha)\cdot([N]\cdot_{N}\beta).$
The terms in this equation are all equal to zero unless $\alpha$ has degree
$-2c_{\psi}(A_{1})$ and $\beta$ has degree $0$, that is $\beta=[\textup{pt}]$.
In this case, note that $[N]\cdot_{N}[\textup{pt}]=1$.
On the other hand by the definition of
$\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}},\textbf{w}}_{A,1}$ we have
(9) $\displaystyle\mathcal{S}_{A}(\psi\times\textup{id}_{N})\cdot_{M\times
N}(\alpha\otimes\beta)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}},\textbf{w}}_{A,1}(\alpha\otimes\beta).$
Since the class $\alpha$ is in $H_{*}(M)$, then by definition of the Gromov-
Witten invariant, it follows that
$\textup{GW}^{P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}},\textbf{w}}_{A,1}(\alpha\otimes\beta)$
is zero unless $\beta=[\textup{pt}]$. Hence from Prop. 5.12, Eqs. (8) and (9)
are equal. That is,
$\displaystyle(\mathcal{S}_{A_{1}}(\psi)\otimes[N])\cdot_{M\times
N}(\alpha\otimes\beta)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\mathcal{S}_{A}(\psi\times\textup{id}_{N})\cdot_{M\times
N}(\alpha\otimes\beta)$
for all $\alpha\in H_{*}(M)$ and $\beta\in H_{*}(N)$. Therefore
$\mathcal{S}_{A_{1}}(\psi)\otimes[N]=\mathcal{S}_{A}(\psi\times\textup{id}_{N})$.
$\Box$
Proof of Thm. 1.1. First of all, since $\pi_{2}(N)$ is trivial we have that
$(\lambda_{1})_{*}:H_{2}(P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}};\mathbb{Z})\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}H_{2}(P_{\psi};\mathbb{Z})$
induces a one-to-one correspondence between the section classes of $P_{\psi}$
and the section classes of $P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}$. That is,
$H^{sec}_{2}(P_{\psi})\simeq H^{sec}_{2}(P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}})$.
Hence the sum on the definition of the elements $\mathcal{S}(\psi)$ and
$\mathcal{S}(\psi\times\textup{id}_{N})$ is defined over the same set.
For $A\in H^{sec}_{2}(P_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}};\mathbb{Z})$, we have that
$(\lambda_{2})_{*}(A)=0$ since $\pi_{2}(N)=0$. Therefore
$c_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}(A)=c_{\psi}(A_{1})\mbox{\hskip 14.22636ptand
\hskip
14.22636pt}\tilde{\omega}_{\psi\times\textup{id}_{N}}(A)=\tilde{\omega}_{\psi}(A_{1})$
by Eqs. (4) and (5). Finally from Lemma 5.13 we have
$\mathcal{S}_{A}(\psi\times\textup{id}_{N})=\mathcal{S}_{A_{1}}(\psi)\otimes[N]$.
Therefore
$\mathcal{S}(\psi\times\textup{id}_{N})=\mathcal{S}(\psi)\otimes[N]$. $\Box$
Consider the group homomorphism
$\tau_{0}:\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M,\omega))\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}\pi_{1}(\textup{Ham}(M\times
M,\omega\oplus\omega))$ defined as $\tau_{0}(\psi)=\textup{id}_{M}\times\psi.$
Define the map
$\kappa_{0}:QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)\allowbreak\mathrel{\mathop{\hbox
to11.99998pt{\rightarrowfill}}\limits}QH_{*+\textup{dim}(M)}(M\times
M;\Lambda)$
on homogeneous elements by $\kappa_{0}(\alpha\otimes
q^{r}t^{s})=(\alpha\otimes[M])q^{r}t^{s}$, where $\alpha\in H_{*}(M)$, and
extend it $\Lambda$-linearly to all $QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$. Then as in Thm 1.1,
we have that
(10) $\displaystyle\mathcal{S}\circ\tau_{0}=\kappa_{0}\circ\mathcal{S}.$
Then Thm. 1.1 together with Eq. (10) provide a a proof of Thm. 1.3,
Proof of Thm. 1.3. Observe that
$\tau^{\prime}(\psi)=\tau(\psi)\circ\tau_{0}(\psi)$. Then applying Seidel’s
representation we get from Thm. 1.1 and Eq. (10) that
$\displaystyle\mathcal{S}\circ\tau^{\prime}(\psi)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\mathcal{S}(\tau(\psi)\circ\tau_{0}(\psi))$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\mathcal{S}(\tau(\psi))*\mathcal{S}(\tau_{0}(\psi))$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\kappa\circ\mathcal{S}(\psi))*(\kappa_{0}\circ\mathcal{S}(\psi))$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\mathcal{S}(\psi)\otimes[M])*([M]\otimes\mathcal{S}(\psi)).$
Then by the Künneth formula and the fact that $[M]$ is the indentity on
$QH_{*}(M;\Lambda)$ we get
$\displaystyle\mathcal{S}\circ\tau^{\prime}(\psi)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\mathcal{S}(\psi)\otimes[M])*([M]\otimes\mathcal{S}(\psi))$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\mathcal{S}(\psi)*[M])\otimes([M]*\mathcal{S}(\psi))$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\mathcal{S}(\psi)\otimes\mathcal{S}(\psi)$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\kappa^{\prime}(\mathcal{S}(\psi)).$
$\Box$
## References
* [1] M. Gromov, Pseudo holomorphic curves in symplectic manifolds. Invent. Math. 82 (1985), 307–347.
* [2] V. Guillemin, E. Lerman and S. Sternberg, Symplectic fibrations and multiplicity diagrams. Cambridge University Press 1996.
* [3] D. McDuff, Quantum homology of fibrations over $S^{2}$. Inter. J. of Math. 11 (2000), 665–721.
* [4] D. McDuff, D. A. Salamon, Introduction to Symplectic Topology. 2nd. Edition, Oxford University Press 1998.
* [5] D. McDuff, D. A. Salamon, J-holomorphic Curves and Symplectic Topology. Amer. Math, Soc., Coll. Pub. 52, 2004.
* [6] D. McDuff and S. Tolman, Topological properties of Hamiltonian circle actions. Inter. Math. Research Papers (2006); article ID 72826, 77 pages, doi:10.1155/IMRP/2006/72826
* [7] L. Polterovich, The Geometry of the Group of Symplectic Diffeomorphism. Lectures in Math, ETH, Birkhauser, 2001.
* [8] P. Seidel, $\pi_{1}$ of symplectic automorphism groups and invertibles in quantum homology rings. Geom. and Funct. Anals. 7 (1997), 1046–1096.
* [9] A. Weinstein, Cohomology of symplectomorphism groups and critical values of Hamiltonian. Math Z., 210 (1989), 75–82.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-09T16:01:36 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.728552 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Andres Pedroza",
"submitter": "Andres Pedroza",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1375"
} |
0805.1438 | # Resonant Tunneling through double-bended Graphene Nanoribbons
Z. Z. Zhang Kai Chang kchang@red.semi.ac.cn SKLSM, Institute of
Semiconductors, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 912, Beijing 100083,
China K. S. Chan Department of Physics and Materials Science, City
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
###### Abstract
We investigate theoretically resonant tunneling through double-bended graphene
nanoribbon structures, i.e., armchair-edged graphene nanoribbons (AGNRs) in
between two semi-infinite zigzag graphene nanoribbon (ZGNR) leads. Our
numerical results demonstrate that the resonant tunneling can be tuned
dramatically by the Fermi energy and the length and/or widths of the AGNR for
both the metallic and semiconductor-like AGNRs. The structure can also be use
to control the valley polarization of the tunneling currents and could be
useful for potential application in valleytronics devices.
###### pacs:
73.23.-b, 78.40.Gk, 73.40.Sx, 85.30.Mn
Graphene is a single layer of carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal lattice.
Recently, graphene samples have been fabricated experimentally by micro-
mechanical cleavage of graphite Novoselov . This material has aroused the
increasing attention due to its novel transport property that arises from its
unique band structure: the conduction and valence bands meet conically at the
two nonequivalent Dirac points, called $K$ and $K^{{}^{\prime}}$ valleys, of
the Brillouin zone, which show opposite chirality. Around the two points
(called Diract points), the energy dispersion is linear and described by the
massless Dirac equation. In graphene, the presence of edges can change the
energy spectrum of the $\pi$-electron dramatically. Graphene nanoribbons
(GNRs) have been fabricated by using conventional lithography and etching
techniques IBM ; kim . The electronic properties of a GNR depend very
sensitively on the size and shape of edges, i.e., zigzag- and armchair-edged
GNR. The zigzag-edged graphene nanoribbons (ZGNRs) and armchair-edged graphene
nanoribbons (AGNRs) exhibit different band structures. For the ZGNRs, there
are always the localized states appearing at the edge near the Dirac point.
Therefore the ZGNRs exhibit metallic-like behavior. The AGNRs show metallic-
like and semiconductor-like features alternatively as the width of nanoribbons
increases Nakada . Those features are very different from the conventional
semiconductor quantum wire, provide possible ways to tailor the transport and
optical properties of GNR Wakabayashi , and pave a new path to potential
applications of valleytronics device, e.g., the quantum point contact is used
to realize a valley filter and a valley valve utilizing the edge state of
ZGNRs Beenakker . Interestingly, the valleys $K$ and $K^{{}^{\prime}}$ are
decoupled for ZGNRs, but mixed for AGNRs Brey . It is natural to ask and image
what happens when we construct a mesoscopic device by combining the ZGNRs and
AGNRs.
In this work, we investigate theoretically the resonant tunneling through
double-bended GNR structures, i.e., a AGNR in between two ZGNR leads (see Fig.
1). For transport through metallic-like AGNRs, electrons can not transmit
perfectly but show a resonant tunneling behavior. For semiconductor-like
AGNRs, the resonant tunneling is blocked when the Fermi energy $E_{F}$ is
lower than the bandgap of AGNRs and displays similar resonant peaks when the
Fermi energy $E_{F}$ exceeds the gap. Our theoretical results show that this
kind of structure can control the valley polarization of tunneling currents.
Figure 1: (Color online) Schematic diagram of the proposed graphene nanoribbon
structure. The left (right) inset describes the energy band structure for the
left and right lead (AGR). The blue frame denotes the region of middle
conductor, which consists of the AGNR with the length $N_{H}$ and width
$N_{c}$.
The electronic states in graphene are described by a nearest-neighbor tight-
binding Hamiltonian $H=\sum\limits_{<i,j>}t_{ij}c_{i}^{\dagger}c_{j}$, where
$t_{ij}=-t$ ($t=3.03$ eV) is the transfer energy of the nearest-neighbour
sitesSaito . The conductance of the system is evaluated using the multichannel
Landauer formulabutiker ,
$G\left(E_{F}\right)=\frac{e^{2}}{\pi\hslash}\sum\limits_{\mu}T_{\mu}\left(E_{F}\right),T_{\mu}\left(E_{F}\right)=\sum\limits_{\nu}\left|t_{\mu,\nu}\left(E_{F}\right)\right|^{2},$
(1)
where $t_{\mu,\nu}\left(E_{F}\right)$ is a transmission coefficient from
$\nu$-th channel in the left lead to $\mu$-th channel in the right lead at the
Fermi energy $E_{F}$, calculated by a recursive Green’s function methodAndo .
As schematically shown in Fig. 1, an AGNR is connected to two metallic semi-
infinite ZGNR leads. The insets in Fig. 1 show the energy band structures of
the left (right) ZGNR lead and middle AGNR. The Fermi energy $E_{F}$ can be
tuned experimentally through the electric top- or back-gatesOzyilmaz . In our
calculation, all physical quantities are introduced dimensionlessly, e. g.,
the energy $E$ and the conductances are in units of $t$ and
$e^{2}/\left(\pi\hslash\right)$, respectively.
Figure 2: (Color online) The contour plot of the conductance as a function of
the length of the AGR ($N_{H}$) and Fermi energy ($E_{F}$). $N_{L}=N_{R}=20$,
$N_{A}=8$. The red triangles indicate the energies which corresponding the
bottoms of the second and third transverse subbands in the left or right lead.
First, we consider that the middle conductor of the double-bended GNRs
consists of a metallic-like AGNR with $N_{C}=8$ and $\Delta_{M1}=0.286$ (see
the right inset of Fig.1). The left and right leads have the same width
$N_{L}=N_{R}=20$ with $\Delta_{L1}=0.113$ and $\Delta_{L2}=0.189$ (see the
left inset of Fig.1). Fig. 2 shows the contour plot of the conductance as
functions of the length of the middle AGNR ($N_{H}$) and the Fermi energy
($E_{F}$). Fig. 2 demonstrates that there are three regimes indicated by the
red triangles. The three regimes correspond to the opening of the second and
third transverse modes. When $N_{H}=N_{L}=20$, the system will return to a
perfect ZGNR and the conductance exhibits a step-like feature, i.e., $1,3,5$
$\cdots(e^{2}/\pi\hslash)$. When $N_{H}>N_{L}+N_{R}$, the resonant tunneling
peaks appear regularly as the Fermi energy increases and become more and more
as the length of AGNR region $N_{H}$ increases. This resonant tunneling
behavior arises from the constructive interference effect when the electron
wave propagates back and forth in the AGNR region. The incident electron can
be completely reflected due to the destructive interference, especially when
the energy of the incident electron is lower than the onset of the lowest mode
of the left (right) lead, i.e., $E<\Delta_{L1}$, though the middle AGNR is
metallic with zero energy gap. For the fixed length, the resonance peaks
broaden as the Fermi energy increase due to the enhanced coupling between the
electron states in the AGNR and that in the ZGNR leads. When
$\Delta_{L1}<E<\Delta_{L2},$ there are three propagating modes, two of which
belong to the $K$ valley and one mode belongs to the $K^{{}^{\prime}}$ valley.
The similar oscillation can also be see when the incident energy is higher
than the onset of the second modes in the left (right) lead.
Figure 3: (Color online) The same as Fig. 2, but for $N_{C}=9$ AGR conduct.
The green triangles indicate the energies corresponding to $\Delta_{S1}$ and
$\Delta_{S2}$
Next, we consider the middle AGNR ($N_{C}=9$, $\Delta_{S1}=$ $0.092,$ and
$\Delta_{S2}=0.176,$ see the right inset of Fig. 1) showing the semiconductor-
like feature. When $N_{H}$ approaches to $N_{L}$, the situation is the same as
for $N_{C}=8$ and show perfect transmission. But when $N_{H}$ increases and is
larger than $N_{L}+N_{R}$, electron tunneling can be fully blocked for
$0<E<\Delta_{S1}$. This phenomena reveals that semiconductor AGNR behaves like
an opaque barrier and can confine the electron between two AGNRs. For
$\Delta_{S1}<E$ $<\Delta_{L1}$ (see the left inset of Fig.1), similar
resonance tunneling peaks appear, but are sharper than those through the
metallic-like AGNR. When the incident energy increases further and is higher
than $\Delta_{S2}$, the resonant tunneling becomes more complicated, and even
shows crossing and anti-crossing features that are not found for the metallic
AGNRs (see Fig. 2). The crossing and anticrossing behaviors are caused by the
existence of the higher transverse modes of electron in the semiconductor-like
AGNR region when the Fermi energy $E_{F}>\Delta_{S2}$ (see the right inset of
Fig.1). The absence of the crossing and anticrossing behavior for the metallic
AGNR (see Fig. 2) arises from that the metallic AGNR only supports one channel
when $E_{F}<\Delta_{M1}$ (see the right inset of Fig.1).
Figure 4: (Color online) (a) Valley polarization (P) of the tunneling current
as a function of the length ($N_{H}$) of the middle conductor for the three
different widths at the fixed chemical potential $E_{F}=0.15$. (b), (c), and
(d) Valley polarization as a function of the chemical potential ($E$) at the
fixed length ($N_{H}=80$) of middle AGNRs for $N_{C}=8$, 9, and 10,
respectively.
Fig. 4(a) shows the valley polarization of the tunneling current as a function
of the length of AGNR for the different widths ($N_{C}$) of the AGNRs, where
the valley polarization $P$ is defined as $P=(\sum\limits_{\mu\in
K}T_{\mu}-\sum\limits_{\mu\in K^{\prime}}T_{\mu})/\sum\limits_{\mu}T_{\mu}$
Beenakker . There are the three channels propagating modes ($N_{m}=3$) in the
leads along the x axis at $E_{F}=0.15$. Two channels belong to the $K$ valley
and the other belongs to the $K^{{}^{\prime}}$ valley. When the length of the
AGNR approaches to the lead width, i.e., $N_{H}=N_{L}$, the structures become
a perfect ZGNR and the valley polarization is equal to $1/N_{m}$($N_{m}=3$)
since there is no coupling between the $K$ and $K^{{}^{\prime}}$ valleys. When
$N_{H}>N_{L}$(or $N_{R})$, the transmitted electron no longer belongs to the
$K$ valley purely when the incident electron belonging to $K$ goes through
AGNR due to the coupling between $K$ and $K^{{}^{\prime}}$ valleys in the
AGNR. As the length of the AGNR increases, the polarization increases very
fast and reaches the maximum at $N_{H}\approx 35$. When the length increases
further, the valley polarizations decrease and saturate at specific values.
The AGNRs with different widths have different saturated values. The AGNR with
$N_{c}=3n+1$ ($n=3$) show the highest saturated valley polarization,
approaching to $0.9$. For the AGNRs with $N_{c}=3n-1$, the saturated value is
the lower. The saturated polarization of the AGNR with $N_{c}=3n$ is the
lowest and approaches to $0.1$. Figs. 4(b), (c), and (d) show the valley
polarizations as a function of the Fermi energy for different widths of AGNRs.
When there is a single channel in the middle AGNR region, i.e.,
$E_{F}<\Delta_{M1}$, for the metallic-like AGNR and $E_{F}<\Delta_{S2}$ for
the semiconductor-like AGNR, the valley polarization varies smoothly. Once the
Fermi energy exceeds the critical energies ($\Delta_{M1}$ or $\Delta_{S2}$),
the valley polarization oscillates heavily (see Figs. 4(c) and (d)) because of
the interference between different channels in the AGNR region and ZGNR leads
which are opened orderly with increasing the Fermi energy. But the valley
polarization in Fig. 4(b) still changes smoothly as the Fermi energy
increases. This is because the AGNR only supports a single channel when the
energy of the second channel is higher than the Fermi energy, i.e.,
$\Delta_{M1}>E_{F}$ (see the right inset of Fig. 1). For the single incident
channel case, i.e., $0<E_{F}<\Delta_{L1}$, the valley polarization of
tunneling current is always equal to $1$ since there is a single channel
belonging to the $K$ valley. From Fig. 4, one can see that the valley
polarization of the tunneling current can be changed dramatically by tuning
the Fermi energy and the length of the AGNR.
In summary, we have investigated theoretically resonant tunneling through a
double-bended GNR, i.e., an AGNR in between two ZGNR leads. Our numerical
results demonstrate that the resonant tunneling can be tuned dramatically by
the Fermi energy and the length and/or widths of the AGNR for both the
metallic and semiconductor-like AGNRs. The valley polarization saturate as the
length of the AGNRs increases, and the saturated valley polarizations depend
sensitively on the widths of the AGNRs. The structure we proposed can be used
to manipulate the valley polarization of the tunneling current and should be
useful for potential application in valleytronics devices.
###### Acknowledgements.
This work is supported by the NSF of China Grant No. 60525405.
## References
* (1) K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V. Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science 306, 666 (2004).
* (2) Z. H. Chen, Y. M. Lin, M. J. Rooks, and P. Avouris, Physica E 40, 228 (2007).
* (3) M. Y. Han, B. Ozyilmaz, Y. B. Zhang, and P. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 206805 (2007).
* (4) K. Nakada, M. Fujita, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev. B 54, 17954 (1996).
* (5) K. Wakabayashi, Phys. Rev. B 64, 125428 (2001).
* (6) A. Rycerz, J. Tworzydlo, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Nature Physics 3, 172 (2007).
* (7) L. Brey and H. A. Fertig, Phys. Rev. B 73, 235411 (2006).
* (8) M. Büttiker, Y. Imry, R. Landauer, and S. Pinhas, Phys. Rev. B 31, 6207 (1985).
* (9) T. Ando, Phys. Rev. B, 44, 8017 (1991)
* (10) B. Ozyilmaz, P. Jarillo-Herrero, D. Efetov, D. A. Abanin, L. S. Levitov, and P. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007).
* (11) R. Saito, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, Physical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes (Imperial College Press, London, 1998).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-10T03:02:45 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.734635 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Z. Z. Zhang, Kai Chang, and K. S. Chan",
"submitter": "Kai Chang",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1438"
} |
0805.1533 | # ATCA and _Spitzer_ Observations of the Binary Protostellar Systems CG 30 and
BHR 71
Xuepeng Chen, Ralf Launhardt Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Königstuhl
17, D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany; chen@mpia.de Tyler L. Bourke Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138,
USA Thomas Henning Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Königstuhl 17,
D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany Peter J. Barnes School of Physics A28,
University of Sydney, Sydney NSW2006, Australia
###### Abstract
We present interferometric observations with resolution of $\sim$ 3′′ of the
isolated, low-mass protostellar double cores CG 30 and BHR 71 in the N2H+ (1
$-$ 0) line and at 3 mm dust continuum, using the Australian Telescope Compact
Array (ATCA). The results are complemented by infrared data from the Spitzer
Space Telescope. In CG 30, the 3 mm dust continuum images resolve two compact
sources with a separation of $\sim$ 21$\farcs$7 ($\sim$ 8700 AU). In BHR 71,
strong dust continuum emission is detected at the position of the mid-infrared
source IRS1, while only weak emission is detected from the secondary mid-
infrared source IRS2. Assuming standard gas to dust ratio and optically thin 3
mm dust continuum emission, we derive hydrogen gas masses of 0.05 $-$ 2.1
$M_{\odot}$ for the four sub-cores. N2H+ (1 $-$ 0) line emission is detected
in both CG 30 and BHR 71, and is spatially associated with the thermal dust
continuum emission. By simultaneously fitting the seven hyperfine line
components of N2H+, we derive the velocity fields and find symmetric velocity
gradients in both sources. Assuming that these gradients are due to core
rotation, we estimate the specific angular momenta and ratios of rotational
energy to gravitational energy for all cores. Estimated virial masses of the
sub-cores range from 0.1 $-$ 0.6 $M_{\odot}$. We also find that the N2H+
emission is strongly affected by the outflows, both in terms of entrainment
and molecule destruction. $Spitzer$ images show the mid-infrared emission from
all four sub-cores, which is spatially associated with the 3 mm dust continuum
emission. All four sources appear to drive their own outflows, as seen in the
shock-excited 4.5 $\mu$m images. Based on the ATCA and $Spitzer$ observations,
we construct spectral energy distributions (SEDs) and derive temperatures and
luminosities for all cores. The analysis of the SEDs suggests an evolutionary
discrepancy between the two sub-cores in both CG 30 and BHR 71, which could be
due to effects of relative inclinations. Based on the morphology and velocity
structure, we suggest that the sub-cores in CG 30 were formed by initial
fragmentation of a filamentary prestellar core, while those in BHR 71 could
originate from rotational fragmentation of a single collapsing protostellar
core.
binaries: general — ISM: globules — ISM: individual (CG 30 and BHR 71) — ISM:
kinematics and dynamics — stars: formation
## 1 INTRODUCTION
Although statistical properties of binary stars have been determined over the
past two decades (see e.g., Reipurth et al. 2007 for recent reviews), many key
questions concerning their origin are still poorly understood. What is the
formation mechanism of binary/multiple systems? How are mass and angular
momentum distributed during their formation? What is the difference between
cores forming binaries and those forming single stars? To answer these
questions, direct observations of the earliest, deeply embedded phase of
binary star formation are needed. This phase is unfortunately not accessible
to optical and near-infrared (NIR) wavelengths, due to the large amounts of
circumstellar material present. Observations of the gas and optically thin
dust emission at millimeter (mm) wavelengths are therefore needed, to probe
the system kinematics and individual envelope masses. However, these
observations were long hampered by the low angular resolution of mm
telescopes, and only recently have the earliest phases of binary star
formation been observationally identified and studied in detail thanks to the
availability of large (sub-) mm interferometers, although the number of known
systems is still very small (Looney et al. 2000; Launhardt 2004).
To search for binary protostars and to derive their kinematic properties, we
have started a systematic program to observe, at high angular resolution, a
number of isolated low-mass prestellar and protostellar molecular cloud cores.
The initial survey was conducted at the Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO)
mm array (Launhardt 2004; Chen, Launhardt, & Henning 2007, hereafter Paper I;
Launhardt et al., in prep.), and is now continued with the Australia Telescope
Compact Array (ATCA) and the IRAM Plateau de Bure Interferometer (PdBI) array.
In this paper we present ATCA observations of two southern protobinaries in
the N2H+ (1 $-$ 0) molecular line and at 3 mm dust continuum, together with
complementary mid-infrared (MIR) data from the _Spitzer Space Telescope_
(hereafter $Spitzer$).
CG 30 (also known as BHR 12 or DC 253.3$-$1.6) is a bright-rimmed cometary
globule located in the Gum Nebula region. The distance towards CG 30 is
somewhat uncertain, with estimates ranging from 200 pc (Knude et al. 1999) to
400 pc (Brandt 1971; Reipurth 1983). For consistency with earlier papers
(e.g., Henning & Launhardt 1998), we use here 400 pc. The globule harbors an
elongated protostellar core as seen in the single-dish mm dust continuum image
(Launhardt et al. in prep.). Higher resolution submm continuum observations
(SCUBA) resolve the source into two sub-cores with a projected separation of
$\sim$ 20′′ ($\sim$ 8000 AU) and masses of 0.17 $\pm$ 0.05 and 0.14 $\pm$ 0.05
$M_{\odot}$ (Henning et al. 2001). The northern core is associated with a NIR
source, which drives the Herbig-Haro flow HH 120 (see Hodapp & Ladd 1995 and
references therein). The newly discovered southern core is the origin of a
protostellar jet with position angle (P.A.) 44∘ (Hodapp & Ladd 1995), but no
NIR source is seen at this position (see Launhardt et al. 2001).
BHR 71 (also known as DC 297.7$-$2.8) is an isolated Bok globule located at a
distance of $\sim$ 200 pc (Bourke et al. 1997; hereafter B97). A highly-
collimated bipolar outflow, which is lying almost in the plane of the sky, was
discovered by CO observations in this region. The driving source is associated
with IRAS 11590$-$6452 and was classified as a Class 0 protostar with a total
luminosity of $\sim$ 9 $L_{\odot}$ (B97). ISOCAM observations have revealed
that the IRAS source is associated with two embedded protostars, IRS1 and
IRS2, with a projected separation of $\sim$ 17′′ ($\sim$ 3400 AU; Bourke 2001;
hereafter B01). IRS1 and IRS2 each drive a CO outflow: the well-known large-
scale collimated bipolar outflow is driven by IRS1 and another fainter and
smaller bipolar outflow is driven by IRS2 (see B01 and Parise et al. 2006).
Only IRS1 appears to be associated with a substantial amount of circumstellar
material, but neither is directly detected at NIR wavelengths (B01).
## 2 OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION
### 2.1 ATCA Observations
Millimeter interferometric observations at 95 GHz of CG 30 and BHR 71 were
carried out using ATCA with five 22 m telescopes in May and August 2005.
Observations were obtained in two different array configurations (H168 and
H75) with projected baselines ranging from 22 to 180 m. All antennas were
equipped with cooled SIS receivers, which provided average system temperatures
of 200 $-$ 350 K at the observing frequency. A digital correlator was used
with 2 independent spectral windows. The narrow window (bandwidth $\sim$ 8
MHz), with a channel width of 0.019 MHz, was centered on the N2H+ (1 $-$ 0)
line at 93.17 GHz111During the observations the sky frequency changed by less
than one channel due to the lack of doppler tracking at ATCA, and corrections
were applied offline to obtain correct frequencies and LSR velocities. The
broad window (bandwidth $\sim$ 128 MHz) was centered at 95.0 GHz and was used
to measure the 3.1 mm dust continuum emission simultaneously with N2H+. The
two sources were observed with 2-point mosaics each. The primary beam size at
93 GHz is $\sim$ 38′′. Amplitude and phase were calibrated through frequent
observations of quasars nearby to each source (0745$-$330 for CG 30 and
1057$-$797 for BHR 71), typically every 20 minutes, resulting in an absolute
position uncertainty of $\leq$ 0$\farcs$2\. Flux densities were calibrated
using the secondary calibrator 1253$-$055, the flux of which was regularly
compared to Uranus and adopted as 19.0 Jy for May observations (H168
configuration) and 14.7 Jy for August observations (H75 configuration).
Additional effort was made to improve the gain-elevation calibration of the
antennas, which can significantly affect the flux density scale, especially
when observing at high elevation. The estimated total flux uncertainty is $<$
20%. Observing parameters are summarized in Table 1.
The data were calibrated and images produced using MIRIAD (Sault et al. 1995)
and its CLEAN algorithm, with “robust” $uv$ weighting parameter +1 (Briggs et
al. 1999). Synthesized beam sizes are 3′′ $-$ 4′′. Noise levels (1 $\sigma$
rms) in the final maps are 0.5 $-$ 2 mJy/beam for the continuum and 20 $-$ 65
mJy/beam for the N2H+ line (see Table 1). Further analysis and figures were
done with the GILDAS222http://www.iram.fr/IRAMFR/GILDAS software package.
### 2.2 _Spitzer_ Observations
Mid-infrared data of CG 30 and BHR 71 were obtained from the $Spitzer$ Science
Center333http://ssc.spitzer.caltech.edu. CG 30 was observed on 2004 April 9
with the Multiband Imaging Photometer for $Spitzer$ (MIPS: AOR key 9426688)
and May 26 with the Infrared Array Camera (IRAC; AOR key 5097216). BHR 71 was
observed on 2004 June 10 with IRAC (AOR key 5107200) and 2005 March 7 with
MIPS (AOR key 9434112). Both sources were observed as part of the c2d Legacy
program (Evans et al. 2003).
The data were processed by the $Spitzer$ Science Center using their standard
pipeline (version S14.0) to produce Post Basic Calibrated Data (P-BCD) images,
which are flux-calibrated into physical units (MJy sr-1). Flux densities in
the IRAC bands were measured with aperture photometry in the IRAF APPHOT
package, using the radii, background aperture annuli, and aperture corrections
recommended by the $Spitzer$ Science Center. The results were compared to c2d,
which used PSF fitting, and found to be within the uncertainties. Flux
densities in the MIPS bands were measured with GILDAS because sources in the
MIPS images are not fully resolved (see $\S$ 3.3). Further analysis and
figures were completed with GILDAS.
## 3 RESULTS
### 3.1 Dust Continuum
The 3 mm dust continuum image of CG 30 (Fig. 1a) shows two compact sources
with an angular separation of 21$\farcs$7 $\pm$ 0$\farcs$6, corresponding to a
projected linear separation of 8700 $\pm$ 240 AU at a distance of 400 pc.
Following Henning et al. (2001), we refer to the northern source as CG 30N and
to the southern source as CG 30S. From Gaussian $uv$ plane fitting, we derive
flux densities of 15.8 $\pm$ 3.2 mJy444The error bar is derived from
$\sqrt{\sigma^{2}_{\rm cali}+\sigma^{2}_{\rm fit}}$, where $\sigma_{\rm cali}$
is the uncertainty from calibration ($\sim$ 20% of flux density) and
$\sigma_{\rm fit}$ is the uncertainty from Gaussian fitting. for source N and
6.0 $\pm$ 1.3 mJy for source S. The large-scale common envelope, detected in
the submm single-dish maps with a radius of $\sim$ 14000 AU and a flux density
of $\sim$ 7.4 Jy (Henning et al. 2001), is resolved out by the interferometer
at 3 mm. Source positions and deconvolved FWHM sizes of the two embedded
sources, derived from Gaussian $uv$ plane fitting, are listed in Table 2.
In the 3 mm dust continuum image of BHR 71 (Fig. 1b), strong emission is
detected at the position of IRS1, and only weak emission ($\sim$ 3 $\sigma$
level) is detected at the position of IRS2. The flux densities of IRS1 and
IRS2 are derived to be 140 $\pm$ 28 mJy and 2.8 $\pm$ 2.1 mJy, respectively.
The large-scale envelope detected in the 1.3 mm single-dish map, with a radius
of $\sim$ 9000 AU and a flux density of $\sim$ 3.7 Jy (B97), is also resolved
out here. Positions and FHWM sizes of the sources are listed in Table 2. The
angular separation of 17′′ $\pm$ 1′′ between IRS1 and IRS2 corresponds to a
projected linear separation of 3400 $\pm$ 200 AU at a distance of 200 pc. We
also note that IRS1 is elongated northwest-southeast and consists of two
separate peaks in the region enclosed by the 5 $\sigma$ level (see Fig. 1b).
The main peak is spatially coincident with the MIR source and the fainter peak
is located $\sim$ 2′′ southeast of IRS1 (see below $\S$ 3.3).
Assuming that the 3 mm dust continuum emission is optically thin, the hydrogen
gas mass $M_{\rm H}$ = $M$(H) + 2 $M$(H2) in the circumstellar envelope
(excluding Helium) was calculated with the same method as described in
Launhardt & Henning (1997). We adopt an interstellar hydrogen-to-dust mass
ratio of 110, and a dust opacity $\kappa_{\rm 3mm}\approx 0.2$ cm2 g-1 (using
$\kappa_{\rm 1.3mm}=0.8$ cm2 g-1 and $\kappa~{}\propto~{}\nu^{1.8}$), a fairly
typical value for dense protostellar cores (Ossenkopf & Henning 1994). Dust
temperatures are derived from SED fitting ($\S$ 4.1) and are listed in Table
7. The derived hydrogen gas masses (0.05 $-$ 2.1 $M_{\odot}$), together with
mean volume densities (0.4 $-$ 2.6 $\times$ 107 cm-3) and column densities
(1.5 $-$ 9.9 $\times$ 1023 cm-2), are listed in Table 2. The resulting optical
depths are $\tau_{\rm 3mm}$ $\sim$ 0.4 $-$ 3 $\times$ $10^{-3}$, thus
justifying the optically thin approximation.
### 3.2 N2H+ (1 $-$ 0)
N2H+ emission is detected from both CG 30 and BHR 71. Figure 2a shows the
velocity-integrated N2H+ intensity image of CG 30. Two cores, spatially
associated with the 3 mm dust continuum sources, are seen. The northern core
is elongated east-west with a long ($\sim$ 20′′) extension to the west, along
the direction of the protostellar jet HH 120 (see Fig. 7c). The southern core
is more compact and peaks at the position of the dust continuum source. The
mean radii of the N2H+ cores (Table 4) were measured with the same method
described in Paper I. A larger-scale N2H+ cloud core, detected in the Mopra
single-dish map with a radius of $\sim$ 8000 AU (P. Barnes et al. in prep.),
peaks between the two sub-cores (see Fig. 2a) and is resolved out by the
interferometer (more than 90% flux is missing).
Figure 2b shows the integrated N2H+ intensity image of BHR 71. Two cores are
found to the east and west of IRS1 (see below and discussion in $\S$ 4.4). We
refer to these as BHR 71E and BHR 71W, respectively. The two cores are
elongated in the north-south direction. Several smaller clumps are also seen
north and south of the two main cores, along both sides of the large-scale CO
outflow (see Fig. 2b). For BHR 71, the Mopra N2H+ map (P. Barnes et al. in
prep.) again shows a large-scale cloud core with one peak ($\sim$ 15′′ offset
IRS1), and does not line up well with the two dust continuum sources (see Fig.
2b).
Figure 3 shows the N2H+ spectra at the peak positions of CG 30 and BHR
71555During the observations towards BHR 71, the correlator was not well
centered due to an uncertainty in the Doppler correction calculation,
resulting in the N2H+ $JF_{1}F$ = $101-012$ component not being covered.
However, the absence of this line component did not affect our final results..
The spectra were fitted using the hyperfine program in CLASS. The fitting
results, such as LSR velocities ($V_{\rm LSR}$), intrinsic line width
($\triangle$$v$; corrected for instrumental effects), total optical depths
($\tau_{\rm tot}$), and excitation temperatures ($T_{\rm ex}$), are listed in
Table 3.
Figure 4 shows the mean velocity fields of CG 30 and BHR 71, derived from the
N2H+ line maps with the fitting routine described in Paper I. The jet/outflow
information is also shown in each map. In CG 30, the southern core shows a
well-ordered velocity field, with gradient parallel to the outflow direction.
The northern core shows a more complicated velocity field, but the gradient in
the inner core is also parallel to the outflow direction. In BHR 71, there
seems to be a general velocity gradient across the two N2H+ cores, which is
approximately perpendicular to the axis of the large-scale CO outflow. This
may indicate that the two cores are actually part of one physical structure
associated with IRS1 (see discussion in $\S$ 4.4). A least-squares fitting of
the velocity gradients has been performed using the routine described in
Goodman et al. (1993). The results are summarized in Table 5 and discussed in
$\S$ 4.2.
Figure 5 shows the spatial distribution of N2H+ line widths for both sources.
The line widths are roughly constant within the interiors of the cores, which
is consistent with the observational results in Paper I. The mean line widths
were derived through Gaussian fitting to the distribution of line widths
versus solid angle area in the maps (see Fig. 6). We find that the sub-cores
in each object have roughly equal line width, but the mean line width in CG 30
($\sim$ 0.5 km s-1) is $\sim$ 1.7 times larger than that in BHR 71 ($\sim$ 0.3
km s-1).
Assuming that the observed N2H+ line widths are not dominated by systematic
gas motions, the virial mass of the cores has been calculated as:
$M_{\rm vir}=\frac{5}{8{\rm ln2}}\frac{R\triangle v_{\rm ave}^{2}}{\alpha_{\rm
vir}G},$ (1)
where $G$ is the gravitational constant, $R$ is the FWHM core radius, and
$\triangle v_{\rm ave}$ is the line width of the emission from an “average”
particle with mass $m_{\rm ave}$ = 2.33 amu (assuming gas with 90% H2 and 10%
He). The coefficient $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ = (1 $-$ $p$/3)/(1 $-$ 2$p$/5), where
$p$ is the power-law index of the density profile, is a correction for
deviations from constant density (see Williams et al. 1994). In our
calculations, we assume $p$ = 1.5 (see André et al. 2000) and use $\alpha_{\rm
vir}$ = 1.25. $\triangle v_{\rm ave}$ is derived from the observed spectra by
$\triangle v_{\rm ave}^{2}=\triangle v_{\rm obs}^{2}+8{\rm ln2}\frac{kT_{\rm
ex}}{m_{\rm H}}(\frac{1}{m_{\rm ave}}-\frac{1}{m_{\rm obs}}),$ (2)
where $\triangle v_{\rm obs}$ is the observed mean line width of N2H+ and
$m_{\rm obs}$ is the mass of the emitting molecule (here we use $m_{\rm
N_{2}H^{+}}$ = 29 amu). We derive virial masses between 0.1 and 0.6
$M_{\odot}$. The results are listed in Table 4.
The N2H+ column density has been calculated independently from the line
intensity using the equation given by Benson et al. (1998):
$N({\rm N_{2}H^{+}})=3.3\times 10^{11}\frac{\tau\triangle vT_{\rm
ex}}{1-e^{-4.47/T_{\rm ex}}}\,(\rm cm^{-2}),$ (3)
where $\tau$ is the total optical depth, $\triangle v$ is the intrinsic line
width in km s-1, and $T_{\rm ex}$ is the excitation temperature in K. The gas-
phase N2H+ mass of the core was then calculated from $M_{\rm N_{2}H^{+}}$
$\approx$ $N(\rm N_{2}H^{+})_{\rm peak}$ $\times$ $m_{\rm N_{2}H^{+}}$
$\times$ $d^{2}$ $\times$ $\Omega_{\rm FWHM}$, where $d$ is the distance from
the Sun and $\Omega_{\rm FWHM}$ is the solid angle enclosed by the FWHM
contours for each core.
Assuming that the gas mass and virial mass derived from the N2H+ data are the
same, we derived the average fractional abundance of N2H+ in each core (see
Table 4). The average value $\langle$$X(\rm N_{2}H^{+})$$\rangle$ $\sim$ 3.0
$\times$ 10-10 for CG 30 and BHR 71 is close to the mean value found in Paper
I ($\sim$ 3.3 $\times$ 10-10) for nine other protostellar cores.
### 3.3 _Spitzer_ Images
Figure 7 shows the $Spitzer$ images of CG 30. The infrared emission from CG
30N and CG 30S is detected at all IRAC bands (3.6 $\mu$m $-$ 8.0 $\mu$m). Fig.
7a shows a wide-field IRAC band 2 (4.5 $\mu$m) image. Centered at CG 30S is a
highly collimated bipolar jet, with P.A. $\sim$ 40∘. The knots in the jet are
labeled with the same numbers as in Hodapp & Ladd (1995). The most distant
knot (No. 8) is $\sim$ 90′′ away from CG 30S. Assuming a typical jet speed of
100 km s-1 (Reipurth & Bally 2001), an inclination angle of 90∘, and a
distance of 400 pc, the dynamical age of the jet is estimated to be $\sim$
1700 yr. CG 30N appears to be the driving source of HH 120, which is $\sim$
5′′ in size and extends to the west. Knot No. 6, located to the east of CG
30N, is probably ejected by CG 30N and part of the same outflow as HH 120.
Figs. 7b and 7c show enlarged views of the two sources, overlaid with the
contours from the ATCA 3 mm dust continuum and N2H+ images. The two infrared
sources are spatially coincident with the 3 mm dust continuum and N2H+
sources. However, when viewed in detail, CG 30S is elongated at the infrared
bands and the continuum source is located at the apex of the infrared
emission, implying that the infrared emission at IRAC bands from CG 30S is due
to scattered light in a cavity evacuated by the jet/outflow. In contrast, CG
30N shows a point-like structure at all IRAC bands coincident with the
circumstellar mm dust emission peak, suggesting that the source is directly
detected at NIR wavelengths ($\lambda$ $<$ 5 $\mu$m). The N2H+ emission from
CG 30N spatially follows the direction of the protostellar jet and the long
extension to the west matches exactly the HH 120 flow (see Fig. 7c),
indicating that the jet has a strong effect on the morphology of the N2H+
emission.
In the $Spitzer$ MIPS 1 (24 $\mu$m) image shown in Fig. 7d, CG 30 is again
resolved in two sources, but the emission is dominated by CG 30N and only weak
emission is found at the position of CG 30S. In the MIPS 2 (70 $\mu$m) image
(see Fig. 7e), the two sources are not fully resolved, but two peaks, with
flux ratio $\sim$ 2:1, can be clearly distinguished. Flux densities of CG 30N
and CG 30S in the IRAC and MIPS bands are measured (see $\S$ 2.2) and listed
in Table 6.
The $Spitzer$ images of BHR 71 are shown in Fig. 8, with the same sequence as
in Fig. 7. The infrared emission from IRS1 and IRS2 is detected at all IRAC
bands. A large-scale ($\sim$ 160′′ in length) bipolar jet, centered at IRS1
with a P.A. of 165∘, is seen in the IRAC images (Fig. 8a). The northern jet,
spatially coincident with the red-shifted CO outflow, is S-shaped, while the
southern jet, containing the HH object HH 321 (Corporon & Reipurth 1997),
shows a V-shaped structure at the apex. This V-shaped structure may represent
a conical cavity evacuated by the successive bow-shocks traced by the infrared
emission (Fig. 8a) and the blue-shifted CO outflow (see B97 and Parise et al.
2006). Another bipolar jet, at P.A. $\sim$ 30∘, is found with IRS2 being in
the center. Its northwest lobe, containing another HH object HH 320 (Corporon
& Reipurth 1997), also shows a V-shaped structure at the apex and could be
explained in the same way.
IRS1 and IRS2 are spatially coincident with the dust continuum sources
detected with ATCA (see Fig. 8b). We note that the IRS2 dust continuum source
is located at the apex of the infrared emission and could be explained in the
same way as CG 30S. The elongated structure and secondary peak found in the
ATCA dust continuum image match the left wall of the outflow cavity,
suggesting they result from the jet/outflow action (for a similar case, see
Gueth et al. 2003). The N2H+ emission is located on both sides of the large-
scale CO outflow and basically matches the wall of the cavity (see Fig. 8c).
At the MIPS 1 band, BHR 71 is barely resolved into two sources and the
emission is dominated by IRS1 (see Fig. 8d). The MIPS 2 image does not resolve
the two sources and the emission is peaked at the position of IRS1666The
offset ($\sim$ 3′′) between the MIPS 2 emission peak and the 3 mm emission
peak is much smaller than the FWHM of MIPS 2 PSF ($>$ 10′′), and is not
significant. (see Fig. 8e). Flux densities of IRS1 and IRS2 are listed in
Table 6.
## 4 DISCUSSION
### 4.1 Spectral Energy Distributions and Evolutionary Stages
Figure 9 shows the spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of CG 30 N and S and
BHR 71 IRS1 and IRS2, based on the infrared (ISOCAM, $Spitzer$, and IRAS),
sub-mm (SCUBA, available only for CG 30), and mm (SEST and ATCA) observations.
The NIR data of CG 30N are adopted from Persi et al. (1990). The SCUBA and
SEST data for CG 30 are adopted from Henning et al. (2001) and Henning &
Launhardt (1998), respectively. The ISOCAM and SEST data for BHR 71 are
adopted from B01 and B97, respectively. Here we do not explicitly list all
flux values, but show graphically the SEDs. Since IRAS observations could
resolve neither CG 30 nor BHR 71, flux ratios at the IRAS wavelengths of 10:1
(CG 30N : CG 30S) and 20:1 (BHR 71 IRS1 : IRS2) were inferred from the
$Spitzer$ and ATCA observations.
In order to derive luminosities and bolometric temperatures, we first
interpolated and then integrated the SEDs, always assuming spherical symmetry.
Interpolation between the flux densities was done by a $\chi$2 grey-body fit
to all points at $\lambda$ $\geq$ 100 $\mu$m777The 3 mm points were ignored in
the fitting to CG 30 and BHR 71 IRS2 to give higher priority to the submm
data, resulting in much better fitting., using
$S_{\nu}=B_{\nu}(T_{\rm d})(1-e^{-\tau_{\nu}})\Omega,$ (4)
where $B_{\nu}$$(T_{\rm d})$ is the Planck function at frequency $\nu$ and
dust temperature $T_{\rm d}$, $\tau_{\nu}$ is the dust optical depth as a
function of frequency ${\tau}\propto{\nu}^{1.8}$, and $\Omega$ is the solid
angle of the source. A simple logarithmic interpolation was used between all
points at $\lambda$ $\leq$ 100 $\mu$m. The fitting results, such as dust and
bolometric temperatures, sub-mm ($\lambda$ $\geq$ 350 $\mu$m) and bolometric
luminosities, are listed in Table 7.
Based on these results, we try to address the evolutionary stages of CG 30 and
BHR 71. A detailed definition and discussion for early stellar evolutionary
phases can be found in André et al. (2000) and Froebrich (2005). The $L_{\rm
submm}$/$L_{\rm bol}$ ratios of all sources are $\gg$ 0.5% (the standard
boundary of Class 0 protostars, see André et al. 2000)888Our $L_{\rm
submm}$/$L_{\rm bol}$ ratios are larger than those found by Froebrich (2005).
We attribute this to the fact that Frobrich (2005) assumed the two objects
were single cores, but we resolved them as binaries. Furthermore, we have more
data points at submm wavelengths (for CG 30) and high-resolution
interferometric data points at 3 mm, which were all not available to Froebrich
(2005). and the four sources each drive a bipolar jet (see $\S$ 3.3). However,
the bolometric temperature of CG 30N is $\sim$ 100 K and the object is also
directly detected at NIR wavelengths, suggesting CG 30N is a Class I young
stellar object. In contrast, the low bolometric temperature (37 K) of CG 30S
suggests it is a Class 0 protostar. In BHR 71, both IRS1 and IRS2 have
bolometric temperatures less than 70 K (see Table 7). Nevertheless, IRS1 might
be directly detected at NIR wavelengths (see Fig. 8a), suggesting that it is a
transition object between Class 0 and I, while IRS2 could be a Class 0
protostar.
It must be noted that the analysis above does not take into account
inclination effects: considering a protostar embedded in a circumstellar
disk/envelope, its infrared emission could be detected through the outflow
cavity when the system is face-on, but is not seen when it is edge-on. In BHR
71, the bipolar CO outflow powered by IRS1 is lying roughly in the plane of
sky, implying the latter case; the bipolar outflow driven by IRS2 appears to
favor the same situation (see Parise et al. 2006). In CG 30, however, the
relative inclinations could not be easily distinguished because the
information about molecular outflows is still missing. The SED-based
classification discussed above thus might be a result of both evolutionary
stage and inclination. In particular in CG 30 we cannot disentangle the two
effects. It is well possible that the different SEDs (and bolometric
temperatures) reflect actually inclination effects rather than a difference in
evolutionary stage.
### 4.2 Gas Kinematics
The thermal contribution to the N2H+ line width is calculated by $\triangle
v_{\rm th}^{2}={\rm 8ln2}\frac{kT_{\rm K}}{m_{\rm obs}}$, where $k$ is the
Boltzmann constant, $T_{\rm K}$ is the kinetic gas temperature, and $m_{\rm
obs}$ is the mass of the observed molecule. Assuming that at the high
densities of $>$ 106 cm-3 (see Table 2) the kinetic gas temperature is equal
to the dust temperature derived in $\S$ 4.1 ($\sim$ 20 K), the non-thermal
contributions to the line widths ($\triangle v_{\rm NT}=\sqrt{\triangle v_{\rm
mean}^{2}-\triangle v_{\rm th}^{2}}$) were then calculated to be $\sim$ 0.5 km
s-1 in CG 30 and $\sim$ 0.2 km s-1 in BHR 71 (see Table 3). These non-thermal
line widths suggest that turbulence, the main contribution to the non-thermal
line width (Goodman et al. 1998), cannot be ignored in the protostellar cores.
On the other hand, the thermal line width of an “average” particle of mass
2.33 $m_{\rm H}$ (assuming gas with 90% H2 and 10% He), which represents the
local sound speed, is $\sim$ 0.62 km s-1 at 20 K. The derived non-thermal
contributions to the N2H+ line width in both CG 30 and BHR 71 are smaller than
this local sound speed (i.e., the turbulent motion is subsonic). We also note
that the mean line widths derived for BHR 71 ($\sim$ 0.3 km s-1) are three
times smaller than measured by single-dish observations in Mardones et al.
(1997; $\sim$ 0.9 km s-1). Taking into account the systematic velocity
variation across the core ($\sim$ 0.3 km s-1; see Table 5), the combined line
width in our maps is still smaller than the result from single-dish
observations. It means that high-level (supersonic) turbulence occurs mainly
in the extended envelope which is resolved out by the interferometer, but the
inner core is much more “quiescent”. This is consistent with what we found in
Paper I, namely that non-thermal motions are quickly damped from large-scale
to smaller inner cores (see e.g., Fuller & Myers 1992).
The velocity fields of CG 30N, CG 30S, and BHR 71 show systematic velocity
gradients (see Fig. 4). As discussed in Paper I, systematic velocity gradients
are usually dominated by either rotation or outflow. In CG 30, the gradients
in both cores are parallel to the jets. Although there is no molecular outflow
information available yet for CG 30, these gradients are likely the results of
outflows and we treat them as upper limits of underlying rotation velocity
gradients. In BHR 71, the velocity gradient across the two N2H+ cores is
roughly perpendicular to the axis of the large-scale CO outflow and could be
explained by rotation. [Here we assume that the two cores are associated with
IRS1 (see $\S$ 4.4).] The velocity gradients measured in CG 30N, CG 30S, and
BHR 71 are $<$ 24.4, $<$ 17.5, and 7.8 $\pm$ 0.5 km s-1 pc-1, respectively
(see Table 5). Both the velocity gradient in BHR 71 as well as the upper
limits for CG 30N and CG 30S are consistent with those found in Paper I.
Assuming that the velocity gradients summarized in Table 5 are due to core
rotation, the specific angular momentum $J/M$ of the objects was calculated
with the following equation:
$J/M=\alpha_{\rm rot}\omega
R^{2}=\frac{2}{3}\frac{3-p}{5-p}\frac{g}{sini}R^{2}\approx\frac{2}{7}\,gR^{2},$
(5)
where the coefficient $\alpha_{\rm rot}$ = $\frac{2}{3}$ $\frac{3-p}{5-p}$,
$p$ is the power-law index of the radial density profile ($p$ = 1.5; see $\S$
3.2), $g$ is the velocity gradient, and $i$ is the inclination angle to the
line of sight direction (here we assume $sin\,i$ = 1). The derived $J/M$ for
CG 30N, CG 30S, and BHR 71 are listed in Table 5. It should be noted that for
CG 30 we derive only upper limits. The ratio of rotational energy to the
gravitational potential energy was calculated by $\beta_{\rm rot}$ =
$\frac{E_{\rm rot}}{E_{\rm grav}}$ $\approx$ 0.19 $\frac{g^{2}R^{3}}{GM}$,
where $E_{\rm rot}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$ $I$ $\omega^{2}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$
$\alpha_{\rm rot}$ $MR^{2}$ $\omega^{2}$ and $E_{\rm grav}$ = $\frac{3}{5}$
$\alpha_{\rm vir}GM^{2}/R$ (the masses and radii used in the equations are
virial masses and radii listed in Table 4). The estimated $\beta_{\rm rot}$
values for CG 30N, CG 30S, and BHR 71 are $<$ 0.019, $<$ 0.014, and $\sim$
0.020, respectively.
### 4.3 How did the cores fragment?
Recent numerical simulations and observations support the hypothesis that the
fragmentation of molecular cloud cores is the main mechanism for the formation
of binary/multiple stellar systems, although the exact when, where, why, and
how are still under debate (see reviews by Bodenheimer et al. 2000, Tohline
2002, and Goodwin et al. 2007). In this section, we try to examine the origin
of the sub-cores in both CG 30 and BHR 71, i.e., whether they formed by
initial cloud fragmentation prior to protostellar collapse or by prompt
rotational fragmentation of a single core after the initial collapse.
In CG 30, our previous single-dish submm maps have shown a large-scale
hourglass-shaped common envelope around the two sub-cores (Henning et al.
2001; see Fig. 1a). The separation between the sub-cores is $\sim$ 8700 AU,
which is roughly two times the typical Jeans length [$R_{\rm Jeans}$ = 0.19 pc
($\frac{T}{10K}$)${}^{\frac{1}{2}}$ ($\frac{n_{\rm
H_{2}}}{10^{4}cm^{-3}}$)${}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$; see Stahler & Palla 2004] in
prestellar cores ($\sim$ 4000 AU at $T$ = 10 K and $n_{\rm H_{2}}$ = 106
cm-3). The radial velocity difference between the two sub-cores is $\sim$ 0.16
km s-1 (see Table 3). If we assume that the total binary mass is 1.4 $\times$
1.36 $M_{\odot}$ (see Table 2; the factor 1.36 accounting for He and heavier
elements) and the orbit is perpendicular to the plane of sky, the orbit
velocity difference in a bound system with the separation of 8700 AU should be
$\sim$ 0.44 km s-1, about three times larger than the observed value.
Furthermore, from this observed velocity difference, we estimate the
$\beta_{\rm rot}$ of $\sim$ 0.008 for the large-scale cloud core which
contains the two sub-cores (radius $\sim$ 8000 AU; see Fig. 2a). This
$\beta_{\rm rot}$ is less than the typical boundary suggested by a series of
numerical simulations (see e.g., Boss 1999 and Machida et al. 2005) for
rotational fragmentation. Based on the morphology and velocity structure, we
suggest that the two sub-cores in CG 30 were formed by initial
fragmentation999The basic idea of this initial fragmentation is that the
collapse is initiated in a large-scale molecular cloud core which contains
multiple Jeans masses in a weakly condensed configuration, e.g., a prolate or
filamentary Gaussian distribution with several Jeans masses along the long
axis and one Jeans mass across the short axis; with some initial angular
momentum, provided by either slow rotation (Bonnell et al. 1991) or turbulence
(Goodwin et al. 2007), the large cloud core fragments at Jeans scale into
several dense cores, in which the separate protostellar collapse then starts
and proceeds more quickly than across the whole structure (see e.g., Mundy et
al. 2001 and reference therein). of a large-scale filamentary prestellar core.
In BHR 71, the two sub-cores have a separation of $\sim$ 3400 AU (less than
the typical Jeans length) and are also surrounded by a large common envelope
(Fig. 1b). Unfortunately, the observed velocity structure is mainly associated
with IRS1 and kinematic information of IRS2 is missing. Here we can only
speculate on the basis of separation that the two sub-cores could be formed by
prompt rotational fragmentation of a collapsing protostellar core.
Numerical simulations also predict that the material collapses along the
magnetic field lines while the fragmentation occurs in a plane perpendicular
to the magnetic field. This is supported by our previous submm polarimetric
observations towards CG 30 (Henning et al. 2001). In contrast to a simple
assumption that the angular momenta of two components will be parallel in the
fragmentation, we find that the outflows, and hence the angular momenta
(assumed to be parallel to the outflows), of the sub-cores are not aligned,
neither in CG 30, nor in BHR 71. This phenomenon is also found in other binary
protostars studied recently, like e.g., CB 230 and L 723 (Launhardt 2004;
Launhardt et al., in prep.). This could mean that during core fragmentation
the initial angular momentum is not evenly (in value and direction) divided
between the sub-cores, although the mean direction is preserved all the time.
### 4.4 N2H+ vs. Dust vs. CO
From our observations towards Class 0 protostars conducted at OVRO (Paper I),
ATCA (this work), and IRAM-PdBI (Chen et al., in prep.), we find that in most
objects the mm continuum source lies within the half maximum level of the N2H+
emission. This good general agreement indicates that N2H+ is spatially
associated with thermal dust in dense protostellar cores and cannot be
significantly depleted like, e.g., CO and CS (see Bergin et al. 2001 and
Caselli et al. 1999).
Fig. 10 shows that the dust mass (converted into hydrogen gas mass) is in
general correlated with both the N2H+ gas mass and the virial mass (both
derived from the N2H+ emission). However, there is a significant scatter in
both correlations, indicating that the agreement holds only within a factor of
2 to 2.5 (1 $\sigma$ scatter). This could be due to the fact that the mm dust
continuum emission traces mainly the dense structures (e.g., inner envelope or
disk), while N2H+ emission traces the larger-scale envelope (see e.g., Figs.
1a & 2a), and hence reflects different masses on different scales. We also
note that the N2H+ gas mass depends on the specific source morphology and
chemistry since it is quickly destroyed where CO is released from dust grain
into the gas phase (see below). The estimated virial mass has also significant
uncertainties because several sources are driving bipolar outflows and are
probably no longer in virial equilibrium.
On the other hand, we also find that in most objects the morphology of the
N2H+ emission is directly related to the jet/outflow actions. For example, in
BHR 71, two N2H+ cores, located to the east and west of the outflow-driving
source IRS1, are rotating perpendicular to the outflow axis, and there is no
N2H+ emission detected at the origin and along the large-scale CO outflow.
These features suggest a large N2H+ hole has been formed and the two cores may
be the remnant of a N2H+ envelope101010For similar cases see low-mass
protostars L 483 (J$\o$rgensen 2004) and IRAM 04191 (Belloche & André 2004)..
It is likely that a large amount of N2H+ in the way of the outflow has been
depleted by CO molecules, which is one of the main destroyers of N2H+ in the
gas phase (Aikawa et al. 2001). For this reason, we think that the emission at
the position of IRS2 (see Fig. 2b) is part of the structure around IRS1 and
does not originate from IRS2.
Based on the observational results, we speculate that there are three stages
of the interaction between N2H+ and jets/outflows. (1) When jets are ejected
from a protostar, N2H+ molecules in the envelope are entrained and show a jet-
like morphology in the images, like, e.g., L723 VLA2 (Paper I) and CG 30N
(this work). (2) Molecular outflows, following the jets, release CO from grain
surfaces back into the gas phase and start destroying the N2H+ molecules on
the way, leading to the observed hourglass structure perpendicular to the CO
outflow axis, like e.g., IRAS 03282+3035, IRAS 04166+2706, and CB 224 (see
Paper I). (3) Large N2H+ holes form in the envelopes, like e.g., in BHR 71
IRS1 (this work), L 483 (J$\o$rgensen 2004), and IRAM 04191 (Belloche & André
2004). However, there seems to be no clear correlation between this N2H+/jet
scenario and standard evolutionary scenario from Class 0 to Class I. For
example, IRAM 04191 is a young Class 0 protostar but appears in the last
stage, while CG 30N is a Class I object but appears in the first stage. We
speculate that the appearance of the N2H+ emission is strongly affected by
outflow-envelope interaction, which depends on the specific envelope
morphology and source multiplicity properties.
## 5 SUMMARY
We have presented ATCA and $Spitzer$ observations of the two isolated
protostellar double cores CG 30 and BHR 71 in the southern sky. The main
results of this work are summarized as follows:
(1) The 3 mm dust continuum image of CG 30 resolves two compact sources with a
separation of $\sim$ 21′′ (8400 AU). In BHR 71, one strong dust continuum
source is detected at the position of mid-infrared source IRS1, while only
weak emission is detected from the secondary mid-infrared source IRS2. The
separation between IRS1 and IRS2 is $\sim$ 17′′ (3400 AU). Assuming optically
thin dust emission, we derive hydrogen gas masses of 1.1 $M_{\odot}$ and 0.33
$M_{\odot}$ for northern and southern sources in CG 30, and 2.1 $M_{\odot}$
and 0.05 $M_{\odot}$ for IRS1 and IRS2 sources in BHR 71.
(2) N2H+ (1 $-$ 0) emission is detected in both CG 30 and BHR 71. In CG 30,
the two dust continuum sources are directly associated with N2H+ cores. In BHR
71, two N2H+ cores are around the primary dust continuum source, probably part
of one large envelope, but no N2H+ is detected at the position of the dust
source. The secondary IR source is not detected in N2H+.
(3) The excitation temperatures of the N2H+ line are 4.7 $-$ 6.8 K for CG 30
and 3.9 $-$ 4.4 K for BHR 71. The FWHM radii of N2H+ cores range from 730 to
1700 AU. The average fractional abundances of N2H+, derived from the ratio of
N2H+ gas mass to virial mass, is $\sim$ 3.0 $\times$ 10-10, which is
consistent with the results obtained in our previous study of the cores in
northern sky. The observed mean N2H+ line widths are $\sim$ 0.5 km s-1 for CG
30 and $\sim$ 0.3 km s-1 for BHR 71. The line widths are roughly constant
within the interiors of the cores and large line widths only occur at the
edges of the cores. The derived virial masses of the N2H+ cores range from 0.1
to 0.6 $M_{\odot}$.
(4) We derive the N2H+ radial velocity fields for CG 30 and BHR 71. The two
N2H+ cores in CG 30 show systematic velocity gradients of $\sim$ 24.4 km s-1
pc-1 and $\sim$ 17.8 km s-1 pc-1 that are parallel to the outflow directions
and could be affected by the outflows. In BHR 71, a systematic velocity
gradient of $\sim$ 7.8 km s-1 pc-1 across the two cores is perpendicular to
the large-scale outflow and could be explained by rotation.
(5) Assuming that the observed velocity gradients are due to core rotation (if
perpendicular to outflow) or place an upper limit to rotation (if parallel to
outflow), we estimate specific angular momenta of $<$ 0.30, $<$ 0.35, and
$\sim$ 0.51 $\times$ 10-3 km s-1 pc for CG 30N, CG 30S, and BHR 71,
respectively. The ratios for the rotational energy to the gravitational
potential energy for CG 30N, CG 30S, and BHR 71 are estimated to be $<$ 0.019,
$<$ 0.014, and $\sim$ 0.020, respectively.
(6) Infrared emission from both sub-cores in both CG 30 and BHR 71 is detected
at $Spitzer$ IRAC bands and MIPS bands. Each source is driving its own
outflow, as seen in the shock-excited 4.5 $\mu$m infrared images. CG 30N is
associated with a Herbig-Haro flow, while the southern source is driving a
large bipolar jet. In BHR 71, both IRS1 and IRS2 are associated with Herbig-
Haro objects and driving bipolar jets which coincide spatially with the CO
outflows.
(7) By fitting the spectral energy distributions, we derive the dust
temperature, bolometric temperature, and bolometric luminosity of the sources.
We find that CG 30N is a Class I object while the southern source is a Class 0
protostar. In BHR 71, the properties of IRS1 resemble a Class 0/I transition
object, while IRS2 is a Class 0 protostar. We speculate that the sources may
nevertheless be coeval but that this evolutionary discrepancy is due to the
effects of ralative inclinations.
(8) Based on the morphologies and velocity structures, we suggest that the
double cores in CG 30 were formed by initial fragmentation of a filamentary
prestellar core, while BHR 71 may originate from rotational fragmentation of a
single collapsing protostellar core. We also find that the angular momenta of
the sub-cores are not aligned in either pair of sources.
(9) Our observations conducted at OVRO and ATCA show a close correlation
between thermal dust emission and N2H+. The N2H+ emission in most sources is
spatially associated and quantitatively correlated with the dust continuum
emission. However, we also find a strong relationship between the morphology
of the N2H+ emission and the jet/outflow actions. Outflows first seem to
entrain N2H+ and then gradually destroy it, which leads to the observed jet-
like, hourglass-shaped intensity maps and N2H+ hole.
We thank the anonymous referee for many helpful comments and suggestions. The
Australia Telescope Compact Array is part of the Australia Telescope, which is
funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a national facility
managed by CSIRO. We thank the ATCA staff for technical support during the
observations. We also thank A. Goodman for fruitful discussions and providing
the VFIT routine.
## References
* Aikawa et al. (2001) Aikawa, Y., Ohashi, N., Inutsuka, S. I., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, 639
* André et al. (2000) André, P., Ward-Thompson, D., & Barsony, M. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. S. Russell (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 59
* Belloche & André (2004) Belloche, A., & André, P. 2004, A&A, 419, L35
* Benson et al. (1998) Benson, P. J., Caselli, P., & Myers, P. C. 1998, ApJ, 506, 743
* Bergin et al. (2001) Bergin, E. A., Ciardi, D. R., Lada, C. J., Alves, J., & Lada, E. A. 2001, ApJ, 557, 209
* Bodenheimer et al. (2000) Bodenheimer, P., Burkert, A., Klein, R. I., & Boss, A. P. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, & S. R. Russell (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 675
* Bonnell et al. (1991) Bonnell, I., Martel, H., & Bastien, P. 1991, ApJ, 377, 553
* Boss (1999) Boss, A. P. 1999, ApJ, 520, 744
* Bourke (2001) Bourke, T. L. 2001, ApJ, 554, L91 (B01)
* Bourke et al. (1997) Bourke, T. L., Garay, G., Lehtinen, K. K., et al. 1997, ApJ, 476, 781 (B97)
* Brandt et al. (1971) Brandt, J. C., 1971, in: Maran, S. P., Brandt, J. C., Stecher, T. P. (eds.), The Gum Nebula and Related Problemss, NASA SP-322, 4
* Briggs et al. (1999) Briggs, D. S., Schwab, F. R., & Sramek, R. A. 1999, ASPC, 180, 127
* Caselli et al. (1999) Caselli, P., Walmsley, C. M., Tafalla, M., Dore, L., & Myers, P. C. 1999, ApJ, 523, L165
* Chen et al. (2007) Chen, X. P., Launhardt, R., & Henning, Th. 2007, ApJ, 669, 1058 (Paper I)
* Corporon & Reipurth (1997) Corporon, P., & Reipurth, B. 1997, in IAU Symp. 182, Poster Proc., Low-Mass Star Formation$--$From Infall to Outflow, ed. F. Malbert & A. Castets (Grenobel: Obs. Grenoble), 85
* Evans et al. (2003) Evans II, N. J., Allen, L. E., & Blake, G. A., et al. 2003, PASP, 115, 965
* Froebrich (2005) Froebrich, D. 2005, ApJS, 156, 169
* Fuller & Myers (1992) Fuller, G. A., & Myers, P. C. 1992, ApJ, 384, 523
* Gueth et al. (2003) Gueth, F., Bachiller, R., & Tafalla, M. 2003, A&A, 401, L5
* Goodman et al. (1998) Goodman, A. A., Barranco, J. A., Wilner, D. J., & Heyer, M. H. 1998, ApJ, 504, 223
* Goodman et al. (1993) Goodman, A. A., Benson, P. J., Fuller, G. A., & Myers, P. C. 1993, ApJ, 406, 528
* Goodwin et al. (2007) Goodwin, S., Kroupa, P., Goodman, A., & Burkert A. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press), 133
* Henning & Launhardt (1998) Henning, Th., & Launhardt, R. 1998, A&A, 338, 223
* Henning et al. (2001) Henning, Th., Wolf, S., Launhardt, R., & Waters, R. 2001, ApJ, 561, 871
* Hodapp & Ladd (1995) Hodapp, K.-W., & Ladd, E. F. 1995, ApJ, 453, 715
* Jorgensen (2004) J$\o$rgensen, J. K. 2004, A&A, 424, 589
* Knude et al. (1999) Knude, J., J$\o$nch-S$\o$rensen, H., & Nielsen, A. S. 1999, A&A, 350, 985
* Launhardt (2001) Launhardt R. 2001, in The Formation of Binary Stars, IAU Symp. 200, ed. H. Zinnecker, & R. D. Mathieu (San Francisco: ASP), 117
* Launhardt (2004) Launhardt, R. 2004, in IAU Symp. 221, Star Formation at High Angular Resolution, ed. M. G. Burton, R. Jayawardhana, & T. L. Bourke (San Francisco: ASP), 213
* Launhardt & Henning (1997) Launhardt, R., & Henning, Th. 1997, A&A, 326, 329
* Launhardt et al. (2001) Launhardt, R., Sargent, A. I., Henning, Th. et al. 2001, Poster Proc. of IAU Symp. 200, 103
* Looney et al. (2000) Looney, L. W., Mundy, L. G., & Welch, W. J. 2000, ApJ, 529, 477
* Machida et al. (2005) Machida, M. N., Matsumoto, T., Hanawa, T., & Tomisaka, K. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 382
* Mardones et al. (1997) Mardones, D., Myers, P. C., Tafalla, M., Wilner, D. J., Bachiller, R., & Garay, G. 1997, ApJ, 489, 719
* Mundy et al. (2001) Mundy, L. E., Looney, L. W., Welch, W. J. 2001, in The Formation of Binary Stars, IAU Symp. 200, ed. H. Zinnecker, & R. D. Mathieu (San Francisco: ASP), 136
* Ossenkopf & Henning (1994) Ossenkopf, V., & Henning, Th. 1994, A&A, 291, 943
* Parise et al. (2006) Parise, B., Belloche, A., & Leurini, S. et al. 2006, A&A, 454, L79
* Persi et al. (1990) Persi, P., Ferrari-Toniolo, M., & Busso, M. et al. 1990, AJ, 99, 303
* Reipurth (1983) Reipurth, B. 1983, A&A, 117, 183
* Reipurth & Bally (2001) Reipurth, B., & Bally, J. 2001, ARA&A, 39, 403
* Reipurth et al. (2007) Reipurth, B., Jewitt, D., & Keil, K. (ed.) 2007, Protostars and Planets V (Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press)
* Sault et al. (1995) Sault, R. J., Teuben, P. J., & Wright, M. C. H. 1995, in ASP Conf. Ser. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes (San Francisco: ASP), 443
* Stahler & Palla (2004) Stahler, S. W., & Palla, F. 2004, The formation of stars (Wiley press)
* Tohline (2002) Tohline, J. E. 2002, ARA&A, 40, 349
* Williams et al. (1994) Williams, J. P., de Geus, E. J., & Blitz, L. 1994, ApJ, 428, 693
Table 1: Target list and summary of observations
Object | IRAS | R.A. & Dec. (J2000)a | Distance | Array | HPBWb | rmsc
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Name | Source | [h : m : s, ${}^{\circ}:\,^{\prime}:\,^{\prime\prime}$] | [pc] | configuration | [arcsec] | [mJy/beam]
CG 30 | 08076$-$3556 | 08:09:33.0, $-$36:05:01.00 | 400 | H75+H168 | 4.6$\times$3.3/4.6$\times$3.2 | 65/0.5
BHR 71 | 11590$-$6452 | 12:01:36.5, $-$65:08:49.49 | 200 | H75+H168 | 3.6$\times$2.9/3.9$\times$3.1 | 20/2.0
aafootnotetext: Reference position for figures and tables in the paper (except
$Spitzer$ images).
bbfootnotetext: Synthesized FWHM beam sizes at N2H+(1 $-$ 0) line / 3 mm dust
continuum with robust weighting 1.
ccfootnotetext: 1 $\sigma$ noises at N2H+(1 $-$ 0) line / 3 mm dust continuum.
Table 2: 3 mm dust continuum results for CG 30 and BHR 71
Source | R.A.a | Dec.a | $S_{\nu}$ | FWHM sizesa | $M_{\rm H}$ | $\langle n_{\rm H}\rangle$b | $N_{\rm H}$c
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| (J2000) | (J2000) | [mJy] | maj.$\times$min. | P.A. | [$M_{\odot}$] | [$\rm\times 10^{7}cm^{-3}$] | [$\rm\times 10^{23}cm^{-2}$]
CG 30N | 08:09:33.12 | $-$36:04:58.12 | 15.8$\pm$3.2 | 5$\farcs$1$\times$3$\farcs$1 | 89$\pm$7° | 1.10$\pm$0.26 | 1.11 | 4.51
CG 30S | 08:09:32.67 | $-$36:05:19.09 | 6.0$\pm$1.3 | 4$\farcs$8$\times$3$\farcs$1 | 74$\pm$15° | 0.33$\pm$0.10 | 0.37 | 1.45
BHR 71 IRS1 | 12:01:36.81 | $-$65:08:49.22 | 140$\pm$28 | 7$\farcs$8$\times$7$\farcs$1 | $-$73$\pm$20° | 2.12$\pm$0.41 | 2.64 | 9.94
BHR 71 IRS2 | 12:01:34.09 | $-$65:08:47.36 | 2.8$\pm$2.1 | 2$\farcs$6$\times$2$\farcs$1 | 76$\pm$40° | 0.05$\pm$0.02 | 2.18 | 2.58
aafootnotetext: Center position and FWHM sizes of the continuum sources
derived from Gaussian $uv$ plane fitting.
bbfootnotetext: Assuming a spherical morphology for the objects, the mean
volume density of hydrogen atoms $n_{\rm H}$ = $n$(H) + 2$n$(H2) was
calculated by $n_{\rm H}$ = $M_{\rm H}$/$m_{\rm H}$$V$, with $V$ $\sim$
$\pi$/6($\theta_{\rm S}D$)3 being volume.
ccfootnotetext: The hydrogen column density $N_{\rm H}$ = $N$(H) + 2 $N$(H2)
was derived from the flux densities by $N_{\rm H}$ =
$\frac{S_{\nu}}{\kappa_{\rm d}(\nu)\,\Omega_{\rm S}\,B_{\nu}(\nu,T_{\rm d})}$
$\frac{1}{m_{\rm H}}$ $\left(\frac{M_{\rm H}}{M_{\rm d}}\right)$, where
$\Omega_{\rm S}$ is the solid angle of the objects and $m_{\rm H}$ is the
proton mass.
Table 3: Observing parameters from N2H+ (1 $-$ 0) spectra fitting
| $V_{\rm LSR}$a | $\triangle$$v$a | $\tau_{\rm tot}$a | $T_{\rm ex}$a | $\triangle$$v_{\rm mean}$b | $\triangle$$v_{\rm NT}$c
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source | [km s-1] | [km s-1] | | [K] | [km s-1] | [km s-1]
CG 30 N | 6.64$\pm$0.02 | 0.53$\pm$0.03 | 1.0$\pm$0.1 | 4.66$\pm$0.09 | 0.51$\pm$0.01 | 0.47
CG 30 S | 6.48$\pm$0.01 | 0.52$\pm$0.02 | 1.4$\pm$0.1 | 6.81$\pm$0.05 | 0.52$\pm$0.01 | 0.48
BHR 71 E | $-$4.35$\pm$0.02 | 0.44$\pm$0.10 | 1.9$\pm$0.4 | 4.44$\pm$0.13 | 0.28$\pm$0.01 | 0.20
BHR 71 W | $-$4.42$\pm$0.02 | 0.38$\pm$0.06 | 2.5$\pm$0.2 | 3.91$\pm$0.05 | 0.33$\pm$0.01 | 0.27
aafootnotetext: Value at the intensity peak. The error represents 1 $\sigma$
error in the hyperfine fitting.
bbfootnotetext: Mean line width obtained through Gaussian fitting to the
distribution of line widths versus solid angle areas.
ccfootnotetext: Non-thermal line width at the given dust temperature (see
Table 7).
Table 4: Volume size, density, and mass of N2H+ cores
Source | $R$ | $M_{\rm vir}$ | $n_{\rm vir}$ | $N(\rm N_{2}H^{+})$ | $M_{\rm N_{2}H^{+}}$ | $X(\rm N_{2}H^{+})$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| [AU] | [$M_{\odot}$] | [$\times$106 cm-3] | [$\times$1012 cm-2] | [$\times$10-10 $M_{\odot}$] | [$\times$10-10]
CG 30 N | 1300 | 0.38 | 6.2 | 1.29 | 0.51 | 1.83
CG 30 S | 1650 | 0.55 | 4.5 | 3.42 | 1.94 | 4.85
BHR 71 E | 960 | 0.13 | 5.3 | 1.95 | 0.34 | 3.63
BHR 71 W | 730 | 0.11 | 10.3 | 1.87 | 0.21 | 2.52
BHR 71 IRS1a | 3000 | 0.49 | 0.7 | 1.90 | 3.07 | 8.55
aafootnotetext: Assuming that the two N2H+ cores found in BHR 71 are part of a
physical structure around IRS1 with a radius of $\sim$ 3000 AU (see Fig. 2b)
and a mean line width of 0.33 km s-1 (see Table 3).
Table 5: Velocity gradients and specific angular momentum
| mean velocity | $g$ | $\Theta_{g}^{a}$ | $g_{r}$ | $J/M$ | $\beta_{\rm rot}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source | [km s-1] | [km s-1 pc-1] | [degree] | [km s-1] | [$\times$10-3 km s-1 pc] |
CG 30 N | 6.62 | $<$24.4$\pm$0.2 | $-$79.7$\pm$0.4 | 0.32 | $<$ 0.30 | $<$0.019
CG 30 S | 6.45 | $<$17.8$\pm$0.2 | 33.9$\pm$0.3 | 0.29 | $<$ 0.35 | $<$0.014
BHR 71 IRS1b | $-$4.39 | $\sim$7.8$\pm$0.5 | $-$104$\pm$2.0 | 0.23 | $\sim$ 0.51 | $\sim$0.020
aafootnotetext: East of north in the direction of increasing velocity
bbfootnotetext: The same assumption as in Table 4.
Table 6: $Spitzer$ flux densities of CG 30 and BHR 71a
| R.A.b | Dec.b | $S(3.6\,\mu m)$ | $S(4.5\,\mu m)$ | $S(5.8\,\mu m)$ | $S(8.0\,\mu m)$ | $S(24\,\mu m)$ | $S(70\,\mu m)$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
Source | (J2000) | (J2000) | [mJy] | [mJy] | [mJy] | [mJy] | [mJy] | [mJy]
CG 30N | 08:09:33.20 | $-$36:04:58.17 | 55.7$\pm$1.4 | 123.4$\pm$2.1 | 256.1$\pm$3.0 | 395.8$\pm$3.8 | 3400$\pm$100 | 8700$\pm$430
CG 30S | 08:09:32.68 | $-$36:05:20.38 | 6.7$\pm$0.5 | 16.8$\pm$0.8 | 19.6$\pm$0.8 | 9.6$\pm$0.6 | 50$\pm$5 | 4200$\pm$340
BHR 71 IRS1 | 12:01:36.57 | $-$65:08:49.52 | 32.4$\pm$1.1 | 82.4$\pm$1.7 | 123.3$\pm$2.1 | 210.2$\pm$2.8 | 5000$\pm$300 | 84000$\pm$800
BHR 71 IRS2 | 12:01:34.05 | $-$65:08:47.03 | 4.5$\pm$0.4 | 12.4$\pm$0.7 | 15.4$\pm$0.7 | 9.3$\pm$0.6 | 90$\pm$30 | $--$
aafootnotetext: Flux densities in the IRAC and MIPS bands were measured using
IRAF APPHOT and GILDAS, respectively (see $\S$ 2.2).
bbfootnotetext: Peak position of infrared sources measured at the IRAC band 3
(5.8 $\mu$m).
Table 7: Fitting results of the spectral energy distribution Source | $T_{\rm dust}$ | $T_{\rm bol}$ | $L_{\rm bol}$ | $L_{\rm submm}$ | $L_{\rm submm}$/$L_{\rm bol}$ | Classification
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| [K] | [K] | [$L_{\odot}$] | [$L_{\odot}$] | [%] |
CG 30N | 22 | 102 | 13.6$\pm$0.8 | 0.49$\pm$0.10 | 3.6 | Class I
CG 30S | 27 | 37 | 4.3$\pm$0.5 | 0.32$\pm$0.05 | 7.4 | Class 0
BHR 71 IRS1 | 25 | 44 | 13.5$\pm$1.0 | 0.49$\pm$0.05 | 3.6 | Class 0/I
BHR 71 IRS2 | 26 | 58 | 0.5$\pm$0.1 | 0.02$\pm$0.01 | 3.4 | Class 0
Figure 1: (a) 3 mm dust continuum image of CG 30. Contours start at $\sim$ 3
$\sigma$ (1 $\sigma$ $\sim$ 0.5 mJy) with steps of $\sim$ 2 $\sigma$. The grey
dashed contour represents the half-maximum level of the 850 $\mu$m emission
observed with SCUBA (Henning et al. 2001). (b) 3 mm dust continuum image of
BHR 71. Contours start at $\sim$ 3 $\sigma$ (1 $\sigma$ $\sim$ 2 mJy) with
steps of $\sim$ 2 $\sigma$. Crosses mark the positions of the $Spitzer$ MIR
sources. The grey dashed contour represents the half-maximum level of the 1.2
mm emission observed with SEST (B97). Synthesized ATCA beams are shown as grey
ovals in bottom right corners. Figure 2: (a) Image of the N2H+ (1 $-$ 0)
intensity integrated over the seven hyperfine components for CG 30. Contours
start at $\sim$ 3 $\sigma$ (1 $\sigma$ $\sim$ 60 mJy) with steps of $\sim$ 2
$\sigma$. The arrows show the directions of protostellar jets (see $\S$ 3.3).
The grey dashed contours represent the 50%, 75%, and 99% levels of the N2H+ (1
$-$ 0) emission observed with Mopra single-dish telescope (P. Barnes et al. in
prep.). (b) The same for BHR 71 (1 $\sigma$ $\sim$ 20 mJy). The solid and
dashed arrows show the directions of the blue-shifted and red-shifted CO
outflows (see $\S$ 3.3). The crosses in both images represent the peaks of 3
mm dust continuum emission. Synthesized ATCA beams are shown as grey ovals.
Figure 3: N2H+ spectra at the peak positions of the two cores in CG 30 (left)
and BHR 71 (right). Thin dotted curves show the results of hyperfine structure
line fitting. Fit parameters are given in Table 3. [See the electronic edition
of the Journal for a color version of this figure.] Figure 4: N2H+ velocity
field maps of CG 30 (left) and BHR 71 (right). Contours are same as in Fig. 2.
The white arrows in CG 30N and CG 30S show the directions of the protostellar
jets. The red and blue arrows in the BHR 71 map show the directions of CO
outflows, while the white arrow shows the direction of the gradient across the
two main N2H+ clumps. Figure 5: Spatial distribution of N2H+ line widths in CG
30 (left) and BHR 71 (right), as derived from the HFS line fitting. Contours
and symbols are the same as in Fig. 2. Figure 6: Distribution of N2H+ line
widths versus solid angle areas for CG 30 (top) and BHR 71 (bottom). Black
solid curves and numbers show the results of Gaussian fitting to the
distributions. Figure 7: $Spitzer$ images of CG 30. (a) $Spitzer$ IRAC band 2
(4.5 $\mu$m) image of CG 30. Sources CG 30N and CG 30S are labeled as “N” and
“S”, respectively. Dashed arrows show the directions of the protostellar jets;
(b) IRAC band 2 image overlaid with the ATCA 3 mm dust continuum contours
(reference position at R.A.=08:09:04.082, DEC=$-$36:00:53.53, J2000); (c)
Same, but overlaid with the ATCA N2H+ intensity contours; (d) $Spitzer$ MIPS 1
(24 $\mu$m) image of CG 30, overlaid with the ATCA 3 mm dust continuum
contours; (e) $Spitzer$ MIPS 2 (70 $\mu$m) image of CG 30, overlaid with the
ATCA 3 mm dust continuum contours. Figure 8: The same as Fig. 7, but for BHR
71 (reference position at R.A.=12:01:36.349, DEC=$-$65:08:37.50, J2000).
Figure 9: Spectral energy distribution of CG 30N (up left), CG 30S (up right),
BHR 71 IRS1 (bottom left), and BHR 71 IRS2 (bottom right). Error bars (1
$\sigma$) are indicated for all data points, but are mostly smaller than the
symbol sizes. Open squares represent IRAS data points, where flux densities
are divided into two sub-cores with ratios assumed in $\S$ 4.1. While most
data points represent total fluxes, the 3 mm fluxes were measured from
interferometric maps which resolved out the envelope and thus represent lower
limits only. Solid lines show the best-fit for all points at $\lambda$ $\geq$
100 $\mu$m using a grey-body model. Dashed lines at $\lambda$ $\leq$ 100
$\mu$m show the simple logarithmic interpolation used to derive the
luminosity. The fitting results are summarized in Table 7. Figure 10: (a) N2H+
gas mass (derived from N2H+ line emission) versus hydrogen gas mass (derived
from 3 mm dust continuum emission; the dust continuum data of OVRO sample are
taken from Launhardt et al. in prep.), and (b) virial mass (derived from N2H+
line emission) versus hydrogen gas mass for protostellar cores studied in
Paper I and this work.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-11T14:12:46 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.740331 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Xuepeng Chen (1), Ralf Launhardt (1), Tyler L. Bourke (2), Thomas\n Henning (1), Peter J. Barnes ((1) Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (2)\n Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (3) School of Astrophysics,\n University of Sydney)",
"submitter": "Xuepeng Chen",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1533"
} |
0805.1641 | # Breathing mode frequencies of a rotating Fermi gas in the BCS-BEC crossover
region
Theja N. De Silva Department of Physics, Applied Physics and Astronomy, The
State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, New York 13902, USA.
###### Abstract
We study the breathing mode frequencies of a rotating Fermi gas trapped in a
harmonic plus radial quartic potential. We find that as the radial
anharmonicity increases, the lowest order radial mode frequency increases
while the next lowest order radial mode frequency decreases. Then at a
critical anharmonicity, these two modes merge and beyond this merge the cloud
is unstable against the oscillations. The critical anharmonicity depends on
both rotational frequency and the chemical potential. As a result of the large
chemical potential in the BCS regime, even with a weak anharmonicity the
lowest order mode frequency increases with decreasing the attractive
interaction. For large enough anharmonicities in the weak coupling BCS limit,
we find that the excitation of the breathing mode frequencies make the atomic
cloud unstable.
## I I. Introduction
The rapid progress of ultra-cold atomic gas experiments provides unique
opportunities for well controlled studies of quantum many body physics. For
the case of Fermi atomic systems, the possibility of controlling the s-wave
scattering length ($a$) between two different spin components allows to
control the interaction by using a magnetically tuned Feshbach resonance fb .
This unique capability allows one to investigate the cross-over between the
weakly interacting BCS regime (the regime where $a\rightarrow 0^{-}$) and
Bose-Einstein condensate of dimers (the regime where $a\rightarrow 0^{+}$) co
. These two regimes meet in strongly interacting limit where the scattering
length is divergent and at this unitarity limit, the physics is expected to be
universal uni .
The appearance of quantized vortices of a quantum fluid under rotation offers
direct evidence of superfluidity. For example, the observation of quantized
circulation in a rotating superfluid 4He vortexHe and the observation of
vortex lattice in a rotating Fermi gas of 6Li vortexMIT are two classic
demonstrations of phase coherence in a superfluid. These are analog to the
vortex lattice in type-II superconductors in the presence of a magnetic filed.
These vortices melt as the magnetic field increases and then the
superconductors turn into normal at sufficiently large magnetic fields. For
the case of rapidly rotating Fermi gasses, the force due to the trapping
frequency almost balances the centrifugal force and superfluid cloud spreads
in the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis. At the limit of very large
rotation, the theory predicts that the atomic system enters into the
fractional quantum Hall regime ho ; fqhe . However, the fractional quantum
Hall window is expected to be very small and inversely proportional to the
number of atoms in the trap. A possible way of stabilizing the fractional
quantum Hall regime is to add a positive quartic trapping potential.
In this paper, we study the collective breathing mode frequencies of a
rotating Fermi gas in the presence of a quartic trapping potential by using a
hydrodynamic approach. A negative, but small quartic term is always present
with the Gaussian optical potentials in current experimental setups while
added positive quartic term ensures the stability of the fast rotating regime.
Thermodynamic properties of a Bose gas confined in harmonic plus quartic
potential trap can be found in ref. quarticBose . As breathing mode
frequencies are very sensitive to the equation of state, these dynamical
quantities can be used as tests for various theories. The breathing mode
frequencies have been measured for non-rotating Fermi systems in the BCS-BEC
region modesEX1 ; modesEX2 . In most of the parameter regions, experimental
results agree well with the hydrodynamic approaches, variational approaches
and sum rule approaches modesTH . However, the measured finite temperature
axial and radial breathing mode frequencies show a striking increase in the
intermediate BCS regime modesEX1 ; modesEX2 , in contrast to zero temperature
theoretical calculations in a harmonic trap. Furthermore, experimentalists
were unable to measure the breathing mode frequencies in the weak coupling BCS
limit. The deviation of the experimental data from theoretical results and the
lack of experimental data in the weak coupling BCS limit were believed to be
due the large Landau damping when the superfluid energy gap is much smaller
than the collective oscillation energies. With inclusion of a positive quartic
term in the trapping potential, we find somewhat similar deviation of the
breathing mode frequencies in the intermediate regions of BCS regime. We find
that the breathing mode frequencies deviate significantly from the modes
frequencies calculated in a harmonic trap and the atomic cloud is unstable
against the breathing mode oscillations at larger chemical potentials. As the
chemical potential is larger in the weak coupling BCS limit, excitation of
breathing mode frequencies make the atomic cloud unstable. It should be noted
that the Gaussian optical trap potential provides a negative quartic term in
the trapping potential in experimental setups. We investigate the effect of
negative quartic term and find that the breathing mode frequencies tend to
decrease in the entire BCS-BEC crossover region.
This paper is organized as follows. In section II, we present the derivation
of breathing mode frequencies using a hydrodynamic approach. In section III,
we present our results together with a discussion. Finally in section IV, we
draw our conclusions.
## II II. Formalism
We consider a rotating Fermi atomic system trapped in a harmonic plus radial
quartic potential in the BCS-BEC crossover region. The trapping potential is
$V_{ex}(r,z)=\frac{1}{2}M\omega_{r}^{2}r^{2}+\frac{1}{2}M\omega_{z}^{2}z^{2}+\frac{K}{4}r^{4}$
(1)
where $M$ is the atom mass, $\omega_{i}$’s are the harmonic trapping
frequencies, and $r^{2}=x^{2}+y^{2}$. The Fermi atomic system rotates about
the $z$-axis at frequency $\Omega$.
We restrict ourselves to the case of large number of vortices in the system
where the wavelength of the oscillation frequencies is much larger than the
inter-vortex distance. This condition always satisfies as the typical
wavelength of the lowest mode oscillations is of the order of the system size.
Further, we assume that the vortices are uniformly distributed in the
superfluid so that we do not have to consider microscopic details of the
single vortices. These assumptions are valid at the limit of large rotations
where the atomic cloud spreads in the plane perpendicular to the rotation.
Within this diffused vorticity approximation vorticity , diffuse vorticity is
given by $\mathbf{\nabla}\times\mathbf{v}=2\mathbf{\Omega}$, where superfluid
velocity is given by $\mathbf{v}=(\hbar/2M)\nabla\theta$. The local superfluid
density $n$ and the local phase $\theta$ are related through the wave function
$\psi=\sqrt{n}e^{i\theta}$. The uniform vortex density is given by
$n_{v}=2M\Omega/\hbar$.
Assuming local equilibrium, we start with the continuity and Euler equations
of rotational hydrodynamics,
$\frac{\partial n}{\partial t}=-\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot[n(r)\mathbf{v}]$ (2)
and
$\displaystyle M\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}}{\partial
t}=-\mathbf{\nabla}[\frac{1}{2}M\mathbf{v}^{2}+V_{ex}(r,z)-\frac{1}{2}\Omega^{2}r^{2}+\mu(n)]$
$\displaystyle+2M\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{\Omega}+M\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{\nabla}\times\mathbf{v}$
(3)
This hydrodynamic description is valid as long as the collisional relaxation
time $\tau$ is much smaller than the inverse of the oscillation frequencies;
$\omega\tau<<1$. The equation of state enters through the density dependent
local chemical potential $\mu(n)$. We fix the local chemical potential by
introducing the equation of state in the form of $\mu(n)\propto n^{\gamma}$.
As we will discuss in the next subsection, the polytropic index $\gamma$ is
calculated by the method proposed by Manini and Salasnich manini in the
entire BCS-BEC crossover region. Linearizing the density $n$ and the
superfluid velocity $\mathbf{v}$ around their equilibrium values as
$n=n_{0}(r)+\delta n$, $\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{v}_{0}+\delta\mathbf{v}$ and
$\mu(n)=\mu(n_{0})+\delta\mu$ with $\delta\mu=(\partial\mu/\partial
n)|_{n=n_{0}}\delta n$, we obtain the linearized version of the hydrodynamic
equations.
$\frac{\partial\delta n}{\partial
t}=-\mathbf{\nabla}\cdot[n_{0}(r)\delta\mathbf{v}]$ (4)
and
$M\frac{\partial\delta\mathbf{v}}{\partial
t}=-\mathbf{\nabla}\delta\mu+2M\delta\mathbf{v}\times\mathbf{\Omega}$ (5)
Starting from these two linearized equations, collective breathing mode
frequencies have been calculated in ref.gosh and ref.ant for a harmonic
trap. As the authors have used two different ansatz for the velocity
fluctuation, they produce two different results for the breathing mode
frequencies. In this paper we closely follow the approach adopted in ref.ant ,
generalizing the theory to an anharmonic trap. The ansatz used in ref.ant
ensures the conservation of angular momentum properly. In order to solve the
linearized equations for the breathing mode frequencies, we take the
equilibrium density in the local density approximation as
$n_{0}(r)\propto[\mu_{0}-(1/2)M(\omega_{r}^{2}-\Omega_{0}^{2})r^{2}-(1/2)M\omega_{z}^{2}z^{2}-(K/4)r^{4}]^{1/\gamma}$
and use following variational ansatz for the density fluctuations and velocity
fluctuations.
$\displaystyle\delta\mathbf{v}=\\{\delta\mathbf{\Omega_{1}}\times\mathbf{r}+\delta\mathbf{\Omega_{2}}\times
r^{2}\mathbf{r}+\mathbf{\nabla}[\alpha_{\perp}r^{2}+\alpha_{z}z^{2}+\beta
r^{4}]\\}$ $\displaystyle\times\exp[-i\omega t]$ (6)
and
$\delta
n=n_{0}^{1-\gamma}\\{a_{0}+a_{\perp}r^{2}+a_{z}z^{2}+br^{4}\\}\exp[-i\omega
t]$ (7)
The first two terms $\delta\mathbf{\Omega_{1}}$ and
$\delta\mathbf{\Omega_{2}}$ in Eq. (II) are parallel to the axis of rotation
and guarantee that angular momentum is conserved during the oscillations.
Substituting these two ansatz into Eq. (4) and Eq. (5), we derive four linear
equations for the variational parameters $a_{0}$, $a_{\perp}$, $a_{z}$, and
$b$. These linear equations yield three non-zero solutions for the breathing
mode frequencies $\omega_{m}\equiv\omega/\omega_{r}$ as roots of the following
equation.
$A+B\omega_{m}^{2}+C\omega_{m}^{4}+\omega_{m}^{6}=0$ (8)
with,
$A\equiv-(1-\zeta^{2})^{2}\delta^{2}[64d\gamma(\gamma+1)+48\gamma^{2}+56\gamma+16]-(1-\zeta^{2})\zeta^{2}\delta^{2}(32\gamma^{2}+104\gamma+48)-16\zeta^{4}\delta^{2}(\gamma+2)$,
$B\equiv(1-\zeta^{2})^{2}[8(\gamma+1)(2\gamma+1)+16d\gamma(\gamma+2)]+(1-\zeta^{2})[\delta^{2}(8\gamma^{2}+26\gamma+12)+\zeta^{2}(40\gamma+24)]+8\zeta^{2}\delta^{2}(\gamma+2)+16\zeta^{4}$
and $C\equiv(1-\zeta^{2})(2-10\gamma)-\delta^{2}(\gamma+2)-8$. The constants,
$\zeta\equiv\Omega/\omega_{r}$, $\delta\equiv\omega_{z}/\omega_{r}$, and
$d\equiv[1/(1-\zeta^{2})^{2}](K\hbar/M^{2}\omega_{r}^{3})(\mu_{0}/\hbar\omega_{r})$
are a set of dimensionless parameters. The three solutions of Eq. (8) are the
lowest order axial breathing mode frequency $\omega_{1}$ and the lowest and
next lowest order radial breathing mode frequencies $\omega_{2}$ and
$\omega_{3}$.
### II.1 The Effective polytropic index and the chemical potential in the
BCS-BEC crossover region
We use the proposal made by Manini and Salasnich manini to calculate the
effective polytropic index $\gamma$ and the chemical potential $\mu$ in the
BCS-BEC crossover region. In the weak coupling BCS limit ($a\longrightarrow
0^{-}$) and the unitarity limit ($a\longrightarrow\infty$), the polytropic
index is $\gamma=2/3$. In the deep BEC limit ($a\longrightarrow 0^{+}$), the
polytropic index is $\gamma=1$. In the BCS-BEC crossover regime, the
scattering length’s dependence on $\gamma$ is given by manini
$\gamma=\frac{2/3-2y\epsilon^{\prime}(y)/5+y^{2}\epsilon^{\prime\prime}(y)/15}{\epsilon(y)-y\epsilon^{\prime}(y)/5}$
(9)
with the parameter $y=1/(k_{f}a)$ is the interaction parameter with $k_{f}$
being the Fermi wave vector. The function $\epsilon(y)$ is related to the
energy per atom given by $E=(3/5)E_{f}\epsilon(y)$, where
$E_{f}=\hbar^{2}k_{f}^{2}/2M$ is the Fermi atomic energy of a non-interacting
Fermi system in the trap. Above
$\epsilon^{\prime}(y)=\partial\epsilon(y)/\partial y$ and the double prime
indicates the second derivative of the function on its argument. Using the
data presented in reference astra , Manini and Salasnich manini used a data
fitting scheme to derive an analytical form of the function $\epsilon(y)$ in
the entire BCS-BEC region,
$\epsilon(y)=\alpha_{1}-\alpha_{2}\arctan\biggr{[}\alpha_{3}y\frac{\beta_{1}+|y|}{\beta_{2}+|y|}\biggr{]}$
(10)
Two different sets of parameters are proposed for $\alpha_{i}$’s and
$\beta_{i}$’s in the BCS regime ($y<0$) and the BEC regime ($y>0$). In the BCS
regime, the parameters are $\alpha_{1}=0.42$, $\alpha_{2}=0.3692$,
$\alpha_{3}=1.044$, $\beta_{1}=1.4328$, and $\beta_{2}=0.5523$. In the BEC
regime, the parameters are $\alpha_{1}=0.42$, $\alpha_{2}=0.2674$,
$\alpha_{3}=5.04$, $\beta_{1}=0.1126$, and $\beta_{2}=0.4552$. The expression
for the chemical potential $\mu$ is given by manini
$\mu=E_{f}[\epsilon(y)-y\epsilon^{\prime}(y)/5]$ (11)
We determine the Fermi energy $E_{f}$ of a non-interacting Fermi system in a
harmonic plus radial quartic potential through the number equation.
$N=\frac{1}{15\delta}\sqrt{\frac{M^{2}\omega_{r}^{3}}{\hbar|K|}}\biggr{(}\frac{E_{f}}{\hbar\omega_{r}}\biggr{)}^{5/2}f(E_{f})$
(12)
We define the function $f(E_{f})$ as
$\displaystyle f(E_{f})=\pm 8\biggr{(}\pm
1+\frac{(1-\zeta^{2})^{2}}{4}\frac{1}{|\tilde{K}|\tilde{E_{f}}}\biggr{)}^{\frac{5}{2}}$
$\displaystyle\mp\sqrt{\frac{(1-\zeta^{2})^{2}}{4}\frac{1}{|\tilde{K}|\tilde{E_{f}}}}$
$\displaystyle\times\biggr{[}15+5(1-\zeta^{2})^{2}\frac{1}{\tilde{K}\tilde{E_{f}}}+\frac{1}{2}(1-\zeta^{2})^{4}\frac{1}{(\tilde{K}\tilde{E_{f}})^{2}}\biggr{]}$
(13)
where the scaled parameters are $\tilde{K}\equiv\hbar K/(M^{2}\omega_{r}^{3})$
and $\tilde{E_{f}}\equiv E_{f}/(\hbar\omega_{r})$. The upper and lower signs
are corresponding to $K>0$ and $K<0$ respectively. For the case of harmonic
trap, the Fermi energy is
$E_{f}=\hbar\omega_{r}[3N\delta(1-\zeta^{2})]^{1/3}$.
Figure 1: Central chemical potential ($\mu_{0}$) of a non-rotating Fermi gas
as a function of interaction parameter $1/(k_{f}a)$ for various values of
$\tilde{K}$. From top to bottom $\tilde{K}=0.05$ (long black dashed line), and
$0.01$ (short black dashed line), $0$ harmonic trap (black solid line),
$-0.005$ (short gray dashed line), and $-0.01$ (long gray dashed line). For
the calculation, we use $N=2.0\times 10^{6}$ and $\delta=0.045$.
## III III. results and discussion
Figure 2: The lowest order radial breathing mode frequencies of a rotating
Fermi gas in a harmonic trap with aspect ratio $\delta=0.045$. The rotation
frequencies are $\zeta=0$ (solid line), $0.5$ (long dashed line) and $0.9$
(short dashed line).
In FIG. 1, we plot the central chemical potential of a non-rotating Fermi
system calculated from Eq. (11) as a function of inverse scattering length for
two different representative values of anharmonicity. We use $N=2.0\times
10^{6}$ number of atoms in the trap with $\delta=0.045$. Our calculation shows
a kink at unitarity limit due to the discontinuity in the function
$\epsilon(y)$ proposed by Manini and Salasnich manini (This kink appears in
all the calculated macroscopic quantities).
Solving Eq. (8) for the case of harmonic potential trap ($K=0$) in a rotating
($\zeta\neq 0$) Fermi system, the lowest axial and radial breathing modes
frequencies are given by
$\displaystyle\omega_{m}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\\{\gamma(2+\delta^{2}-2\zeta^{2})+2(1+\delta^{2}+\zeta^{2})$
$\displaystyle\pm\\{[\gamma(2+\delta^{2}-2\zeta^{2})+2(1+\delta^{2}+\zeta^{2})]^{2}-$
$\displaystyle 8\delta^{2}[\gamma(-3+\zeta^{2})-2(1+\zeta^{2})]\\}^{1/2}\\}.$
(14)
For the isotropic trap ($\delta=1$), at non-interacting limit and at unitarity
limit ($\gamma=2/3$), the mode frequencies are $\omega_{m}=2$ and
$\omega_{m}=\sqrt{2+2\zeta^{2}/3}$. In the deep BEC limit ($\gamma=1$), the
mode frequencies are $\omega_{m}=\sqrt{(1/2)(7\pm\sqrt{9-8\zeta^{2}})}$. For
the case of harmonic potential ($K=0$) in a non-rotating ($\zeta=0$) limit,
Eq. (III) reduces to
$\displaystyle\omega_{m}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\\{2(1+\delta^{2})+\gamma(2+\delta^{2})$
$\displaystyle\pm\sqrt{[2(1+\delta^{2})+\gamma(2+\delta^{2})]^{2}-8(2+3\gamma)\delta^{2}}\\}.$
(15)
For the case of highly anisotropic limit ($\delta<<1$), the two mode
frequencies at $\gamma=2/3$ are $\omega_{1}/\omega_{z}=\sqrt{12/5}$ and
$\omega_{2}/\omega_{r}=\sqrt{10/3}$ as expected. For this case, the two mode
frequencies at $\gamma=1$ are $\omega_{1}/\omega_{z}=\sqrt{5/2}$ and
$\omega_{2}/\omega_{r}=2$. In the BCS-BEC crossover region, the lowest order
breathing modes frequencies are calculated from Eq. (III) by using the
$\gamma$ from Eq. (9). The results for several representative values of
$\zeta$ are given in FIG. 2 and FIG. 3.
Figure 3: The lowest order axial breathing mode frequencies of a rotating
Fermi gas in a harmonic trap with aspect ratio $\delta=0.045$. The rotation
frequencies are $\zeta=0$ (solid line), $0.5$ (long dashed line) and $0.9$
(short dashed line). Figure 4: The two lowest radial breathing mode
frequencies as a function of $d=[1/(1-\zeta^{2})^{2}]\tilde{K}\tilde{\mu}$.
Black (lowest mode) and gray (second lowest) solid lines are the mode
frequencies for weakly interacting limit and unitarity limit($\gamma=2/3$).
Black (lowest mode) and gray (second lowest) dashed lines are the mode
frequencies for deep BEC limit($\gamma=1$). The value of
$\delta=\omega_{z}/\omega_{r}=0.045$. The two modes merge at some critical $d$
and beyond this critical value, the atomic cloud is unstable against the
breathing mode oscillations.
We solve Eq. (8) for the breathing mode frequencies for various values of $K$
in both rotating and non-rotating Fermi systems. We calculate the central
chemical potential $\mu_{0}$ for fixed number of atoms $N=2.0\times 10^{6}$ in
the trap. We find that as
$d\equiv[1/(1-\zeta^{2})^{2}](K\hbar/M^{2}\omega_{r}^{3})(\mu_{0}/\hbar\omega_{r})=[1/(1-\zeta^{2})^{2}]\tilde{K}\tilde{\mu}$
increases, the lowest order radial breathing mode frequency increases while
the next lowest order breathing mode frequency decreases. Then at a critical
value of $d=d_{c}$, these two modes merge and beyond this critical $d_{c}$,
the atomic cloud is unstable against the oscillations. FIG. 4 shows the lowest
and the next lowest order radial mode frequencies at $\gamma=2/3$ (non-
interacting limit and unitarity limit) and $\gamma=1$ (deep BEC limit).
As evidenced by FIG. 5, the lowest order axial breathing mode frequencies are
almost insensitive to the radial anharmonicities. FIG. 5 shows the axial
breathing mode frequencies for various values of rotational frequencies as a
function radial anharmonicities at unitarity.
Figure 5: Axial breathing mode frequencies as a function of $\tilde{K}$ for
$\zeta=0$ (black), 0.3 (long dashed), 0.6 (short dashed) and, 0.9 (dotted) at
unitarity. We use the values $\delta=0.045$ and $N=2.0\times 10^{6}$.
In the BEC limit where $\gamma=1$, we calculate the lowest and next lowest
radial breathing mode frequencies as a function of radial anharmonicity
$\tilde{K}$ for three representative values of rotational frequencies $\zeta$.
We fixed the number of atoms to be $2.0\times 10^{6}$ and
$\delta=\omega_{Z}/\omega_{r}=0.045$. As shown in FIG. 6, as we increase
$\tilde{K}$ the lowest order radial breathing mode frequency increases, while
the next lowest order radial breathing mode frequency decreases. Further
increase of $\tilde{K}$ merges these two modes and beyond this merging point
the atomic cloud is unstable against the oscillations.
Figure 6: Radial breathing mode frequencies at BEC limit ($\gamma=1$) for
$\zeta=0$ (solid line), $0.3$ (long dashed line) and $0.5$ (short dashed
line). The black lines are lowest breathing mode and the gray lines are second
lowest breathing mode in an anharmonic trap. The value of
$\delta=\omega_{z}/\omega_{r}=0.045$ and the atom number is $N=2.0\times
10^{6}$. Figure 7: The two lowest radial breathing mode frequencies at for
$\tilde{K}=0.005$ (solid line), $0.01$ (long dashed line) and $0.05$ (short
dashed line). The black lines are lowest breathing mode and the gray lines are
second lowest breathing mode in an anharmonic trap. The black dotted line is
the lowest breathing mode frequency in a harmonic trap. The gray dotted lines
are the breathing mode frequencies at $\tilde{K}=-0.005$. The value of
$\delta=\omega_{z}/\omega_{r}=0.045$ and the atom number is $N=2.0\times
10^{6}$. Figure 8: The lowest order radial breathing mode frequencies at for
$\tilde{K}=0.005$, $0.025$ and $0.001$ (Top to bottom). The black lines is the
lowest order breathing mode in a harmonic trap. The value of
$\delta=\omega_{z}/\omega_{r}=0.045$ and the atom number is $N=2.0\times
10^{6}$. The dots are the experimental data for comparison modesEX2 .
The lowest order and next lowest order radial breathing mode frequencies as a
function of the interaction parameter [$1/(k_{f}a)$] are shown in FIG. 7. In
the presence of radial anharmonicity, the lowest order mode frequency tends to
increase in the BCS regime while the next lowest order breathing mode
frequency tends to decrease. This deviation becomes large as the anharmonicity
increases. As we have discussed before, at larger $K\mu_{0}$ values the two
lowest order modes merge and the cloud is unstable against the breathing mode
oscillations beyond this point. The data in the FIG. 8 shows the same
information as FIG. 7, but we plot only the lowest order radial breathing mode
frequencies for small quartic potentials together with experimental data from
ref. modesEX2 .
## IV IV. Conclusions
We have discussed the breathing mode frequencies of a rotating Fermi gas
trapped in a harmonic plus radial quartic potential. We find that the radial
breathing mode frequencies strongly depend on the rotation and anharmonicity
through parameter
$d=[1/(1-\zeta^{2})^{2}](K\hbar/M^{2}\omega_{r}^{3})(\mu_{0}/\hbar\omega_{r})$.
As $d$ increases, the lowest order radial breathing mode’s frequency increases
and the next lowest order mode decreases. Beyond some critical $d_{c}$, these
two modes merge and the cloud is unstable against the oscillations.
As the chemical potential is large in the intermediate BCS regime, even with a
very weak quartic potential the parameter $d$ is large. As a result, the
lowest order breathing mode frequency increases in the intermediate BCS
regime. Even though the Gaussian optical trap potential provides a negative
anharmonic term in the trapping potential, this positive anharmonic behavior
has been seen in recent experiments modesEX1 ; modesEX2 . In the weak coupling
BCS limit, the chemical potential is even larger so that we find the atomic
cloud is unstable against the oscillations at large positive anharmonicities.
For negative quartic potentials, the breathing mode frequencies tend to
decrease in the BCS-BEC crossover region.
## V V. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Binghamton University. We are very grateful to
Kaden Hazzard for very enlightening discussions and critical comments on the
manuscript.
## References
* (1) U. Fano, Phys. Rev. A 124, 1866 (1961); H Feshbach, Ann. Phys. 5, 357 (1961).
* (2) C. A. Regal et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 040403 (2004); M. W. Zwierlein et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 120403 (2004); C. Chin et al., Science 305, 1128 (2004); T. Bourdel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 050401 (2004); J. Kinast et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 150402 (2004); G. B. Partridge, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 020404 (2005).
* (3) H. Heiselberg Phys. Rev. A 63, 043606 (2001); K. M. O Hara, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, S. R. Granade, J. E. Thomas, Science 298, 2179 (2002); G. M. Bruun, Phys. Rev. A 70, 053602 (2004); Tin-Lun Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 090402 (2004); J. Carlson, S.-Y. Chang, V. R. Pandharipande, and K. E. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 050401 (2003)
* (4) S.C. Whitmore and W. Zimmermann, Jr., Phys. Rev. 166, 181 (1968).
* (5) M. Zwierlein et al., Nature 435, 1047 (2005).
* (6) H. Zhai and T. -L. Ho, Phy. Rev. Lett., 97, 180414 (2006); M. Y. Veillette, D. E. Sheehy, L. Radzihovsky, and V. Gurarie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 250401 (2006); G. Moller and N. R. Cooper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 190409 (2007).
* (7) N. R. Cooper, N. K. Wilkin, and J. M. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 120405 (2001); B. paredes, P. Zoller, and J. I. Cirac, Sol. S. Com. 127, 155 (2003).
* (8) E. Lundh, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043604 (2002); K. Kasamatsu, M. Tsubota, and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A 66, 053606 (2002); G. Kavoulakis and G. Baym, New J. Phys. 5, 51.1 (2003); E. Lundh, A. Collin, and K. A. Suominen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 070401 (2004); T. K. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. A 69, 043606 (2004); T. K. Ghosh, Eur. Phys. J. D 31 101 (2004); G. M. Kavoulakis, A. D. Jackson, and Gordon Baym, Phys. Rev. A 70, 043603 (2004); Ionut Danaila, Phys. Rev. A 72, 013605 (2005); A. Collin, Phys. Rev. A 73, 013611 (2006); S. Bargi, G. M. Kavoulakis, and S. M. Reimann, Phys. Rev. A 73, 033613 (2006); Michiel Snoek and H. T. Stoof, Phys. Rev. A 74, 033615 (2006); S. Gautam, D. Angom, Eur. Phys. J. D 46, 151 155 (2008).
* (9) J. Kinast, A. Turlapov, and J. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. A 70, 051401(R) (2004); J. Kinast, A. Turlapov, and J. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 170404 (2005); M. Bartenstein, A. Altmeyer, S. Riedl, S. Jochim, C. Chin, J. H. Denschlag, R. Grimm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 203201 (2004).
* (10) J. Kinast, S. L. Hemmer, M. E. Gehm, A. Turlapov, and J. E. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 150402 (2004).
* (11) Theja N. De Silva and Erich J. Mueller, Phys. Rev. A 72, 063614 (2005); H. Heiselberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 040402 (2004); S. Stringari, Europhys. Lett. 65, 749 (2004); H. Hu, A. Minguzzi, X. J. Liu, and M. P. Tosi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 190403 (2004); Y. E. Kim and A. L. Zubarev Phys. Rev. A 70, 033612 (2004); N. Manini and L. Salasnich, Phys. Rev. A 71, 033625 (2005); G. E. Astrakharchik, R. Combescot, X. Leyronas and, S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 030404 (2005); A. Bulgac and G. F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 070401 (2005); M. Manini and L. Salasnich, Phys. Rev. A 71, 033625 (2005); Y.Ohashi and A. Griffin, e-print cond-mat/0503641.
* (12) R. P. Feynman, edited by C. J. Gorter _Progress in Low Temperature Physics_ , North- Holland, Amsterdam, 1955).
* (13) N. Manini and L. Salasnich, Phys. Rev. A 71, 033625 (2005).
* (14) T. K. Gosh and K. Machida, Phy. Rev. A 73, 025601 (2006).
* (15) M. Antezza, M. Cozzini, and S. stringari, Phys. Rev. A 75, 053609 (2007)
* (16) G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, J. Casulleras, and S. Giorgini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 200404 (2004).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-12T13:54:15 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.749569 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Theja N. De Silva",
"submitter": "Theja N. de Silva",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1641"
} |
0805.1825 | Gap solitons in grating superstructures
Thawatchai Mayteevarunyoo,1∗ and Boris A. Malomed2
1Department of Telecommunication Engineering, Mahanakorn University of
Technology,
Bangkok 10530, Thailand
2Department of Physical Electronics, School of Electrical Engineering,
Faculty of Engineering, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
∗Corresponding author: thawatch@mut.ac.th
###### Abstract
We report results of the investigation of gap solitons (GSs) in the generic
model of a periodically modulated Bragg grating (BG), which includes periodic
modulation of the BG chirp or local refractive index, and periodic variation
of the local reflectivity. We demonstrate that, while the previously studied
reflectivity modulation strongly destabilizes all solitons, the periodic chirp
modulation, which is a novel feature, stabilizes a new family of double-peak
fundamental BGs in the side bandgap at negative frequencies (gap No. $-1$),
and keeps solitons stable in the central bandgap (No. $0$). The two soliton
families demonstrate bistability, coexisting at equal values of energy. In
addition, stable 4-peak bound states are formed by pairs of fundamental GSs in
bandgap $-1$. Self-trapping and mobility of the solitons are studied too.
OCIS codes: (060.5530) Pulse propagation and solitons; (230.1480) Bragg
reflectors.
## References and links
* [1] P. St. J. Russell, “Optical superlattices for modulation and deflection of light,” J. Appl. Phys. 59, 3344 (1986).
* [2] B. J. Eggleton. P. A. Krug, L. Poladian and F. Ouellette, “Long periodic superstructure Bragg gratings in optical fibres,” Electron. Lett. 30, 1620 (1994).
* [3] N. G. R. Broderick and C. M. de Sterke, “Theory of grating superstructures,” Phys. Rev. E 55, 3634 (1997).
* [4] P. J. Y. Louis, E. A. Ostrovskaya, and Y. S. Kivshar, “Dispersion control for matter waves and gap solitons in optical superlattices,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 032612 (2005).
* [5] A. B. Aceves and S. Wabnitz, “Self-induced transparency solitons in nonlinear refractive periodic media,” Phys. Lett. A 141, 37 (1989).
* [6] D. N. Christodoulides and R. I. Joseph, “Slow Bragg solitons in nonlinear periodic structures,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1746 (1989).
* [7] C. M. de Sterke and J. E. Sipe, “Gap solitons,” Progr. Opt. 33, 203 (1994).
* [8] J. E. Sipe, L. Poladian, and C. M. de Sterke, “Propagation through nonuniform grating structures,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11, 1307 (1994).
* [9] T. Iizuka and C. M. de Sterke, “Corrections to coupled mode theory for deep gratings,” Phys. Rev. E 61, 4491 (2000).
* [10] J. B. Khurgin, “Light slowing down in Moiré fiber gratings and its implications for nonlinear optics,” Phys. Rev. A 62, 013821 (2000).
* [11] R. Shimada, T. Koda, T. Ueta, and K. Ohtaka, “Strong localization of Bloch photons in dual-periodic dielectric multilayer structures,” J. Appl. Phys. 90, 3905 (2001) .
* [12] D. Janner, G. Galzerano, G. Della Valle, P. Laporta, S. Longhi, and M. Belmonte, “Slow light in periodic superstructure Bragg gratings,” Phys. Rev. E 72, 056605 (2005).
* [13] A. Melloni, F. Morichetti, and M. Martinelli, “Linear and nonlinear pulse propagation in coupled resonator slow-wave optical structures,” Opt. Quantum Electron. 35, 365 (2003).
* [14] J. K. S. Poon, J. Scheuer, S. Mookherjea, G. Paloczi, Y. Huang, A. Yariv, “Matrix analysis of microring coupled-resonator optical waveguides,” Opt. Express 12, 90 (2004).
* [15] K. Levy, B. A. Malomed, “Stability and collisions of traveling solitons in Bragg-grating superstructures,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 25, 302 (2008).
* [16] N. Groothoff, J. Canning, E. Buckley, K. Lyttikainen, and J. Zagari, “Bragg gratings in air-silica structured fibers,” Opt. Lett. 28, 233-235 (2003).
* [17] Y. N. Zhu, P. Shum, J. H. Chong, M. K. Rao, and C. Lu, “Deep-notch, ultracompact long-period grating in a large-mode-area photonic crystal fiber,” Opt. Lett. 28, 2467-2469 (2003).
* [18] J. H. Lim, K. S. Lee, J. C. Kim, and B. H. Lee, “Tunable fiber gratings fabricated in photonic crystal fiber by use of mechanical pressure,” Opt. Lett. 29, 331-333 (2004).
* [19] B. A. Malomed and R. S. Tasgal, “Vibration modes of a gap soliton in a nonlinear optical medium,” Phys. Rev. E 49, 5787-5796 (1994).
* [20] I. V. Barashenkov, D. E. Pelinovsky, and E. V. Zemlyanaya, “Vibrations and Oscillatory Instabilities of Gap Solitons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5117 (1998).
* [21] A. De Rossi, C. Conti, and S. Trillo, “Stability, Multistability, and Wobbling of Optical Gap Solitons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 85 (1998).
* [22] K. Yagasaki, I. M. Merhasin, B. A. Malomed, T. Wagenknecht, and A. R. Champneys, “Gap solitons in Bragg gratings with a harmonic superlattice,” Europhys. Lett. 74, 1006-1012 (2006).
* [23] E. N. Tsoy and C. M. de Sterke, “Soliton dynamics in nonuniform fiber Bragg gratings,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 18, 1-6 (2001).
* [24] E. N. Tsoy and C. M. de Sterke, “Propagation of nonlinear pulses in chirped fiber gratings,” Phys. Rev. E 62, 2882-2890 (2000).
* [25] J. Feng, “Alternative scheme for studying gap solitons in an infinite periodic Kerr medium,” Opt. Lett. 18, 1302-1304 (1993).
* [26] R. F. Nabiev, P. Yeh, and D. Botez, “Spatial gap solitons in periodic nonlinear structures,” Opt. Lett. 18, 1612-1614 (1993).
* [27] W. C. K. Mak, B. A. Malomed, and P. L. Chu, “Three-wave gap solitons in waveguides with quadratic nonlinearity,” Phys. Rev. E 58, 6708-6722 (1998).
* [28] Y. S. Kivshar and G. P. Agrawal, Optical Solitons: From Fibers to Photonic Crystals (Academic Press: Boston, 2003).
* [29] F. Biancalana, A. Amann, and E. P. O’Reilly, “Gap solitons in spatiotemporal photonic crystals,” Phys. Rev. A 77, 011801(R) (2008).
* [30] B. J. Eggleton, R. E. Slusher, C. M. de Sterke, P. A. Krug, and J. E. Sipe, “Bragg grating solitons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1627-1630 (1996).
* [31] B. J. Eggleton, C. M. de Sterke, and R. E. Slusher, “Bragg solitons in the nonlinear Schrödinger limit: Experiment and theory,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 16, 587-599 (1999).
* [32] J. T. Mok, C. M. de Sterke, I. C. M. Littler, and B. J. Eggleton, “Dispersionless slow light using gap solitons,” Nature Physics 2, 775-780 (2006).
* [33] B. Deconinck, F. Kiyak, J. D. Carter, and J. N. Kutz, “SpectrUW: A laboratory for the numerical exploration of spectra of linear operators,” Math. Comput. Simul. 74, 370-378 (2007).
* [34] W. C. K. Mak, B. A. Malomed, and P. L. Chu, “Slowdown and Splitting of Gap Solitons in Apodized Bragg Gratings,” J. Mod. Opt. 51, 2141-2158 (2004).
* [35] W. C. K. Mak, B. A. Malomed, and P. L. Chu, “Formation of a standing-light pulse through collision of gap solitons,” Phys. Rev. E 68, 026609 (2003).
## 1 Introduction and the model
The technology for writing grating superstructure (alias superlattices) on
optical fibers had become available twenty years ago [1, 2]. These
superlattices are Bragg gratings (BGs) with a long-wave modulation of period
$\sim 1$ mm imposed on them, while the underlying BG period is
$\lambda/2\lesssim 1$ $\mu$m ($\lambda$ is the wavelength of light coupled
into the BG). A theoretical model shows that, in addition to the central
bandgap generated by the underlying uniform BG, the superstructure gives rise
to a new set of bandgaps [3]. In this connection, it is relevant to mention
that the modulation of the periodic lattice potential in the Schrödinger
equation, produced by beatings between two lattices with close periods, also
gives rise to additional narrow “mini-gaps” in the respective spectrum [4].
Taking into regard the Kerr nonlinearity of the fiber, as in the theory of gap
solitons (GSs) in the uniform fiber BG [7, 5, 6], “coupled-supermode”
equations were derived in Ref. [3], and examples of the corresponding GSs were
found (these equations bear a similarity to coupled-mode equations for deep
BGs [8, 9]). Stable solitons in the above-mentioned mini-gaps of the Gross-
Pitaevskii equation with the repulsive cubic nonlinearity, which is a model of
the Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) trapped in the optical lattice, were found
too [4]. Another example of the superstructure was developed in the form of
the Moiré pattern, with a sinusoidal modulation imposed on the periodic
variation of the refractive index underlying the ordinary BG. The Moiré
supergrating features a narrow transmission band in the middle of the central
gap, which was proposed [10, 11] and realized experimentally [12] as a means
for the retardation of light in gratings.
Cellular optical media which resemble the BG structure and may also be used as
a basis for the design of superstructures are CROWs (coupled resonant optical
waveguides) [13, 14]. It is also possible to realize superstructure patterns
in the recently proposed “semi-discrete” BG (a waveguide with uniform
nonlinearity and periodically distributed short segments with strong Bragg
reflectivity) [15]. A vast potential for the synthesis of complex grating
patterns is offered by techniques developed for writing BGs in photonic
crystals and photonic-crystal fibers [16, 17, 18].
A topic of fundamental significance is families of GSs and their stability in
models describing superstructured BGs. In fact, the stability of GSs is a
nontrivial issue even in the standard model of uniform BGs [19, 20, 21]). A
basic system of coupled-mode equations for counterpropagating waves $u(x,t)$
and $v(x,t)$ in the periodically modulated BG was proposed in Ref. [22]. In
the normalized form, it is
$\displaystyle i\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}+i\frac{\partial u}{\partial
x}+\left[1-\varepsilon\cos\left(kx\right)\right]v+\mu\cos\left(kx\right)\cdot
u+\left(\left|v\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left|u\right|^{2}\right)u$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 0,$ $\displaystyle i\frac{\partial v}{\partial
t}-i\frac{\partial v}{\partial
x}+\left[1-\varepsilon\cos\left(kx\right)\right]u+\mu\cos\left(kx\right)\cdot
v+\left(\left|u\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left|v\right|^{2}\right)v$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 0.$
Here, $\varepsilon$ is the amplitude of the modulation of the Bragg
reflectivity (in other words, it represents periodic apodization of the
grating [23]), while $\mu$ admits two interpretations: it accounts for the
periodic variation of the local chirp of the BG [24, 22], or of the effective
refractive index of the carrying fiber. The spatial period of both modulations
is $2\pi/k$. We define the model by fixing $\mu>0$, while $\varepsilon$ may
take zero, positive, and negative values.
It is known that GSs are possible not only as temporal solitons in fiber
gratings, but also as spatial solitons in planar waveguides equipped with the
grating in the form of a system of parallel grooves [25, 26, 27, 28], as well
as solitons in photonic crystals [29]. Equations (LABEL:CME) may also be
interpreted in that context (replacing $t$ by propagation coordinate $z$),
with $\mu$ representing the amplitude of a long-wave longitudinal modulation
of the refractive index in a layered planar waveguide.
The results obtained in this work are presented in Section II, where families
of soliton solutions and their stability are reported, and in Section III,
which deals with the self-trapping and nonlinear evolution of stable and
unstable GSs, and with moving solitons. In the previously studied model of the
reflectivity modulation [22], the GSs quickly become unstable with the
increase of modulation amplitude $\varepsilon$. In Section II we demonstrate
that the effect of the periodic modulation of the local chirp (or refractive
index) – a feature that was not studied before – is different: a part of the
GS family filling out the central bandgap (labeled as gap $0$ below, see Fig.
1) remains stable with the increase of $\mu$, while the first side bandgap
emerging at $\omega<0$ (designated below as gap $-1$) supports a new partially
stable family of fundamental GSs, whose characteristic feature is a _two-peak_
shape, unlike the ordinary single-peak solitons existing in the central
bandgap (in bandgap $+1$, GSs also feature the double-peak shape, but they are
unstable). Note that fundamental GSs in the Gross-Pitaevskii equation with a
periodic potential do not feature a dual-peak structure. In terms of the
spatial-domain model, the double-peak solitons may find an application as
optically induced conduits routing weak signal beams [28]. In Section III it
is shown that, in the model with $\varepsilon=0$ and $\mu>0$, stable quiescent
solitons belonging to the central gap readily self-trap from moving input
pulses of a general form, hence the periodically chirp-modulated BG may serve
as a tool for the creation of solitons of standing-light.
Unlike the standard BG model, in the present system stable double- and single-
peak solitons, residing in gaps $-1$ and $0$, respectively, feature
_bistability_ , coexisting at equal values of energy. 4-peak bound states of
two double-peak solitons, and 3-peak complexes, built of three single-peak
solitons, may be stable too (recall that bound states of GSs do not exist in
the standard BG).
In Section III we demonstrate that the evolution of unstable GSs in the
modulated system features another novelty: unstable solitons with a
sufficiently large energy self-retrap into stable double-peak GSs belonging to
bandgap $-1$, while unstable GSs do not transform themselves into stable ones
in the standard model. Other unstable GSs evolve into persistent breathers, or
may be destroyed by the instability. In Section III we also study a
possibility to set quiescent GSs in motion, which is suggested by the fact
that, thus far, BG solitons in fiber gratings have been created only at finite
velocity $c$; in the first works, it was $c\geq 0.5$ [with respect to the
largest velocity in Eqs. (LABEL:CME), $c_{\max}=1$] [30, 31], while later it
was brought down to $c\approx 0.23$ [32]. In terms of the above-mentioned
spatial-domain interpretation, moving solitons correspond to tilted beams. We
demonstrate that stable moving solitons are supported by Eqs. (LABEL:CME) with
$\varepsilon=0$ and small values of $\mu$. In fact, these results also stress
that the modulated BG offers a possibility to bring moving pulses to a halt
and thus create solitons of standing light.
## 2 Stationary solutions and their stability
### 2.1 The mode of the analysis
Stationary solutions of Eqs. (LABEL:CME) with frequency $\omega$ and zero
velocity are looked for as
$\left\\{u\left(x,t\right),v\left(x,t\right)\right\\}=\left\\{U\left(x\right),V\left(x\right)\right\\}\exp\left(-i\omega
t\right)$, with complex functions $U$ and $V$ satisfying equations
$\displaystyle+i\frac{dU}{dx}+\left[\omega+\mu\cos\left(kx\right)\right]U+\left[1-\varepsilon\cos\left(kx\right)\right]V+\left[\left(\left|V\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left|U\right|^{2}\right)\right]U=0,$
(2)
$\displaystyle-i\frac{dV}{dx}+\left[\omega+\mu\cos\left(kx\right)\right]V+\left[1-\varepsilon\cos\left(kx\right)\right]U+\left[\left(\left|U\right|^{2}+\frac{1}{2}\left|V\right|^{2}\right)\right]V=0.$
For the numerical solution, the complex amplitudes were split into real and
imaginary parts,
$\left\\{U(x),V(x)\right\\}\equiv\left\\{U_{1}(x),V_{1}(x)\right\\}+i\left\\{U_{2}(x),V_{2}(x)\right\\}$,
and the resulting system of four equations was solved by means of the Newton’s
iteration method. The initial guess generating even solutions was
$U_{10}\left(x\right)=U_{20}\left(x\right)=V_{10}\left(x\right)=V_{20}\left(x\right)=A~{}\mathrm{sech}\left(ax\right)$,
with constants $A$ and $a$.
Numerical results are reported below for $k=1$, which represents the generic
situation. Families of soliton solutions are characterized by the total energy
(on total power, in terms of the spatial-domain model),
$E=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\left(\left|u\right|^{2}+\left|v\right|^{2}\right)dx,$
(3)
to be presented as a function of $\omega$.
The bandgap spectrum of the linearized version of Eqs. (2) was computed by
means of software package SpectrUW [33]. The spectra are displayed in Fig. 1,
which also show stability borders of GS families found in the bandgaps from
the solution of the full nonlinear system, as described below. Note that the
region occupied by bandgap $-1$ in Fig. 1(b) (for $\varepsilon=0.5$) splits
into two parts, with stable solitons existing only in the upper one.
Fig. 1: The bandgap structure found from the linearization of Eqs. (2) for (a)
$\varepsilon=0$, (b) $\varepsilon=0.5$, (c) $\varepsilon=1$ and (d) $\mu=0$.
Shaded areas are occupied by Bloch bands. Five gaps are displayed: the central
one (No. $0$) and two side bandgaps, $\pm 1$ and $\pm 2$ (gaps $\pm 2$ are not
labeled). Stable solitons are found in gaps $0$ and $-1$, where borders
between stability and instability areas are shown by dashed lines. Note that
all solitons are unstable for $\varepsilon=1$.
The linearization of Eqs. (2) is invariant with respect to transformation
$\varepsilon\rightarrow-\varepsilon$, $\omega\rightarrow-\omega$,
$x\rightarrow x+\pi/k$,
$\left\\{U,V\right\\}\rightarrow\left\\{-V,U\right\\}$; therefore, the linear
spectrum for $\varepsilon<0$ can be obtained as a mirror image (with
$\omega\rightarrow-\omega$) from its counterpart for $-\varepsilon$. However,
this transformation does not apply to full nonlinear equations (2). On the
other hand, Eqs. (2) admit the reduction to a single equation by means of the
well-known substitution, $V=\pm U^{\ast}$. As well as in the standard model,
the GSs found in the central bandgap satisfy “ordinary” reduction
$V=-U^{\ast}$, while double-peak solitons populating bandgap $-1$ (and
unstable solitons of the same type in bandgap $+1$) obey the “extraordinary”
reduction, $V=U^{\ast}$.
Stability of solitons was identified by dint of simulations of the evolution
of perturbed solitons, typically up to $t=10,000$, which means several
thousand soliton periods, or time $\sim 1$ ns, in physical units. It was
additionally checked, in typical cases, that the solutions which are
identified as stable ones retain their stability in arbitrarily long
simulations. The simulations were performed by means of the split-step
Fourier-transform method, with absorbers placed at edges of the integration
domain. The domain was covered by a mesh consisting of $N=\allowbreak 512$
grid points, and the stepsize of the time integration was $\Delta t=0.01$ (it
was checked that further increase of $N$ and decrease of $\Delta t$ did not
alter the results).
Figure 1 clearly shows that the increase of the reflectively modulation,
represented by $\varepsilon$, quickly destabilizes all solitons. On the other
hand, the model with the periodic chirp modulation, which is accounted for by
$\mu$ (unlike the system with $\varepsilon>0$, it was not studied before),
supports stable GSs, including the new family in gap $-1$. Therefore, we focus
below on the study of this model; some new results for the case of $\mu=0$ and
$\varepsilon\neq 0$ will be included too, for the sake of comparison.
### 2.2 Results
In addition to Fig. 1, the stability of the GSs is summarized in Fig. 2, which
displays typical dependences $E(\omega)$ [recall $E$ is defined in Eq. (3)]
for soliton families in several generic cases and in different bandgaps
(situations where all solitons are unstable, such as at $\varepsilon=1$, are
not included). As said above, stable solitons are found only in bandgaps $0$
and $-1$. For instance, the stability intervals in gaps $-1$ and $0$ for
$\mu=0.5$ and $\varepsilon=0$ are $-1.17<\omega<-0.84$ and $0.55<\omega<0.82$,
respectively. If the existence range of gap $-1$ splits into two parts, as in
Fig. 1(b), stable solitons are found only in the upper one [in Fig. 1(b), the
stability area in bandgap $-1$ is located at $\mu>0.75$)]. A notable feature
observed in Figs. 2(a,c) is the bistability: stable portions of the GS
families in gaps $0$ and $-1$ may cover identical intervals of energy. In
higher-order bandgaps, starting from $\pm 2$, all GSs are unstable.
Fig. 2: Gap-soliton families, shown in the form of energy $E$ versus intrinsic
frequency $\omega$, for (a) $\mu=0.5$, $\varepsilon=0$, (b)
$\mu=\varepsilon=0.5$, (c) $\mu=-\varepsilon=0.5$. Stable and unstable
portions of the families are depicted by continuous and dashed lines,
respectively. The upper bold curve in gap $-1$ in (a) represents the family of
4-peak bound states of fundamental solitons. Two different curves in (b) and
(c), in gaps $-1$ and $+1$, respectively, pertain to two regions in which
these gaps exist, cf. Fig. 1(b). Recall that, for $\varepsilon<0$ [as in (c)],
the bandgap structure is obtained from that for $-\varepsilon$ as the mirror
image, with $\omega\rightarrow-\omega$.
A characteristic feature of the GSs in bandgap $-1$ is the double-peak shape,
as shown in Fig. 3(a). We stress that the double-peak GSs are fundamental
solitons, rather than bound states of some single-peak pulses. Note that all
GSs in bandgap $-1$ have a single peak in the model with $\mu=0$ and
$\varepsilon>0$ [22] [and almost all of them are unstable, see Fig. 1(d)]. As
mentioned above, the solitons in gap $-1$obey the “extraordinary” reduction,
$V=U^{\ast}$. Unlike them, in gap $0$ GSs are similar to their counterparts in
the standard model, being subject to the ordinary reduction, $V=-U^{\ast}$,
see Fig. 3(b).
Fig. 3: (a) A stable double-peak soliton found in gap $-1$, for $\mu=0.5$,
$\varepsilon=0$, and $\omega=-1$. The energy of this soliton is $E=1.83$. (b)
A stable single-peak soliton in gap $0$, for $\mu=0.5$, $\varepsilon=0$, and
$\omega=0.6$. Its energy is $E=0.96$.
Unlike the GSs in the central bandgap, which do not combine into bound states,
solitons in bandgap $-1$ may form several species of complexes, symmetric and
anti-symmetric ones. Only one of them is stable, viz., a 4-peak symmetric
bound state of two double-peak solitons, see an example in Fig. 4(a). The
entire family of such states is shown in Fig. 2(a) by the upper bold curve.
The conclusion that the 4-peak states are bound states of fundamental solitons
is clearly suggested by the comparison of curves $E(\omega),$ which shows that
the energy of the 4-peak structure is, approximately, twice that of the
double-peak soliton at the same $\omega$. The stability area of the 4-peak
states is identical to that of the fundamental GSs. In addition, stable 3-peak
symmetric bound states of three single-peak solitons were found in that small
part of gap $-1$ in the model with $\varepsilon\neq 0$ and $\mu=0$ where the
GSs are stable as per Fig. 1(d), see an example in Fig. 4(b) (bound states
were not studied in Ref. [22]).
Fig. 4: (a) A stable bound state of two fundamental twin-peak solitons in gap
$-1$, for $\mu=0.5$, $\varepsilon=0$, and $\omega=-1.0$. The energy of this
state is $3.76$, while the energy of each constituent soliton is $1.83$. (b) A
stable bound state of three single-peak solitons for $\mu=0$,
$\varepsilon=0.3$, and $\omega=-1$. The energy of the bound state is $1.30$,
the energy of each constituent being $0.35$.
## 3 Nonlinear evolution of stable and unstable solitons
### 3.1 Self-trapping of stable solitons
To appraise the experimental relevance of the GSs, it is necessary to consider
the possibility of self-trapping of such solitons from standard input pulses
(Gaussians). In the fiber BG, the input always has a finite velocity, and,
obviously, it may contain only a single (forward) component. In the spatial-
domain setting, the input beams may be both straight and tilted (the former
one corresponds to zero velocity in the temporal domain), and simultaneous
coupling of both components into the grating is possible.
Simulations demonstrate that stable _quiescent_ single-peak solitons in the
central bandgap can be readily produced by self-trapping of the one-component
moving input pulses, see a typical example in Fig. 5. In this figure, the
velocity of the input pulse is $c=0.2$ (recall $c=1$ is the largest normalized
velocity possible in the model). Faster inputs generate stable standing
solitons with more conspicuous intrinsic oscillations. It is relevant to
mention that the creation of solitons of “standing light” in fiber BGs is a
challenging problem (previously elaborated theoretical scenarios for that
relied on the retardation provided by a smooth apodization [34], and the
fusion of colliding solitons into standing ones [35]).
Fig. 5: Self-trapping of an input pulse of the forward wave ($u$), at initial
velocity $c=0.2$, into a quiescent ($c=0$) soliton with residual internal
vibrations, which falls into the central bandgap, in the model with $\mu=0.5$
and $\varepsilon=0$. The inset in (b) illustrates the initial growth of field
$v$, which is absent in the input, at the soliton’s center. The energy of the
input pulse is $E=2.28$, of which $40\%$ is kept by the established soliton.
Double-peak GSs belonging to bandgap $-1$ cannot be formed from single-
component inputs, even if the input pulse itself is given a dual-peak shape.
However, they can easily self-trap from moving two-component single-peak
Gaussians, as shown in Fig. 6, in the model with $\mu>0$ and $\varepsilon=0$.
On the other hand, even small nonzero values of $\varepsilon$, if added to
this model, make the self-trapping of the double-peak GSs impossible. This
observation stresses, once again, that the periodic modulation of the chirp
(or local refractive index), represented by $\mu$, generates robust
fundamental GSs in gap $-1$, while the reflectivity modulation, accounted for
by $\varepsilon$, strongly destabilizes them. As mentioned above, the use of
the two-component input is possible in terms of the spatial-BG model.
Fig. 6: Self-trapping of a two-component input pulse, moving at velocity
$c=0.2$, into a standing double-peak soliton, in the model with $\mu=0.5$ and
$\varepsilon=0$. This case is relevant to the spatial-domain model, see text.
The input energy is $E=3.04$, about $60\%$ of which is kept by the emerging
double-peak soliton.
### 3.2 The evolution of unstable solitons
In the standard BG model, unstable GSs (actually, those with $\omega<0$)
transform themselves into persistent breathers, but they do not demonstrate
re-trapping into stable GSs with a smaller energy. In the present system, the
same is observed as a result of the evolution of unstable solitons in bandgaps
$0$ and $+1$ (not shown here).
In gap $-1$, unstable solitons with a relatively low energy demonstrate a more
violent instability, which may end up with the formation of a breather at a
position different from that of the original unstable soliton, as shown in
Fig. 7(a). On the other hand, unstable GSs with high energy in gap $-1$
feature an evolution scenario which does not occur in the standard model,
viz., spontaneous rearrangement into another _stable soliton_ belonging to the
same bandgap. A typical example of such evolution is displayed in Fig. 7(b).
Unstable double-peak solitons with still higher energies, which belong to gap
$-2$, also self-retrap into stable two-peak GSs falling into bandgap $-1$.
Fig. 7: (a) Formation of a breather from an unstable double-peak soliton in
gap $-1$, for $\mu=0.1$, $\varepsilon=0$ and $\omega=-1.12$, $E=2.05$. Note
the leap of the breather from the original position. (b) The transformation of
an unstable double-peak soliton, with $\mu=0.9$, $\varepsilon=0$,
$\omega=-1.1$ and $E=5$, into a stable gap soliton of the same type, with
energy $E=3.3$. In (a) and (b), only the $u$ component is shown, as the
evolution of field $v$ is quite similar.
### 3.3 Moving solitons
As mentioned above, only moving solitons have been observed in experiments
performed in fiber BGs thus far [30, 31, 32]. This fact makes it necessary to
study the mobility of stable solitons in the present model. This was done in
the usual way, by applying a kick to stable quiescent solitons, i.e.,
multiplying them by $\exp\left(ic_{0}x\right)$.
The double-humped GSs found in gap $-1$ cannot be set in a state of persistent
motion – they either pass a finite distance and come to a halt, or get
destroyed, if the kink is too strong. On the other hand, stable single-peak
solitons, originally belonging to the central bandgap, can move at a finite
velocity, in the model with $\varepsilon=0$ and small amplitude of the
chirp/refractive index modulation, $\mu\lesssim 0.03$ (moving solitons
practically cannot be created in the model with $\mu=0$ and $\varepsilon\neq
0$ [22]) .
To display a generic example of the soliton mobility in the present system, we
notice that, at $\mu=0.03$, the soliton with energy $E=3.00$ remains pinned if
the kick is small, $c_{0}\leq 0.3$. At $c_{0}=0.31$, the kicked soliton
performs several oscillations and then depins itself, starting progressive
motion, as shown in Fig. 8. In this case, the velocity of the eventual steady
motion is found to be $0.12\approx\allowbreak 0.4c_{0}$.
Fig. 8: Depinning of a soliton with energy $E=3.00$, which belongs to the
central bandgap ($\omega=0.40$) in the model with $\mu=0.03$ and
$\varepsilon=0$, by the kick with $c_{0}=0.31$, (this value only slightly
exceeds the depinning threshold). The motion of the soliton is shown by means
of contour plots of $|u|^{2}$.
In interval $0.3<c_{0}<0.45$, the same soliton readily sets in persistent
motion, with average velocity $\bar{c}$ which is found to be slightly larger
than $c_{0}/2$ (for example, $\bar{c}=0.19$ for $c_{0}=0.35$). A still
stronger kick sends the soliton in motion for a limited (although long)
interval of time, but then it suddenly gets destroyed by accumulated
disturbances. In the latter case, the velocity observed at the stage of the
quasi-stable motion is much lower than in the truly stable situation,
$\bar{c}\approx 0.2c_{0}$. On the other hand, if the modulation strength
increases to $\mu=0.05$, kicked GSs do not start to move, but rather
demonstrate oscillations around the pinned state, up to $c_{0}\simeq 0.4$. A
stronger kick destroys them.
## 4 Conclusion
We have reported results of systematic investigation of GSs (gap solitons) and
their moving counterparts in the basic model of periodically modulated BGs
(Bragg gratings), which includes periodic variations of the grating’s chirp
(or local refractive index) and reflectivity. In addition to fiber BGs, the
model may also be interpreted in terms of spatial gratings. The increase of
the reflectivity modulation quickly makes all solitons unstable; on the other
hand, the modulation of the chirp supports a new species of stable BGs in the
side bandgap at negative frequencies (gap No. $-1$), and keeps solitons stable
in the central bandgap, No. $0$. The characteristic feature of the GSs in the
side bandgaps is their double-peak shape. The stable single- and double-peak
solitons in gaps $0$ and $-1$, respectively, demonstrate bistability, existing
in overlapping intervals of the energy. Stable 4-peak bound complexes, formed
in bandgap $-1$ by the double-peak fundamental GSs, were found too.
Quiescent single-peak solitons belonging to the central bandgap readily self-
trap from one-component input pulses, which are launched into the BG at a
finite velocity, while the GSs in gap $-1$ self-trap from the bimodal input,
which is relevant to spatial gratings. On the other hand, unstable two-peak
solitons with a large energy, belonging to bandgaps $-1$ and $-2$,
spontaneously re-trap into stable double-peak GSs (spontaneous rearrangement
of unstable solitons into stable ones does not occur in the standard BG
model). Moving solitons can be created in the BG with the weak chirp
modulation.
The fabrication of the periodically modulated fiber gratings, considered in
the present model, is quite feasible, and available experimental techniques
should be sufficient for the creation of solitons predicted in this work. In
particular, such experiments may bring closer a solution to the challenging
problem of the creation of solitons made of standing light.
Acknowledgements
The work of T.M. is supported, in a part, by a postdoctoral fellowship from
the Pikovsky-Valazzi Foundation, by the Israel Science Foundation through the
Center-of-Excellence grant No. 8006/03, and by the Thailand Research Fund
under grant No. MRG5080171.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-13T11:18:30 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.762083 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Thawatchai Mayteevarunyoo and Boris A. Malomed",
"submitter": "Thawatchai Mayteevarunyoo",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1825"
} |
0805.1830 | # Temperature dependent transport in suspended graphene
K. I. Bolotin1 K. J. Sikes2 J. Hone3 H. L. Stormer1,2,4 P. Kim1 Depts. of
1Physics, 2Applied Physics, 3Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University, New
York, NY 10027 4Bell Labs, Alcatel-Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ 07974
###### Abstract
The resistivity of ultra-clean suspended graphene is strongly temperature
($T$) dependent for $5$ K$<T<240$ K. At $T\sim 5$ K transport is near-
ballistic in a device of $\sim 2~{}\mu$m dimension and a mobility $\sim
170,000$ cm2/Vs. At large carrier density, $n>0.5\times$1011cm-2, the
resistivity increases with increasing $T$ and is linear above 50 K, suggesting
carrier scattering from acoustic phonons. At $T=240$ K the mobility is $\sim
120,000$ cm2/Vs, higher than in any known semiconductor. At the charge neutral
point we observe a non-universal conductivity that decreases with decreasing
$T$, consistent with a density inhomogeneity $<$108 cm-2.
###### pacs:
73.50.-h; 72.10.-d
Graphene, a single layer of graphite, is a remarkable recent addition to the
family of two-dimensional electronic materials. Its linear dispersion relation
and the chiral nature of its quasiparticles have created intense experimental
and theoretical interest rise_graphene . Central to understanding the
electronic transport properties of graphene is the mechanism causing the
scattering of its charge carriers. While scanning probe studies show little
evidence of intrinsic structural defects in the graphene lattice elena ;
ishigami , scattering may result from extrinsic sources, such as charged
impurities on top of graphene or in the underlying substrate fuhrer_charged ;
dassarma ; nomura , corrugation of the graphene sheet geim_intr , phonons in
graphene chen_limits ; stauber ; vasko ; dassarma_phonons or remote
interfacial phonons in the substrate chen_limits . The formation of electron
and hole puddles can further contribute to scattering at low carrier density
yacoby ; guinea_ripples .
Recently, dramatically reduced carrier scattering was reported in suspended
graphene devices us ; rutgers . After an annealing treatment to remove the
residual impurities the sample mobility exceeded 200,000 cm2/Vs, an order of
magnitude improvement over graphene devices fabricated on a substrate us . The
exceptional cleanliness of suspended samples allows us to probe previously
inaccessible transport regimes in graphene. In this Letter, we report a strong
temperature ($T$) dependence of electrical transport in ultra-clean suspended
graphene. At low temperatures, the carrier mean free path in our highest
quality devices reaches device dimensions and suggests near-ballistic
transport. When the temperature is increased, the resistivity exhibits two
distinct behaviors, depending on carrier density. At large densities, the
conductivity of graphene exhibits a metallic behavior (i.e., decreasing with
increasing $T$) which can be mostly ascribed to electron-phonon scattering.
The scattering is remarkably weak, allowing the observation of a very high
mobility of $\sim$120,000 cm2/Vs near-room temperature ($T$=240 K). At low
density, near the charge neutrality point, the conductivity of graphene shows
a pronounced non-metallic $T$-dependence (i.e., a decrease with decreasing
$T$), indicating a strongly reduced charge inhomogeneity in suspended samples
as compared to previously studied unsuspended devices.
Figure 1: (color online) Conductance of the suspended graphene sample S1
before (blue line) and after (red line) annealing as a function of carrier
density. Data are shown for $T=40$ K to suppress universal conductance
fluctuations. Note the change from near-linear to sub-linear behavior before
and after annealing, respectively. The dotted red line is the expectation for
ballistic transport (see text). Inset: atomic force microscope image of the
suspended device (S1).
The suspended graphene devices are fabricated using the process described in
us . A mechanically-exfoliated graphene flake pressed onto a SiO2/Si substrate
is contacted by microlithographically patterned gold electrodes and the SiO2
under the flake is subsequently partially removed via a chemical etch. The
fabrication results in flat graphene, suspended $\sim$150 nm above the SiO2/Si
substrate, which serves as a gate (Fig. 1, Inset). The electrical measurements
are performed in a sample-in-vacuum cryostat capable of $T=$5-240 K. At yet
larger $T$ the sample quality can degrade, probably due to a rising background
pressure and absorption of impurities onto the graphene. The measurements
consist of recording the resistivity $\rho$ as a function of gate voltage
$V_{g}$ and temperature $T$. The gate voltage is limited to $|V_{g}|<5$ V to
avoid electrostatic collapse of the suspended graphene us . Multiple
temperature and voltage sweeps are performed to ensure the reproducibility of
the features observed in $\rho(V_{g},T)$. The carrier density $n$ is
determined via Hall measurements. Assuming a parallel plate capacitor
geometry, we find $n=C_{g}(V_{g}-V_{NP})/e$, with $C_{g}=60$ aF/$\mu$m2 and
$V_{NP}$ being the gate voltage position of the charge-neutrality point (NP).
Since $|V_{NP}|<1$ V and is $T$-independent for all devices, we deduce that
the features in $\rho(V_{g},T)$ are intrinsic and not caused by the
absorption/desorption of impurities.
Before current annealing, the low-$T$ conductivity $\sigma=1/\rho$ of our
suspended devices depends linearly on $n$, with mobility $\mu=\sigma/en\sim
28,000$ cm2/Vs (Fig. 1, Sample S1, lower line), comparable to conventional
samples fabricated on a substrate. Sending a large current through the device
and heating the graphene to an estimated 400 ∘C us ; bachtold improves the
mobility to 170,000 cm2/Vs at $n=2\times 10^{11}$ cm2 (Fig. 1, upper line) us
, while $\sigma(n)$ becomes nonlinear. A similar improvement is observed for
two other suspended devices, sample S2 ($\mu=60,000$ cm${}^{2}/Vs$) and sample
S3 ($\mu=70,000$ cm${}^{2}/Vs$).
We can gain insight into the dominant low-$T$ scattering mechanism in graphene
by comparing $\sigma(n)$ before and after current annealing. The linearity of
$\sigma(n)$ before annealing suggests the dominance of charged impurity
scattering yanwen ; nomura ; fuhrer_charged . For screened Coulomb potential
scattering, the scattering time is $\tau\propto k_{F}$ nomura ; dassarma
which leads to a conductivity $\sigma=\frac{2e^{2}}{h}k_{F}v_{F}\tau\propto
n$, with $k_{F}$ being the Fermi wavevector. The mean free path in these
devices is $l_{m}=\sigma h/2e^{2}k_{F}\sim 150$ nm, much smaller than the
sample size ($>1~{}\mu$m), justifying the use of the Boltzmann model for
unannealed devices.
In contrast, after current annealing the mean free path in S1 increases to
$\sim$ 1 $\mu$m, comparable to the device dimensions of $\sim$2 $\mu$m and
transport is no longer diffusive. To elucidate the actual transport conditions
in our sample we compare $\sigma(n)$ with the expectation from the extreme
opposite position of purely ballistic propagation. There, the current is
carried by the finite number of longitudinal modes $N=Wk_{F}/\pi$, where $W$
is the width of the sample. Assuming perfect transmission, the ballistic
conductance at vanishing $T$ is given by beenakker ; guinea_ballistic
$\sigma_{bal}(n)=\frac{4e^{2}}{h}N=\frac{4e^{2}}{h}\frac{Wk_{F}}{\pi}\propto\sqrt{n}$
(1)
The dotted curve in Fig. 1 shows the result of Eq. (1) for a width $W$=1.3
$\mu$m, close to the dimensions of the device. From the excellent agreement
both in shape and magnitude, combined with the derived long mean free path, we
conclude that the low-$T$ transport in our current-annealed, suspended devices
is close to the ballistic limit. As an important consequence, the peak
mobility appears to be limited by boundary scattering set by the device
dimensions and not by impurity scattering and yet larger mobilities should be
achievable. Sub-linear behavior of $\sigma(n)$, reminiscent of Fig. 1, was
previously observed in unsuspended samples yanwen ; geim_intr and interpreted
as a combined contribution of short-range and long-range scatterers. Given
that the device dimension is comparable to the mean free path, such an
interpretation based on the diffusive transport does not seem to be warranted
for our samples.
Figure 2: (color online) $T$-dependence of resistance of suspended device S1
before (a) and after (b) current annealing. Inset: Sketch of gate voltage
dependence of the carrier density in clean (lower curve) and charge
inhomogeneous (upper curve) graphene.
The $T$-dependence of the resistivity provides a tool to investigate the
impact of the current annealing process. Before current annealing, the
resistivity of device S1 exhibits a relatively small ($<30\%$) variation of
the resistivity from 5 K to 240 K (Fig. 2b), similar to conventional
unsuspended devices geim_intr ; yanwen-ejp , whereas after annealing this
variation is very pronounced ($>200\%$) (Fig. 2a, Fig. 4,Inset). These
$T$-dependent data can be divided into two different density regimes,
separated by $n^{*}$, the density at which $\rho(n^{*})$ is $T$-independent
(Fig 2b). For $|n|<n^{*}$ annealed devices exhibit a non-metallic behavior
(increasing $\rho$ for decreasing $T$), with the change in peak resistivity as
large as a factor of three in the vicinity of NP. For $|n|>n^{*}$ the
resistivity exhibits metallic behavior (decreasing $\rho$ for decreasing $T$).
In this regime $\rho(T)$ is generally linear in $T$ above a device specific
crossover temperature $T^{*}$ ($<50$ K), and the slope of $\rho(T)$ increases
for smaller $n$ (Fig. 3).
The $T$-dependence observed in unsuspended graphene is considerably different.
There, $\rho(T)$ is approximately linear for $T\leq 100$ K, while it is
superlinear for $T>100$ K geim_intr ; chen_limits . The lack of such activated
behavior in our suspended devices shows that such activated behavior is not an
intrinsic property of graphene, but rather stems from the external sources,
such as remote interface phonons chen_limits or static ripples geim_intr . In
fact, suspended graphene shows only a modest increase of the resistivity from
$T\sim$5 K to 240 K maintaining a mobility of $\mu=120,000$ cm2/Vs at T=240 K
and at our highest density of $n=2\times 10^{11}$ cm-2. This value
considerably exceeds the highest reported room-temperature mobility for a
semiconducting material (InSb, 77,000 cm2/Vs insb ).
In order to quantify the linear rise of $\rho(T)$ in Fig. 3 we define the
slope in the high-$T$ range as $\Delta\rho/\Delta
T=[\rho(200K)-\rho(100K)]/100$ K . The inset to Fig. 3 shows
$\Delta\rho/\Delta T$ as a function of $n$ in samples S1 and S2 before (dotted
lines) and after (solid lines) current annealing. Several features stand out.
First, the high mobility states reached in S1 and S2 after current annealing
exhibit very similar $\Delta\rho/\Delta T(n)$ dependencies, in spite of a
mobility difference of a factor of 2. Second, in the large $n$ limit, the
slope $\Delta\rho/\Delta T(n)$ is similar for the samples before and after the
annealing process, indicating that the slope in this limit is rather
insensitive to the sample mobility. Finally, for all devices
$\Delta\rho/\Delta T$ is consistently larger for negative $V_{g}$ than for
positive $V_{g}$.
Figure 3: (color online) $T$-dependence of the resistivity in sample S2
($\blacksquare$) and S1 ($\bigstar$, shifted for clarity) at several different
gate voltages. Inset: Density dependence of slope of $\Delta\rho/\Delta T$
defined as $\Delta\rho/\Delta T=[\rho(200$ K$)-\rho(100$ K$)]/100$ K for
sample S1 and S2 before (dotted line) and after (solid line) current
annealing. Since $\rho(T)$ is linear only for $n>$ 0.5$\times$1011cm-2, the
definition of $\Delta\rho/\Delta T$ is only meaningful outside of the dotted
region.
We separately consider the two density regimes, $|n|>n^{*}$ and $|n|<n^{*}$.
At high densities, the linearly increasing $\rho(T)$ suggests electron-phonon
interaction as the dominant source of carrier scattering chen_limits ; vasko ;
stauber ; dassarma_phonons . Indeed, within a Boltzmann model and for
sufficiently high $T>T_{BG}=2\hbar v_{ph}k_{F}/k_{B}\sim 23$ K (BG=Bloch-
Gruneisen) at $n=2\times 10^{11}$ cm-2, the resistivity is linear in $T$
$\Delta\rho=\frac{\pi D^{2}k_{B}T}{4e^{2}\hbar\rho_{m}v_{F}^{2}v_{ph}^{2}}$
(2)
where $D$ is the deformation potential, $\rho_{m}=7.6\times 10^{-8}$ g/cm2 is
the graphene mass density, $v_{ph}=2\times 10^{4}$ m/s is the LA phonon
velocity phonon_parameters and $v_{F}=1\times 10^{6}$ m/s is the Fermi
velocity rise_graphene . While our data in Fig. 3 show clearly such a linear
$T$-dependence, indicative of phonon scattering, the slope of $\rho(T)$
displays an unexpected density dependence, not captured by Eq. (1). The origin
of this density dependence is unclear. It may point to additional
contributions from a different $T$-dependent scattering mechanisms at lower
densities, such as screened Coulomb scattering falko . Further experimental
and theoretical work is needed to resolve this issue. However, for large
$|n|$, when $\Delta\rho/\Delta T(n)$ in Fig. 3b reaches a roughly
$n$-independent value (at least for positive $V_{g}$) we may identify this
limiting behavior with exclusively phonon scattering and derive an upper bound
value for $D$. For $n=+2\times 10^{11}$ cm-2 (electrons) Eq. (1) yields
$D\sim$ 29 eV, consistent with $D=10-30$ eV in graphite dassarma_phonons ;
phonon_parameters and comparable to $D\sim 17$ eV, reported for unsuspended
graphene chen_limits . In contrast, for $n=-2\times 10^{11}$ cm-2 (holes) we
obtain $D\sim 50$ eV. This value may be overestimated, since
$\Delta\rho/\Delta T(n)$ is not fully saturated even at $V_{g}\approx$-5 V,
the experimental limit of hole density. Nevertheless, this large asymmetry is
unusual and presently unresolved and, together with the observed $n$
dependence, may point to a scattering behavior in suspended graphene that is
more complex than simple electron-phonon interaction.
We now turn to the low density regime, $|n|<n^{*}$, and address the
$T$-dependence of the minimum conductivity, $\sigma_{min}$. Figure 4 shows
$\sigma_{min}(T)/\sigma_{min}(5K)$ in samples S1, S2 and S3 before and after
annealing. Before annealing, $\sigma_{min}(T)$ varies only slightly from 5 K
to 240 K ($<30\%$). The variation is similar to $\sigma_{min}(T)$ in
unsuspended samples of similar mobilities yanwen-ejp . This is in a sharp
contrast to the current-annealed devices, where $\sigma_{min}$ acquires a
strong $T$-dependence, as large as a factor of $1.5-3$ for $T=5$ K to 250 K.
This confirms that the $T$-independence of $\sigma_{min}$ observed in low
mobility samples yanwen-ejp ; geim_intr is not an intrinsic property of
graphene.
Figure 4: (color online) Minimum conductivity normalized to its value at $T=5$
K as a function of $T$ for three devices before (S1:$\square$,S2:$\circ$) and
after (S1:$\blacksquare$,S2:$\bullet$,S3:$\blacktriangle$) annealing. Data for
S3 before current annealing are not available. The $T$-dependence increases
considerably after annealing. Inset: Maximum resistivity for S2 before
($\blacktriangle$) and after ($\blacksquare$) current annealing.
The remarkable property of graphene to exhibit $\sigma_{min}\sim e^{2}/h$ even
at vanishing charge density has been the subject of several experimental and
theoretical investigations geim_intr ; beenakker ; dassarma ;
dassarma_suspended ; fuhrer_charged . In a high mobility sample, a
$T$-dependence is only expected for $k_{B}T>\epsilon_{F}=\hbar
v_{F}k_{F}=\hbar v_{F}\sqrt{\pi C_{g}(V_{g}-V_{NP})/e}$ dassarma_bilayer ;
falko , when $V_{g}\rightarrow V_{NP}$. However, in a realistic sample charged
impurities chen_limits ; nomura ; dassarma ; yacoby or structural disorder
guinea_ripples break up the carrier system into puddles of electrons and
holes for $V_{g}\rightarrow V_{NP}$. As a result, the combined (electron plus
hole) carrier density in ”dirty” graphene never drops below a value
$\tilde{n}$ , referred to as inhomogenity density (Fig. 2, Inset).
Estimating the rms chemical potential in the puddle regime to be
$\epsilon_{F}\sim\hbar v_{F}\sqrt{\pi\tilde{n}}$ , we expect a significant
$T$-dependence of $\sigma_{min}(T)$ only for $k_{B}T\gg\hbar
v_{f}\sqrt{\pi\tilde{n}}$. For unsuspended samples $\tilde{n}\sim 10^{11}$
cm-2 yanwen ; dassarma corresponding to $T_{F}^{*}=\hbar
v_{f}\sqrt{\pi\tilde{n}}/k_{B}\sim 400$ K, which is used to explain why in
”dirty” devices $\sigma_{min}$ lacks a significant $T$-dependence in the range
[0, 300 K]. The weak $T$-dependence in suspended samples before current
annealing implies a similar situation. In contrast, after current annealing
$\sigma_{min}(T)$ shows $T$-dependence down to $T\sim 10$ K (Fig. 4) This
implies an upper bound of $\tilde{n}<10^{8}$ cm-2, consistent with fits to the
density dependence of transport data dassarma_suspended and represents
further evidence for the high quality of suspended graphene.
While qualitatively our data suggest that the $T$-dependence of
$\sigma_{min}(T)$ in suspended samples results from a low $\tilde{n}$, a
quantitative description of $\sigma_{min}$ is complicated by the fact that
$k_{F}l_{m}>1$ at small $n$ and a Boltzmann description may no longer be
applicable. Such complicating factors are evident from a comparison between
different annealed devices, which exhibit both a different magnitude and a
different functional $T$-dependence as seen in Fig. 4. This suggests that the
transport at the neutrality point in the suspended samples is dominated by
extrinsic scattering. Interestingly, $\sigma_{min}(T)$ exhibits a
$T$-dependence, which is much weaker than the $\sigma_{min}\propto T^{2}$
(solid line in Fig. 4), expected from a Boltzmann model geim_intr ;
dassarma_bilayer .
In conclusion, we demonstrate that at low $T$, suspended, current annealed
graphene can sustain near-ballistic transport over micron dimensions. At high
temperatures, the resistivity of such high-quality graphene increases linearly
with $T$. The origin is likely phonon scattering, but a density and carrier-
type dependence raises questions as to our present understanding of transport
in such devices. The deduced upper bound of the deformation potential, $D$, in
the high density limit is comparable to values from graphite, but varies
considerably between electron and hole transport. Finally, the observed strong
$T$-dependence of $\sigma_{min}$ in high mobility suspended devices is
consistent with very low inhmogeneity density $\tilde{n}<10^{8}$ cm-2.
We acknowledge experimental help from and discussions with E. Henriksen, M.
Foster, S. Adam, I. Aleiner, V. Fal’ko, M. Fuhrer and A. Geim. This work is
supported by the NSF (No. DMR-03-52738), NSEC grant CHE-0641523, NYSTAR, DOE
(No. DE-AIO2-04ER46133 and No. DEFG02-05ER46215), ONR (No. N000150610138),
FENA MARCO, W. M. Keck Foundation, and the Microsoft Project Q.
## References
* (1) A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov _Nature Materials_ 6, 183 (2007).
* (2) E. Stolyarova _et al._ , _Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci._ 104, 9209 (2007).
* (3) M. Ishigami _et al._ , _Nano Lett._ 7 1643 (2007).
* (4) E. H. Hwang, S. Adam, and S. Das Sarma, _Phys. Rev. Lett._ 98, 186806 (2007).
* (5) J. H. Chen _et al._ , _Nature Phys._ doi:10.1038/nphys935.
* (6) K. Nomura and A. H. MacDonald, _Phys. Rev. Lett._ 96, 256602 (2006).
* (7) S. V. Morozov _et al._ , _Phys. Rev. Lett._ 100, 016602 (2008).
* (8) E. H. Hwang and S. Das Sarma, _Phys. Rev. B_ 77, 115449 (2008).
* (9) F.T. Vasko and V. Ryzhii, _Phys. Rev. B_ 76, 233404 (2007).
* (10) T. Stauber, N. M. R. Peres, and F. Guinea, _Phys. Rev. B_ 76, 205423 (2007).
* (11) J. H. Chen, C. Jang, S. Xiao, M. Ishigami, and M. S. Fuhrer, _Nature Nanotech._ 3, 206 (2008).
* (12) F. Guinea, M. I. Katsnelson, and M. A. H. Vozmediano, _Phys. Rev. B_ 77, 075422 (2008).
* (13) J. Martin _et al._ , _Nature Phys._ 4, 144 (2008).
* (14) K. I. Bolotin _et al._ , _Solid State Comm._ 146, 351 (2008).
* (15) X. Du, I. Skachko, A. Barker, and E. Y. Andrei, arXiv:0802.2933.
* (16) J. Moser, A. Barreiro, and A. Bachtold, _Appl. Phys. Lett._ 91, 163513 (2007).
* (17) Y. -W. Tan _et al._ , _Phys. Rev. Lett._ 99, 246803 (2007).
* (18) J. Tworzydlo, B. Trauzettel, M. Titov, A. Rycerz, and C.W.J. Beenakker, _Phys. Rev. Lett._ 96, 246802 (2006).
* (19) N. M. R. Peres, A. H. Castro Neto, and F. Guinea, _Phys. Rev. B_ 73, 195411 (2006).
* (20) Y. -W. Tan, Y. Zhang, H. L. Stormer, and P. Kim, _Eur. Phys. J._ 148, 15 (2007).
* (21) H. J. Hrostowski, F. J. Morin, T. H. Geballe, G. H. Wheatley, _Phys. Rev._ 100, 1672 (1955).
* (22) S. Adam and S. Das Sarma, arXiv:0803.0735
* (23) V. V. Cheianov and V. I. Fal’ko, _Phys. Rev. Lett._ 97, 226801 (2006).
* (24) S. Adam and S. Das Sarma, _Phys. Rev. B_ 77, 115436 (2008).
* (25) S. Ono and K. Sugihara, _J. Phys. Soc. Jpn._ 21, 861 (1966); K. Sugihara, _Phys. Rev. B_ 28, 2157 (1983).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-13T19:41:00 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.767005 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "K. I. Bolotin, K. J. Sikes, J. Hone, H. L. Stormer, P. Kim",
"submitter": "Kirill Bolotin",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1830"
} |
0805.1909 | # On universal Lie nilpotent associative algebras
Pavel Etingof , John Kim and Xiaoguang Ma Department of Mathematics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
etingof@math.mit.edu Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
02139, USA kimjohn@mit.edu Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA xma@math.mit.edu
## 1\. Introduction
Let $A$ be an associative unital algebra over a field $k$. Let us regard it as
a Lie algebra with bracket $[a,b]=ab-ba$, and consider the terms of its lower
central series $L_{i}(A)$ defined inductively by $L_{1}(A)=A$ and
$L_{i+1}(A)=[A,L_{i}(A)]$. Denote by $M_{i}(A)$ the two-sided ideal in $A$
generated by $L_{i}(A)$: $M_{i}(A)=AL_{i}(A)A$, and let $Q_{i}(A)=A/M_{i}(A)$.
Thus $Q_{i}(A)$ is the largest quotient algebra of $A$ which satisfies the
higher commutator polynomial identity
$[\ldots[[a_{1},a_{2}],a_{3}],\ldots,a_{i}]=0$.
An algebra $A$ is said to be Lie nilpotent of index $i$ if $M_{i+1}(A)=0$
(i.e. $A=Q_{i+1}(A)$). For example, Lie nilpotent algebras of index $1$ are
commutative algebras. Understanding Lie nilpotent algebras of higher indices
is an interesting open problem. Many questions about Lie nilpotent algebras
can be reduced to understanding the structure of universal Lie nilpotent
algebras, i.e. algebras $Q_{n,i}:=Q_{i}(A_{n})$, where $A_{n}$ is the free
associative algebra in $n$ generators, since any finitely generated Lie
nilpotent algebra of index $i$ is a quotient of $Q_{n,i+1}$.
The goal of this paper is to advance our understanding of the algebras
$Q_{n,i}$ for $i\geq 2$ (in characteristic zero). The structure of these
algebras for general $i$ and $n$ is unknown. The only algebras $Q_{n,i}$ whose
structure has been known are $Q_{n,2}$, which is easily seen to be isomorphic
to the polynomial algebra $k[x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}]$, and $Q_{n,3}$, which,
according to Feigin and Shoikhet, [FS], is isomorphic to the algebra of even
polynomial differential forms in $n$ variables,
$k[x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}]\otimes\wedge^{\rm even}(dx_{1},\ldots,dx_{n})$, with
product $a*b=ab+da\wedge db$.
The main result of the paper is an explicit description of the algebra
$Q_{n,4}$. We also derive some properties of the algebras $Q_{n,i}$ for $i>4$,
and formulate some questions for future study which appear interesting.
Acknowledgements. This work arose out of the undergraduate research project of
J.K. within the framework of the UROP program at MIT. The work of P.E. was
partially supported by the NSF grant DMS-0504847. We are very grateful to B.
Shoikhet, who suggested to us the problem to study $Q_{n,4}$ and proposed an
approach to it; without his help this paper would not have appeared. We are
also grateful to M. Artin for useful discussions, and to T. Schedler for help
with computations using MAGMA (see the proof of Theorem 3.5).
## 2\. The associated graded algebra of $Q_{n,i}$ under the Lie filtration
Let $A_{n}$ be the free algebra over $\mathbb{C}$ in $n$ generators
$x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}$ ($n\geq 2$). The algebra $A_{n}$ can be viewed as the
universal enveloping algebra $U(\ell_{n})$ of the free Lie algebra $\ell_{n}$
in $n$ generators. Therefore, $A_{n}$ has an increasing filtration (called the
Lie filtration), defined by the condition that $\ell_{n}$ sits in degree $1$,
and the associated graded algebra ${\rm gr}A_{n}$ under this filtration is the
commutative algebra ${\rm Sym}\ell_{n}$.
The algebra $Q_{n,i}$ is the quotient of $A_{n}=U(\ell_{n})$ by the ideal
$M_{n,i}:=M_{i}(A_{n})$. Hence, $Q_{n,i}$ inherits the Lie filtration from
$A_{n}$, and one can form the quotient algebra $D_{n,i}={\rm gr}Q_{n,i}={\rm
Sym}\ell_{n}/{\rm gr}M_{n,i}$, which is commutative.
Let $\ell_{n}^{\prime}=[\ell_{n},\ell_{n}]$. Then we have a natural
factorization
${\rm Sym}\ell_{n}=\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}]\otimes{\rm
Sym}\ell_{n}^{\prime}.$
Let $\Lambda_{n,i}$ be the image of ${\rm Sym}\ell_{n}^{\prime}$ in $D_{n,i}$.
Then the multiplication map
$\theta:\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}]\otimes\Lambda_{n,i}\to D_{n,i}$
is surjective.
###### Theorem 2.1.
1. (i)
$\Lambda_{n,i}$ is a finite dimensional algebra with a grading by nonnegative
integers (defined by setting ${\rm deg}x_{i}=1$), with $\Lambda_{n,i}[0]=k$.
2. (ii)
The map $\theta$ is an isomorphism.
###### Proof.
Statement (i) follows from the following theorem of Jennings:
###### Theorem 2.2 ([Jen], Theorem 2).
If $A$ is a finitely generated Lie nilpotent algebra, then $M_{2}(A)$ is a
nilpotent ideal.
This implies that there exists $N$ such that for any $a_{1},\ldots,a_{N}\in
M_{2}(A)$, $a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{N}=0$. Taking $A=Q_{n,i}$, we see that for any
$a_{1},\ldots,a_{N}\in\ell_{n}^{\prime}$, we have $a_{1}a_{2}\cdots a_{N}=0$.
Since $\Lambda_{n,i}$ is generated by the subspace $\ell_{n}^{\prime}[<i]$ of
$\ell_{n}^{\prime}$ of degree $<i$, this implies that $\Lambda_{n,i}$ is
finite dimensional, proving (i).
To prove (ii), let $v_{j},j=1,\ldots,d$, be a basis of $\Lambda_{n,i}$, and
assume the contrary, i.e. that we have a nontrivial relation in $D_{n,i}$:
$\sum_{j=1}^{d}f_{j}(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})v_{j}=0,$
where $f_{j}\in\mathbb{C}[x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}]$. Pick this relation so that the
maximal degree $D$ of $f_{j}$ is smallest possible. This degree must be
positive, since $v_{j}$ are linearly independent over $\mathbb{C}$. Applying
the automorphism $g_{i}^{t}$ ($t\in\mathbb{C}$) of $A_{n}$ acting by
$g_{i}^{t}(x_{i})=x_{i}+t$, $g_{i}^{t}(x_{s})=x_{s}$, $s\neq i$, we get
$\sum_{j=1}^{d}f_{j}(x_{1},\ldots,x_{s}+t,\ldots,x_{n})v_{j}=0.$
Differentiating this by $t$, we get
$\sum_{j=1}^{d}\partial_{x_{s}}f_{j}(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})v_{j}=0.$
This relation must be trivial, since it has smaller degree than $D$. Thus
$f_{j}$ must be constant, which is a contradiction. ∎
This shows that to understand the structure of the algebra $Q_{n,i}$, we need
to first understand the structure of the commutative finite dimensional
algebra $\Lambda_{n,i}$, which gives rise to the following question.
###### Question 2.3.
What is the structure of $\Lambda_{n,i}$ as a $GL(n)$-module?
The answer to Question 2.3 has been known only for $i=2$, in which case
$\Lambda_{n,i}=\mathbb{C}$, and for $i=3$, in which case it is shown in [FS]
that $\Lambda_{n,i}=\wedge^{\rm even}(\xi_{1},\ldots,\xi_{n})$, and hence is
the sum of irreducible representations of $GL(n)$ corresponding to the
partitions $(1^{2r},0,\ldots,0)$, $0\leq 2r\leq n$.
In this paper, we answer Question 2.3 for $i=4$. For $i>4$, the question
remains open.
## 3\. The multiplicative properties of the ideals $M_{i}(A)$.
A step toward understanding of the structure of the algebras $Q_{i}(A)$ is
understanding of the multiplicative properties of the ideals $M_{i}(A)$. In
1983, Gupta and Levin proved the following result in this direction.
###### Theorem 3.1 ([GL], Theorem 3.2).
For any $m,l\geq 2$ and any algebra $A$, we have
$M_{m}(A)\cdot M_{l}(A)\subset M_{m+l-2}(A).$
###### Corollary 3.2.
The space $\overline{A}:=Q_{3}(A)\oplus\oplus_{i\geq 3}M_{i}(A)/M_{i+1}(A)$
has a structure of a graded algebra, with $Q_{3}(A)$ sitting in degree zero,
and $M_{i}(A)/M_{i+1}(A)$ in degree $i-2$ for $i\geq 3$.
###### Remark 3.3.
It is proved in [GL] that $[[M_{i}(A),M_{j}(A)],M_{k}(A)]\subset
M_{i+j+k-3}(A)$, which implies that the algebra $\overline{A}$ is Lie
nilpotent of index 2.
It is interesting that the result of Theorem 3.1 can sometimes be improved.
Namely, let us say that a pair $(m,l)$ of natural numbers is null if for any
algebra $A$
$M_{m}(A)M_{l}(A)\subset M_{m+l-1}(A)$
(clearly, this property does not depend on the order of elements in the pair,
and any pair $(1,m)$ is null).
###### Lemma 3.4.
The pair $(m,l)$ is null if and only if the element
$[\ldots[x_{1},x_{2}],\ldots,x_{m}]\cdot[\ldots[x_{m+1},x_{m+2}],\ldots,x_{m+l}]$
is in $M_{m+l-1}(A_{m+l})$.
###### Proof.
By Theorem 3.1, a pair $(m,l)$ is null iff $L_{m}(A)L_{l}(A)\subset
M_{m+l-1}(A)$ for any $A$. Clearly, this happens if and only if the statement
of Lemma 3.4 holds, as desired. ∎
###### Theorem 3.5.
If $l+m\leq 7$, then the unordered pair $(m,l)$ is null iff it is not (2,2) or
(2,4).
###### Proof.
The property of Lemma 3.4 was checked using the MAGMA program, and it turns
out that it holds for (2,3),(3,3),(2,5),(3,4), but not for (2,2) and (2,4).
Actually, it is easy to check by hand that the property of Lemma 3.4 does not
hold for (2,2), and here is a computer-free proof that it holds for (2,3).
We need to show that in $Q_{n,4}$, we have
$[x_{i},x_{j}][x_{k},[x_{l},x_{m}]]=0.$
To do so, define
$S(i,j,k,l,m):=[x_{i},x_{j}][x_{k},[x_{l},x_{m}]]+[x_{k},x_{j}][x_{i},[x_{l},x_{m}]]$.
Then in $Q_{n,4}$ we have
$S(i,j,k,l,m)=0.$
Indeed, it suffices to show that in $Q_{n,4}$
$[x_{i},x_{j}][x_{k},[x_{l},x_{m}]]+[x_{i},[x_{l},x_{m}]][x_{k},x_{j}]=0,$
which follows from the fact that in a free algebra we have
$[a,b][c,d]+[a,d][c,b]=[[ac,b],d]+a[d,[c,b]]-[[a,b],d]c,$
where $a=x_{i},b=x_{j},c=x_{k},d=[x_{l},x_{m}]$.
Now set
$\displaystyle R(i,j,k,l,m)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}S(x_{j},x_{k},x_{l},x_{m},x_{i})+\frac{1}{2}S(x_{j},x_{k},x_{m},x_{l},x_{i})-\frac{1}{2}S(x_{j},x_{k},x_{i},x_{l},x_{m})$
$\displaystyle\quad-\frac{1}{2}S(x_{j},x_{m},x_{l},x_{k},x_{i})+\frac{1}{2}S(x_{j},x_{m},x_{k},x_{l},x_{i})-\frac{1}{2}S(x_{j},x_{m},x_{i},x_{l},x_{k})$
$\displaystyle\quad-S(x_{j},x_{i},x_{k},x_{l},x_{m})-S(x_{j},x_{i},x_{m},x_{l},x_{k})+\frac{1}{2}S(x_{l},x_{k},x_{m},x_{j},x_{i})$
$\displaystyle\quad-\frac{1}{2}S(x_{l},x_{k},x_{i},x_{j},x_{m})+\frac{1}{2}S(x_{l},x_{m},x_{k},x_{j},x_{i})-\frac{1}{2}S(x_{l},x_{m},x_{i},x_{j},x_{k})$
$\displaystyle\quad-\frac{1}{2}S(x_{k},x_{i},x_{m},x_{j},x_{l}).$
Then one can show by a direct computation that in $A_{n}$ we have
$[x_{i},x_{j}][x_{k},[x_{l},x_{m}]]=\frac{1}{3}(R(i,j,m,l,k)-R(i,j,l,m,k)).$
Therefore, we see that $[x_{i},x_{j}][x_{k},[x_{l},x_{m}]]=0$ in $Q_{n,4}$, as
desired. ∎
Further computer simulations by T. Schedler using MAGMA have shown that the
pairs (2,6) and (4,4) are not null. This gives rise to the following
conjecture:
###### Conjecture 3.6.
A pair $(i,j)$ is null if and only if $i$ or $j$ is odd.
## 4\. Description of $Q_{n,4}$ by generators and relations
In [FS], Feigin and Shoikhet described the algebra $Q_{n,3}$ by generators and
relations. Namely, they proved the following result.
###### Theorem 4.1.
$Q_{n,3}$ is generated by $x_{i}$, $i=1,\ldots,n$, and $y_{ij}=[x_{i},x_{j}]$,
$1\leq i,j\leq n$, with defining relations
$[x_{i},y_{jl}]=0,$
and the quadratic relation
$y_{ij}y_{kl}+y_{ik}y_{jl}=0$
saying that $y_{ij}y_{kl}$ is antisymmetric in its indices.
###### Corollary 4.2.
The algebra $\Lambda_{n,3}$ is generated by $y_{ij}$ with defining relations
$y_{ij}=-y_{ji},\quad y_{ij}y_{kl}+y_{ik}y_{jl}=0.$
In this section we would like to give a similar description of the the
algebras $Q_{n,4}$, $\Lambda_{n,4}$. As we know, the algebra $Q_{n,4}$ is
generated by the elements $x_{i},y_{ij}$ as above, and also
$z_{ijk}=[y_{ij},x_{k}]$, $1\leq i,j,k\leq n$. Our job is to find what
relations to put on $x_{i},y_{ij},z_{ijk}$ to generate the ideal $M_{n,4}$.
This is done by the following theorem, which is our main result.
###### Theorem 4.3.
1. (i)
The ideal $M_{n,4}$ is generated by the Lie relations
$[x_{i},z_{jlm}]=0.$
the quadratic relations
$y_{ij}z_{klm}=0,$
and the cubic relations
$y_{ij}y_{kl}y_{mp}+y_{ik}y_{jl}y_{mp}=0,$
saying that $y_{ij}y_{kl}y_{mp}$ is antisymmetric in its indices.
2. (ii)
The algebra $\Lambda_{n,4}$ is generated by $y_{ij},z_{ijk}$ subject to the
linear relations
$y_{ij}=-y_{ji},\quad z_{ijk}=-z_{jik},\quad z_{ijk}+z_{jki}+z_{kij}=0,$
and the relations
$y_{ij}z_{klm}=0,\quad z_{ijp}z_{klm}=0,\quad
y_{ij}y_{kl}y_{mp}+y_{ik}y_{jl}y_{mp}=0.$
###### Proof.
Part (ii) follows from (i), so we need to prove (i). The relations
$y_{ij}z_{klm}=0$ follow from the fact that $M_{2}(A)M_{3}(A)\subset M_{4}(A)$
for any algebra $A$ (Theorem 3.5). This fact also implies that
$y_{ij}y_{kl}y_{mp}$ is antisymmetric, since by [FS],
$y_{ij}y_{kl}+y_{ik}y_{jl}\in M_{n,3}$.
Denote by $B_{n}$ the quotient of $A_{n}$ by the relations stated in part (i)
of the theorem. We have just shown that there is a natural surjective
homomorphism $\eta:B_{n}\to Q_{n,4}$. We need to show that it is an
isomorphism. For this, we need to show that for any $a,b,c,d\in B_{n}$,
$[[[a,b],c],d]=0$. For this, it suffices to show that $[[a,b],c]$ is a central
element in $B_{n}$. But $[[a,b],c]=0$ in $Q_{n,3}$, which implies that
$[[a,b],c]$ belongs to the ideal generated by $z_{ijk}$ and
$y_{ij}y_{kl}+y_{ik}y_{jl}$. But it is easy to see using the relations of
$B_{n}$ that all elements of this ideal are central in $B_{n}$, as desired. ∎
Let $K_{n,i}$ be the kernel of the projection map
$\Lambda_{n,i+1}\to\Lambda_{n,i}$. We see that $K_{n,3}$ is spanned by
elements $z_{ijk}$ and $y_{ij}y_{kl}$ modulo the antisymmetry relation.
Therefore, we get
###### Corollary 4.4.
As a $GL(n)$-module, $K_{n,3}$ is isomorphic to the direct sum of two
irreducible modules $F_{2,1,0,\ldots,0}$ and $F_{2,2,0,\ldots,0}$
corresponding to partitions $(2,1,0,\ldots,0)$ and $(2,2,0,\ldots,0)$.
This answers Question 2.3 for $i=4$.
###### Proof.
Let $V=\mathbb{C}^{n}$ be the vector representation of $GL(n)$. The span of
$z_{ijk}$ is the subrepresentation of $V^{\otimes 3}$ annihilated by $Id+(12)$
and $Id+(123)+(132)$ in $\mathbb{C}[S_{3}]$, so it corresponds to the
partition $(2,1,0,\ldots,0)$. The span of $y_{ij}y_{kl}$ is the representation
$S^{2}(\wedge^{2}V)/\wedge^{4}V$, so it is the irreducible representation
corresponding to the partition $(2,2,0,\ldots 0)$. ∎
## 5\. The $W_{n}$-module structure on $M_{n,i}/M_{n,i+1}$
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}_{n}={\rm Der}(Q_{n,3})$ be the Lie algebra of derivations
of $Q_{n,3}$. Since every derivation of $A_{n}$ preserves the ideals
$M_{n,i}$, we have a natural action of ${\rm Der}(A_{n})$ on
$M_{n,i}/M_{n,i+1}$ and a natural homomorphism $\phi:{\rm
Der}(A_{n})\to{\mathfrak{g}}_{n}$. This homomorphism is surjective, since a
derivation of $A_{n}$ is determined by any assignment of the images of the
generators $x_{i}$.
The following theorem is analogous to results of [FS].
###### Theorem 5.1.
The action of ${\rm Der}(A_{n})$ on $M_{n,i}/M_{n,i+1}$ factors through
${\mathfrak{g}}_{n}$. Thus, ${\mathfrak{g}}_{n}$ acts on the graded algebra
$\overline{A}$ preserving the grading and the product.
###### Proof.
Let $D:A_{n}\to A_{n}$ be a derivation such that $D(A_{n})\subset M_{n,3}$.
Our job is to show that $D(M_{n,i})\subset M_{n,i+1}$ for $i\geq 1$. For this,
it suffices to show that for any $a_{1},\ldots,a_{i}\in A_{n}$ one has
$D[\ldots[a_{1},a_{2}],\ldots,a_{i}]\in M_{n,i+1}.$
For this, it is enough to prove that if $a_{1},\ldots,a_{i}\in A_{n}$, and for
some $1\leq k\leq i$, $a_{k}\in M_{n,3}$, then
$[\ldots[a_{1},a_{2}],\ldots,a_{i}]\in M_{n,i+1}.$
It is easy to show by induction using the Jacobi identity that we can rewrite
$[\ldots[a_{1},a_{2}],\ldots,a_{i}]$ as a linear combination of expressions of
the form$[\ldots[a_{k},a_{m_{1}}],\ldots,a_{m_{i-1}}]$, where
$m_{1},\ldots,m_{i-1}$ is a permitation of $1,\ldots,\hat{k},\ldots,i$ ($k$ is
omitted). Thus we may assume without loss of generality that $k=1$. In this
case, we have to show that for any $b_{1},b_{2},b_{3},b_{4}\in A_{n}$, one has
$[\ldots[b_{1}[[b_{2},b_{3}],b_{4}],a_{2}],\ldots,a_{i}]\in M_{n,i+1}.$
This reduces to showing that for any $p,q\geq 0$ with $p+q=i-1$, and any
$a_{1},\ldots,a_{p},c_{1},\ldots,c_{q}\in A_{n}$, we have
${\rm ad}(a_{1})\cdots{\rm ad}(a_{p})(b_{1})\cdot{\rm ad}(c_{1})\cdots{\rm
ad}(c_{q}){\rm ad}(b_{4}){\rm ad}(b_{3})(b_{2})\in M_{n,i+1}.$
But by Theorem 3.1, we have $M_{n,p+1}M_{n,q+3}\subset M_{n,p+q+2}=M_{n,i+1}$,
which implies the desired statement, since the first factor is in $M_{n,p+1}$
and the second one in $M_{n,q+3}$. ∎
It is pointed out in [FS] that, since $Q_{n,3}$ is the algebra of even
differential forms on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ with the $*$-product, the Lie algebra
$W_{n}$ of polynomial vector fields on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ is naturally a
subalgebra of ${\mathfrak{g}}_{n}$. Therefore, we get the following corollary.
###### Corollary 5.2.
There is a natural action of the Lie algebra $W_{n}$ on the quotients
$M_{n,i}/M_{n,i+1}$, and therefore on the graded algebra $\overline{A}$.
It is clear from Theorem 2.1 that as $W_{n}$-modules, the quotients
$M_{n,i}/M_{n,i+1}$ have finite length, and the composition factors are the
irreducible modules ${\mathcal{F}}_{D}$ of tensor fields of type $D$ (where
$D$ is a Young diagram) considered in [FS]. In fact, it follows from Theorem
2.1 that if $\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{D}$ denotes the $W_{n}$-module of all
polynomial tensor fields of type $D$ (which is reducible and therefore differs
from ${\mathcal{F}}_{D}$ if and only if $D$ has only one column, which
consists of $<n$ squares), and if
$K_{n,i}=\oplus N_{D}F_{D},$
where $N_{D}\in\mathbb{Z}_{+}$ and $F_{D}$ is the irreducible representation
of $GL(n)$ corresponding to $D$, then in the Grothendieck group of the
category of representations of $W_{n}$ we have
$M_{n,i}/M_{n,i+1}=\sum N_{D}{\widetilde{\mathcal{F}}_{D}}.$
In particular, Corollary 4.4 implies that in the Grothendieck group,
$M_{n,3}/M_{n,4}={{\mathcal{F}}}_{2,1,0,\ldots,0}+{{\mathcal{F}}}_{2,2,0,\ldots,0}.$
In fact, we can prove a stronger statement.
###### Proposition 5.3.
One has an isomorphism of representations
$M_{n,3}/M_{n,4}={{\mathcal{F}}}_{2,1,0,\ldots,0}\oplus{{\mathcal{F}}}_{2,2,0,\ldots,0}.$
###### Proof.
Consider the subspace $Y_{n}:=L_{3}(A_{n})/(M_{n,4}\cap L_{3}(A_{n}))\subset
M_{n,3}/M_{n,4}$. By [FS], this is a $W_{n}$-subrepresentation. It is a proper
subrepresentation, because $[x_{1},x_{2}]^{2}\in M_{n,3}/M_{n,4}$, but it is
not contained in $Y_{n}$, as its trace in a matrix representation of $A_{n}$
can be nonzero. On the other hand, $Y_{n}$ contains $[x_{1},[x_{1},x_{2}]]\neq
0$, so $Y_{n}\neq 0$, and contains vectors of degree $3$. This easily implies
that $Y_{n}={{\mathcal{F}}}_{2,1,0,\ldots,0}$. On the other hand, let $Z_{n}$
be the subrepresentation generated by the elements
$y_{ij}y_{kl}+y_{ik}y_{jl}$. These elements are annihilated by
$\partial_{x_{i}}$, so they generate a subrepresentation whose lowest degree
is 4. Thus, $Z_{n}={{\mathcal{F}}}_{2,2,0,\ldots,0}$, and
$M_{n,3}/M_{n,4}=Y_{n}\oplus Z_{n}$, as desired. ∎
It would be interesting to determine the structure of the representations
$M_{n,i}/M_{n,i+1}$ when $i>3$.
## References
* [FS] B. Feigin, B. Shoikhet, On $[A_{n},A_{n}]/[A_{n},[A_{n},A_{n}]]$ and on a $W_{n}$-action on the consecutive commutators of free associative algebra, math.QA/0610410v2.
* [GL] N. Gupta, F. Levin, On the Lie ideals of a ring, Journal of Algebra, 81, 225-231, 1983.
* [Jen] S. Jennings, On rings whose associated Lie rings are nilpotent, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 53, (1947). 593–597.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-13T19:09:10 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.771999 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Pavel Etingof, John Kim, Xiaoguang Ma",
"submitter": "Xiaoguang Ma",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1909"
} |
0805.2105 | # On Emergence of Dominating Cliques in Random Graphs
Martin Nehéz
Department of Information Technologies,
VSM School of Management, City University of Seattle,
Panónska cesta 17,
851 04 Bratislava, Slovak Republic
e-mail: mnehez@vsm.sk
Daniel Olejár
Department of Computer Science,
FMPI, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynská dolina,
842 48 Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Michal Demetrian
Department of Mathematical and Numerical Analysis,
FMPI, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynská dolina M 105,
842 48 Bratislava, Slovak Republic
###### Abstract
Emergence of dominating cliques in Erdös-Rényi random graph model
${{\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule
height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}(n,p)}$ is
investigated in this paper. It is shown this phenomenon possesses a phase
transition. Namely, we have argued that, given a constant probability $p$, an
$n$-node random graph $G$ from ${{\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule
height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
1.0986pt\vrule height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}(n,p)}$
and for $r=c\log_{1/p}n$ with $1\leq c\leq 2$, it holds: (1) if $p>1/2$ then
an $r$-node clique is dominating in $G$ almost surely and, (2) if
$p\leq(3-\sqrt{5})/2$ then an $r$-node clique is not dominating in $G$ almost
surely. The remaining range of probability $p$ is discussed with more
attention. A detailed study shows that this problem is answered by examination
of sub-logarithmic growth of $r$ upon $n$.
Keywords: Random graphs, dominating cliques, phase transition.
## 1 Introduction
The phase transition phenomenon was originally observed as a physical effect.
In discrete mathematics, it was originally described by P. Erdös and A. Rényi
in [8]. The most frequently property of graphs which have been studied with
relation to the phase transitions in random graphs is the connectivity. The
recent surveys of known results concerning this area can be find in Refs. [2]
and [9], Chapter 5.
Our paper deals with another interesting graph problem that is the emerging of
a dominating clique in a random graph. The theory of dominating cliques in
random graphs has several nontrivial applications in computer science. The
most significant ones are: (1) heuristics in satisfiability search [5] and (2)
the construction of a space-efficient interval routing scheme with a small
additive stretch for almost all and large-scale distributed systems [13].
### 1.1 Preliminaries and terminology
Given a graph $G=(V,E)$, a set $S\subseteq V$ is said to be a _dominating set_
of $G$ if each node $v\in V$ is either in $S$ or is adjacent to a node in $S$.
The _domination number_ $\gamma(G)$ is the minimum cardinality of a dominating
set of $G$.
A _clique_ in $G$ is a maximal set of mutually adjacent nodes of $G$, i.e., it
is a maximal complete subgraph of $G$. The _clique number_ , denoted $cl(G)$,
is the number of nodes of clique of $G$. If a subgraph $S$ induced by a
dominating set is a clique in $G$ then $S$ is called a _dominating clique_ in
$G$.
The model of random graphs is introduced in the following way. Let $n$ be a
positive integer and let $p\in{\rm I\\!R}$, $0\leq p\leq 1$, be a _probability
of an edge_. The _(probabilistic) model of random graphs_
${\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule
height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}(n,p)$ consists of all
graphs with $n$-node set $V=\\{1,\dots,n\\}$ such that each graph has at most
${n\choose 2}$ edges being inserted independently with probability $p$.
Consequently, if $G$ is a graph with node set $V$ and it has $|E(G)|$ edges,
then a probability measure $\Pr$ defined on ${\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm
G$}}}}(n,p)$ is given by:
$\Pr[G]=p^{|E(G)|}(1-p)^{{n\choose 2}-|E(G)|}~{}.$
This model is also called _Erdös-Rényi random graph model_ [2, 9].
Let $A$ be any set of graphs from ${\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule
height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
1.0986pt\vrule height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}(n,p)$
with a property $Q$. We say that _almost all graphs_ have the property $Q$
iff:
$\Pr[A]\to 1\quad\emph{as}\quad n\to\infty~{}.$
The term ”almost surely” stands for ”with the probability approaching $1$ as
$n\to\infty$”.
### 1.2 Previous work and our result
Dominating sets and cliques are basic structures in graphs and they have been
investigated very intensively. To determine whether the domination number of a
graph is at most $r$ is an NP-complete problem [6]. The maximum-clique problem
is one of the first shown to be NP-hard [11]. A well-known result of B.
Bollobás, P. Erdös et al. states that the clique number in random graphs
${\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule
height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}(n,p)$ is bounded by a
very tight bounds [2, 3, 10, 12, 15, 16]. Let $b=1/p$ and let
$r_{0}=\log_{b}n-2\log_{b}\log_{b}n+\log_{b}2+\log_{b}\log_{b}e~{},$ (1)
$r_{1}=2\log_{b}n-2\log_{b}\log_{b}n+2\log_{b}e+1-2\log_{b}2~{}.$ (2)
J. G. Kalbfleisch and D. W. Matula [10, 12] proved that a random graph from
${\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule
height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}(n,p)$ does not
contain cliques of the order greater than $\lceil r_{1}\rceil$ and less or
equal than $\lfloor r_{0}\rfloor$ almost surely. (See also [3, 15, 16].) The
domination number of a random graph have been studied by B. Wieland and A. P.
Godbole in [17].
The phase transition of dominating clique problem in random graphs was studied
independently by M. Nehéz and D. Olejár in [13, 14] and J. C. Culberson, Y.
Gao, C. Anton in [5]. It was shown in [5] that the property of having a
dominating clique is monotone, it has a phase transition and the corresponding
threshold probability is $p^{*}=(3-\sqrt{5})/2$. The standard first and the
second moment methods (based on the Markov’s and the Chebyshev’s inequalities,
respectively, see [1, 9]) were used to prove this result. However, the
preliminary result of M. Nehéz and D. Olejár [14] pointed out that to complete
the behavior of random graphs in all spectra of $p$ needs a more accurate
analysis, namely in the case when $(3-\sqrt{5})/2<p\leq 1/2$. The main result
of this paper is the refinement of the previous results from [5, 13, 14]. Let
us formulate this as the following theorem.
###### Theorem 1
Let $0<p<1$ be fixed and let ${\rm I\\!L}x$ denote $\log_{1/(1-p)}x$. Let $r$
be order of a clique such that $\lfloor r_{0}\rfloor\leq r\leq\lceil
r_{1}\rceil$. Let $\delta(n):{{\rm I\\!N}}\to{{\rm I\\!N}}$ be an arbitrary
slowly increasing function such that $\delta(n)=o(\log n)$ and let
$G\in{{\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule
height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}(n,p)}$ be a random
graph. Then:
1. 1.
If $p>1/2$, then an $r$-node clique is dominating in $G$ almost surely;
2. 2.
If $p\leq(3-\sqrt{5})/2$, then an $r$-node clique is not dominating in $G$
almost surely;
3. 3.
If $(3-\sqrt{5})/2<p\leq 1/2$, then an $r$-node clique:
* •
is dominating in $G$ almost surely, if $r\geq{{\rm I\\!L}n}+\delta(n)$,
* •
is not dominating in $G$ almost surely, if $r\leq{{\rm I\\!L}n}-\delta(n)$,
* •
is dominating with a finite probability $f(p)$ for a suitable function
$f:[0,1]\to[0,1]$, if $r={{\rm I\\!L}n}+O(1)$.
To prove Theorem 1 the first and the second moment method were used. The
leading part of our analysis follows from a property of a function defined as
a ratio of two random variables which count dominating cliques and all cliques
in random graphs, respectively. The critical values of $p$: $(3-\sqrt{5})/2$
and $1/2$, respectively, are obtained from the bounds (1), (2) see [10, 12].
The rest of this paper contains the proof of the Theorem 1. Section 2 contains
the preliminary results. An expected number of dominating cliques in
${{\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule
height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}}(n,p)$ is estimated
here. The main result is proved in section 3. Possible applications are
discussed in section 4.
## 2 Preliminary results
For $r>1$, let $S$ be an $r$-node subset of an $n$-node graph $G$. Let $A$
denote the event that ”$S$ is a dominating clique of
$G\in{{\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule
height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}}(n,p)$”. Let $in_{r}$
be the associated $0$-$1$ (indicator) random variable on
${\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule
height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}(n,p)$ defined as
follows: $in_{r}=1$ if $G$ contains a dominating clique $S$ and $in_{r}=0$,
otherwise. Let $X_{r}$ be a random variable that denotes the number of
$r$-node dominating cliques. More precisely, $X_{r}=\sum in_{r}$ where the
summation ranges over all sets $S$. The following lemma expresses the
expectation of $X_{r}$.
###### Lemma 1
[13] The expectation $E(X_{r})$ of the random variable $X_{r}$ is given by:
$E(X_{r})={n\choose r}p^{{r\choose 2}}(1-p^{r}-(1-p)^{r})^{n-r}~{}.$ (3)
We use the following properties adopted from [15], pp. 501–502.
Claim 1. _Let $0<p<1$ and $k\leq(\eta-1)\frac{\ln n}{\ln p}$, $\eta<0$
starting with some positive integer $n$. Then:_
$(1-p^{k})^{n}=\exp(-np^{k})\left(1+O(np^{2k})\right)=1-np^{k}+O\left(np^{2k}\right)~{}.$
Claim 2. _Let $k=o(\sqrt{n})$, then:_
$n^{\underline{k}}=n(n-1)\cdots(n-k+1)=n^{k}\left(1-{k\choose
2}\frac{1}{n}+O\left(\frac{k^{4}}{n^{2}}\right)\right)~{}.$
The upper bound on $r$ in ${\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule
height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
1.0986pt\vrule height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}(n,p)$
is stated in the following lemma.
###### Lemma 2
Let $b=1/p$ and
$r_{u}=2\log_{b}n-2\log_{b}\log_{b}n+2\log_{b}e+1-2\log_{b}2~{}.$ (4)
A random graph from ${\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule
height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}(n,p)$ does not
contain dominating cliques of the order greater than $r_{u}$ with probability
approaching $1$ as $n\to\infty$.
###### Remark 1
Note that the upper bounds $r_{u}$ and $r_{1}$ are the same. The argument for
estimation of $r_{1}$ is the same as in Lemma 2.
To obtain conditions for an existence of dominating cliques in random graphs
it is sufficient to estimate the variance $Var(X_{r})$. We can use the fact
that the clique number in random graphs lyes down in a tight interval. We use
the bounds (1) and (2) due to [10, 12]. The estimation of the variance
$Var(X_{r})$ is stated in the following lemma.
###### Lemma 3
Let p be fixed, $0<p<1$ and $\lfloor r_{0}\rfloor\leq r\leq\lceil
r_{1}\rceil$. Let
$\beta=\min\\{~{}2/3,~{}-2\log_{b}(1-p)~{}\\}~{}.$
Then:
$Var(X_{r})=E(X_{r})^{2}\cdot O\left(\frac{(\log
n)^{3}}{n^{\beta}}\right)~{}.$ (5)
The following claim expresses the number of the dominating cliques in random
graphs.
###### Lemma 4
Let $p$, $r$ and $\beta$ be as before, and
$X_{r}={n\choose r}p^{{r\choose
2}}(1-p^{r}-(1-p)^{r})^{n-r}\times\left\\{1+O\left(\frac{(\log
n)^{3}}{n^{\beta/2}}\right)\right\\}~{}.$ (6)
The probability that a random graph from ${\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm
G$}}}}(n,p)$ contains $X_{r}$ dominating cliques with $r$ nodes is
$1-O\left((\log n)^{-3}\right)$.
## 3 Proof of Theorem 1
For $r>1$, let $Y_{r}$ be the random variable on ${\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm
G$}}}}(n,p)$ which denotes the number of $r$-node cliques. According to [15],
$Y_{r}={n\choose r}p^{{r\choose
2}}(1-p^{r})^{n-r}\times\left\\{1+O\left(\frac{(\log
n)^{3}}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\right\\}~{}.$ (7)
The ratio $X_{r}/Y_{r}$ expresses the relative number of dominating cliques
(with $r$ nodes) to all cliques (with $r$ nodes) in ${{\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm
G$}}}}(n,p)}$ and it attains a value in the interval [0, 1]. By analysis of
the asymptotic of $X_{r}/Y_{r}$ as $n$ tends $\infty$ we obtain our main
result.
Let us examine the limit value of the ratio $X_{r}/Y_{r}$:
$\frac{X_{r}}{Y_{r}}=\left(\frac{1-p^{r}-(1-p)^{r}}{1-p^{r}}\right)^{n-r}\times$
$\times\left\\{1+O\left(\frac{(\log
n)^{3}}{\sqrt{n}}\right)\right\\}\times\left\\{1+O\left(\frac{(\log
n)^{3}}{n^{\beta/2}}\right)\right\\}~{}.$ (8)
The most important term of the expression (8) is the first one, since the last
two terms tend to $1$ as $n\to\infty$. Let us define $\alpha:[0,1]\to{\rm
I\\!R}$ by:
$\alpha(p)=-\log_{1/p}(1-p)~{}.$
The plot of its graph is in fig. 1 and for the simplification, we will write
also $\alpha$ instead of $\alpha(p)$. Note that
$(1-p)^{r}=p^{r\alpha}~{}.$ (9)
Figure 1: The graph of the function $\alpha(p)=-\log_{1/p}(1-p)$.
According to Claim 1 and (9) we have:
$\left(\frac{1-p^{r}-(1-p)^{r}}{1-p^{r}}\right)^{n-r}=\left(1-\frac{p^{r\alpha}}{1-p^{r}}\right)^{n-r}=$
$=\exp\left(\frac{-np^{r\alpha}}{1-p^{r}}\right)\cdot\left\\{1+O\left(np^{2r\alpha}\right)\cdot\left[1+O\left(\frac{(\log
n)^{2+\alpha}}{n}\right)\right]\right\\}=$
$=\exp\left(\frac{-np^{r\alpha}}{1-p^{r}}\right)\cdot\left[1+O\left(np^{2r\alpha}\right)\right]~{}.$
Let us analyze the asymptotic behavior of the ratio $X_{r}/Y_{r}$ as $n$ tends
to $\infty$. According to the assumption $n\to\infty$, we can write
$X_{r}/Y_{r}$ in the following two equivalent forms:
$\frac{X_{r}}{Y_{r}}=\exp\left(-\frac{np^{r\alpha}}{1-p^{r}}\right)~{},$
or, applying (11), as:
$\frac{X_{r}}{Y_{r}}=\exp\left(-\frac{n(1-p)^{r}}{1-p^{r}}\right)~{}.$
Using bounds (1) and (2), the admissible number of nodes of a clique $r$
depends on $n$ as (we consider the leading term only):
$r=\rho\log_{b}n,$ (10)
where $1\leq\rho\leq 2$. This results in:
$\frac{X_{r}}{Y_{r}}=\exp\left(-\frac{n^{1-\rho\alpha}}{1-p^{r}}\right),$
and one has three different cases:
1. 1.
$1-\rho\alpha<0,\ \forall\ \rho\in[1,2]$ $\Leftrightarrow$ $p>\frac{1}{2}$ ,
2. 2.
$1-\rho\alpha\geq 0,\ \forall\ \rho\in[1,2]$ $\Leftrightarrow$
$p\leq\frac{3-\sqrt{5}}{2}$ ,
3. 3.
$1-\rho\alpha$ changes sign as $\rho$ varies in $[1,2]$ $\Leftrightarrow$
$\frac{3-\sqrt{5}}{2}<p\leq\frac{1}{2}$ .
The first case implies
$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{X_{r}}{Y_{r}}=1,$
that means the $r-$node cliques is dominating in $G$ almost surely. The second
case implies
$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{X_{r}}{Y_{r}}=0,$
and therefore a $r-$node clique is not dominating in $G$ almost surely. In the
third case, there exists a value of $\rho$ (for each $p$) in the interval
$[1,2]$:
$\hat{\rho}=\frac{1}{\alpha(p)},$
for which we have:
$r=\hat{\rho}\log_{b}n=\log_{1/(1-p)}n$
and
$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{X_{r}}{Y_{r}}=\exp\left(-n(1-p)^{r}\right)=e^{-1}.$
The ratio $X_{r}/Y_{r}$ approaches $1$ ($0$) for $\rho>\hat{\rho}$
($\rho<\hat{\rho}$). Due to corrections of order less than $\Theta(\log n)$ to
the equation (10) taken with $\rho=\hat{\rho}$ the value of $e^{-1}$ to be
changed to another constant greater or equal than $0$ and less or equal than
$1$. The details are given here. Let $\delta(n):{{\rm I\\!N}}\to{{\rm I\\!N}}$
be an increasing function such that $\delta(n)=o(\log n)$.
If $r=\hat{\rho}\log_{b}n+\delta(n)$, then $X_{r}/Y_{r}$ approaches $1$ as
$\exp\left(-(1-p)^{\delta(n)}\right)$.
If $r=\hat{\rho}\log_{b}n-\delta(n)$, then $X_{r}/Y_{r}$ approaches $0$ as
$\exp\left(-(1-p)^{-\delta(n)}\right)$.
And finally, if $r$ differs from $\hat{\rho}\log_{b}n$ by a constant
$\lambda$, then the ratio $X_{r}/Y_{r}$ asymptotically looks like
$\exp(-(1-p)^{\lambda})$.
The proof is complete. $\diamondsuit$
Figure 2: The plot of the fraction $X_{r}/Y_{r}$ versus $n$ for three
different choices of $\rho$ in the intermediate case when
$\frac{3-\sqrt{5}}{2}<p\leq\frac{1}{2}$. In all three cases $p$ is set to be
$0.45$ and $\rho$ varies (from the top to the bottom) as: $\rho=1.9$,
$\rho=1/\alpha(0.45)$, and finally $\rho=1.05$.
## 4 Discussion
We have claimed the conditions for the existence of dominating cliques in
Erdös-Rényi random graph model. Our result is the refinement of the previous
ones from [5, 13, 14].
For possible applications of this result we address the two works of J. C.
Culberson, Y. Gao, C. Anton [5] and M. Nehéz and D. Olejár [13]. The paper [5]
deals with heuristics in satisfiability search. For the second application,
described in [13], we mention the construction of a space-efficient interval
routing scheme with a small additive stretch in almost all networks modelled
by random graphs ${\mathchoice{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 2.1972pt\vrule
height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\displaystyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern
2.1972pt\vrule height=6.35492pt\hss}\hbox{$\textstyle\rm G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox
to0.0pt{\kern 1.53804pt\vrule height=4.44846pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptstyle\rm
G$}}}{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{\kern 1.0986pt\vrule
height=3.17746pt\hss}\hbox{$\scriptscriptstyle\rm G$}}}}(n,p)$ where $p>1/2$.
An application of this result can be found in decentralized content sharing
systems based on the peer-to-peer (shortly P2P) paradigm such as Freenet which
uses the idea of interval routing for retrieving files from local datastores
according to keys [4].
Acknowledgement. This work has been supported by Gratex Research, Bratislava,
by CU grant No. 403/2007 and by the VEGA grant No. 1/3042/06.
## References
* [1] N. Alon, J. Spencer: _The probabilistic method (2nd edition)_ , John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000.
* [2] B. Bollobás: _Random Graphs (2nd edition)_ , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathmatics 73, 2001.
* [3] B. Bollobás, P. Erdös: _Cliques in random graphs_ , Math. Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc. (1976), 80, pp. 419–427.
* [4] L. Bononi: _A Perspective on P2P Paradigm and Services_ , Slide courtesy of A. Montresor, URL: http://www.cs.unibo.it/people/faculty/bononi/ /AdI2004/AdI11.pdf
* [5] J. C. Culberson, Y. Gao, C. Anton: _Phase Transitions of Dominating Clique Problem and Their Implications to Heuristics in Satisfiability Search_ , In Proc. 19th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI 2005, 78–83.
* [6] M. R. Garey, D.S. Johnson: _Computers and Intractability_ , Freeman, New York, 1979.
* [7] J. L. Gross, J. Yellen: _Handbook of Graph Theory_ , CRC Press, 2003.
* [8] P. Erdös, A. Rényi: _On the evolution of random graphs_ , Publ. Math. Inst. Hungar. Acad. Sci., 5 (1960), pp. 17–61.
* [9] S. Janson, T. Luczak, A. Rucinski: _Random Graphs_ , John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2000.
* [10] J. G. Kalbfleisch: _Complete subgraphs of random hypergraphs and bipartite graphs_ , In Proc. 3rd Southeastern Conf. of Combinatorics, Graph Theory and Computing, Florida Atlantic University, 1972, pp. 297–304.
* [11] R. M. Karp: _Reducibility among combinatorial problems_ , In Complexity of Computer Computation, (R. E. Miller and J. W. Thatcher, eds.), Plenum Press, 1972, 24, pp. 85–103.
* [12] D. W. Matula: _The largest clique size in a random graph_ , Technical report CS 7608, Dept. of Comp. Sci. Southern Methodist University, Dallas, 1976.
* [13] M. Nehéz, D. Olejár: _An Improved Interval Routing Scheme for Almost All Networks Based on Dominating Cliques_ , In Proc. 16th Int. Symposium on Algorithms and Computation, ISAAC 2005, Springer Berlin-Heidelberg, LNCS 3827/2005, 524–532.
* [14] M. Nehéz, D. Olejár: _On Dominating Cliques in Random Graphs_ , Research Report, KAM-Dimatia Series 2005-750, Charles University, Prague, 2005.
* [15] D. Olejár, E. Toman: _On the Order and the Number of Cliques in a Random Graph_ , Math. Slovaca, 47(5), 1997, pp. 499–510.
* [16] E. M. Palmer: _Graphical Evolution_ , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1985.
* [17] B. Wieland, A. P. Godbole: _On the Domination Number of a Random Graph_ , Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 8(1), #R37, 2001\.
## Appendix
Proof of Lemma 2.
The proof follows from the Markov’s inequality [9], p. 8:
$\Pr[~{}X\geq t~{}]\leq\frac{E(X)}{t}~{},\qquad t>0~{}.$
Let us denote $\alpha=\log_{1/p}\left(\frac{1}{1-p}\right)=-\log_{b}(1-p)$.
Note that:
$(1-p)^{r}=p^{r\alpha}~{}.$ (11)
Let $r=(2-\varepsilon)\log_{b}n$, where $0\leq\varepsilon<1$. According to
Claim 1 we have three cases: $p>1/2,\ p=1/2$ and $p<1/2$. The first two of
them can be analyzed together, performing elementary computations we obtain:
$(1-p^{r}-(1-p)^{r})^{n-r}\approx
1-n^{\epsilon-1}\to^{n\to\infty}1,~{}~{}\emph{if}\quad p\geq\frac{1}{2}.$
In the case $p<1/2$ the same kind of algebra shows that
$(1-p^{r}-(1-p)^{r})^{n-r}\approx\exp\left[-n^{1-\frac{(2-\epsilon)\ln(1-p)}{\ln(p)}}\right],~{}~{}\emph{if}\quad
p<\frac{1}{2}.$
We distinguish two different asymptotics in the previous formula. For given
$p<1/2$ they are separated by the condition
$1-(2-\hat{\epsilon})\frac{\ln(1-p)}{\ln(p)}=0.$
This is solved with respect to $\hat{\epsilon}$ as:
$\hat{\epsilon}=2-\frac{\ln(p)}{\ln(1-p)}.$
Now we have:
* •
for $\epsilon>\hat{\epsilon}$
$(1-p^{r}-(1-p)^{r})^{n-r}\to 0\quad\mbox{as}\quad n\to\infty,$
* •
for $\epsilon<\hat{\epsilon}$
$(1-p^{r}-(1-p)^{r})^{n-r}\to 1\quad\mbox{as}\quad n\to\infty,$
With respect to upper and lower bound on size of a dominating clique we
require $\epsilon$ ranges between $0$ and $1$. This requirement defines then
two critical values of the probability $p$:
* •
$\hat{\epsilon}=1$ \- in this case
$p=\frac{1}{2},$
* •
$\hat{\epsilon}=0$ \- in this case
$p=\frac{3-\sqrt{5}}{2}.$
The Stirling’s formula (e.g. [16], p. 127) yields to:
${n\choose r}p^{{r\choose 2}}\sim\left(\frac{nep^{(r-1)/2}}{r}\right)^{r}~{}.$
(12)
Consequently,
${n\choose r_{u}}p^{{r_{u}\choose 2}}\to 1\qquad\emph{and}\qquad{n\choose
r_{u}+1}p^{{r_{u}+1\choose 2}}\sim\frac{\log_{b}n}{n}\to 0$
The rest follows from the Markov’s inequality (Appendix) for $t=1$.
$\diamondsuit$
Proof of Lemma 3.
In order to prove this lemma we will estimate the variance of $X_{r}$:
$Var(X_{r})=E(X^{2}_{r})-E^{2}(X_{r})~{}.$ (13)
The expectation of $X^{2}_{r}$ can be expressed in the following way:
$E(X^{2}_{r})=\sum_{j=0}^{r}{n\choose r}{r\choose j}{n-r\choose
r-j}\cdot{p^{2}}^{{r\choose 2}-{j\choose 2}}\times$
$\times(1-p^{r}-(1-p)^{r})^{2n-4r+2j}\cdot\Pr[S_{r}^{1},S_{r}^{2}]~{}.$ (14)
The equation (14) follows from the next analysis. The nodes of the first
dominating clique $S_{r}^{1}$ can be chosen in ${n\choose r}$ ways. The
dominating cliques $S_{r}^{1}$, $S_{r}^{2}$ can (but need not to) have $j$
common nodes. These nodes can be chosen in ${r\choose j}$ ways. The remaining
$(r-1)$ nodes of the second dominating clique $S_{r}^{2}$ have to be chosen
from $(n-r)$ nodes of $V(G)\setminus V(S_{r}^{1})$. Now we shall choose edges:
both dominating cliques are $r$-node complete graphs and therefore they
contain $2{r\choose 2}$ edges. But $S_{r}^{1}$, $S_{r}^{2}$ can have a
nonempty intersection - a complete $j$-node subgraph. Therefore ${j\choose 2}$
edges were counted twice. Both subgraphs $S_{r}^{1}$, $S_{r}^{2}$ are
dominating cliques and so all $n-2r+j$ nodes of the set
$V(G)\setminus[V(S_{r}^{1})\cup V(S_{r}^{2})]$ are ”good” with respect to both
$S_{r}^{1}$, $S_{r}^{2}$. The last term, $\Pr[S_{r}^{1},S_{r}^{2}]$ denotes
the probability that the nodes of $V(S_{r}^{1})\setminus V(S_{r}^{2})$ are
good with respect to $S_{r}^{2}$ and the nodes of $V(S_{r}^{2})\setminus
V(S_{r}^{1})$ are good with respect to $S_{r}^{1}$. It is sufficient to
estimate $\Pr[S_{r}^{1},S_{r}^{2}]$ by 1.
To prove that $Var(X_{r})$ is asymptotically less than $E^{2}(X_{r})$, we
extract the expression $E^{2}(X_{r})$ in front of the sum stated by the
equation (14). We have:
$E(X_{r}^{2})\leq E^{2}(X_{r})\cdot\sum_{j=0}^{r}{n\choose r}^{-1}{r\choose
j}{n-r\choose r-j}\cdot p^{-{j\choose 2}}\cdot Q(p,r,j)~{},$ (15)
where $Q(p,r,j)=(1-p^{r}-(1-p)^{r})^{-2r+2j}$.
First we estimate the expression $Q(p,r,j)$. Let us denote
$\alpha=-\log_{b}(1-p)$, as before. Recall that $(1-p)^{r}=p^{r\alpha}$. Let
us also denote:
$\nu=\min\\{1,-\log_{b}(1-p)\\}~{}.$ (16)
Therefore, from $\lfloor r_{0}\rfloor\leq r\leq\lceil r_{1}\rceil$ (cf. [15]),
Claim 1 and (11), it follows:
$Q(p,r,j)<\left[1-p^{r_{0}}-p^{\alpha r_{0}}\right]^{-2r}\leq$
$\leq\left[1-\frac{(\log_{b}n)^{2}}{2n\cdot\log_{b}e}-\left(\frac{(\log_{b}n)^{2}}{2n\cdot\log_{b}e}\right)^{\alpha}\right]^{-4\log_{b}n}=$
$=\exp\left\\{4\log_{b}n\cdot\left[\frac{(\log_{b}n)^{2}}{2n\cdot\log_{b}e}+\left(\frac{(\log_{b}n)^{2}}{2n\cdot\log_{b}e}\right)^{\alpha}\right]\right\\}\times$
$\times\left(1+O\left(\frac{\left(\log
n\right)^{1+2\nu}}{n^{2\nu}}\right)\right)=$
$=\exp\left(\frac{2(\log_{b}n)^{3}}{n\cdot\log_{b}e}\right)\cdot\exp\left(\frac{4(\log_{b}n)^{2\alpha+1}}{(2n\cdot\log_{b}e)^{\alpha}}\right)\cdot\left(1+O\left(\frac{(\log
n)^{1+2\nu}}{n^{2\nu}}\right)\right),$
where $\nu=\min\\{1,\alpha\\}$. Since
$\frac{2(\log_{b}n)^{3}}{n\cdot\log_{b}e}\to
0\qquad\emph{and}\qquad\frac{4(\log_{b}n)^{2\alpha+1}}{(2n\cdot\log_{b}e)^{\alpha}}\to
0$
as $n\to\infty$, the value of $Q(p,r,j)$ is $1+o(1)$ or, more precisely:
$Q(p,r,j)=1+O\left(\frac{(\log n)^{2\nu+1}}{n^{2\nu}}\right)~{}.$ (17)
Now we can concentrate our effort on the estimation of the sum
$\sum_{j=0}^{r}{n\choose r}^{-1}{r\choose j}{n-r\choose r-j}\cdot
p^{-{j\choose 2}}~{},$ (18)
where:
$\lfloor r_{0}\rfloor\leq r\leq\lceil r_{1}\rceil~{}.$
We use a similar approach as D. Olejár and E. Toman in [15], pp. 504–506. This
sum was also estimated in Subsection 5.3. of [16] (pp. 77–80), but we need
more accurate calculation here. First we introduce the following notation:
$S(n,r,c,d)=\sum_{j=c}^{d}{n\choose r}^{-1}{r\choose j}{n-r\choose r-j}\cdot
b^{{j\choose 2}}~{}.$
Our solution is based on the idea to divide the sum $S(n,r,a,b)$ into three
parts by the following way:
$S(n,r,0,r)\leq S(n,r,0,1)+S(n,r,2,r_{2})+S(n,r,r_{2},r)~{},$ (19)
where:
$r_{2}=(1+\lambda)\log_{b}n\qquad\emph{for}\qquad 0<\lambda<1~{}.$
All these three parts will be estimated separately. Using Claim 2, the first
part is estimated as follows:
$S(n,r,0,1)={n-r\choose r}{n\choose r}^{-1}+r\cdot{n-r\choose r-1}{n\choose
r}^{-1}=$ $=\left(1-\frac{r^{2}}{n}\right)\left[1+O\left(\frac{(\log
n)^{4}}{n^{2}}\right)\right]+\frac{r^{2}}{n}+O\left(\frac{(\log
n)^{3}}{n^{2}}\right)=$ $=1+O\left(\frac{(\log n)^{4}}{n^{2}}\right)~{}.$ (20)
To estimate the second part, it is sufficient to analyze the binomial
coefficients. (See also [16], pp. 79–80.)
${n\choose r}^{-1}{r\choose j}{n-r\choose
r-j}=\frac{r!}{n^{\underline{r}}}\cdot\frac{r^{\underline{j}}}{j!}\cdot\frac{(n-r)^{\underline{r-j}}}{(r-j)!}=$
$=\frac{r^{\underline{j}}\cdot(r-j)!}{(r-j)!}\cdot\frac{r^{\underline{j}}}{j!}\cdot\frac{(n-r)^{\underline{r-j}}}{n^{\underline{j}}\cdot(n-j)^{\underline{r-j}}}\
\leq\ \frac{r^{\underline{j}}\cdot r^{\underline{j}}}{j!\cdot
n^{\underline{j}}}\ \leq\ \frac{r^{2j}}{j!\cdot n^{\underline{j}}}\ \sim\
\frac{r^{2j}}{j!\cdot n^{j}}$
We use the Stirling’s formula in the following form:
$j!~{}\sim~{}\left(\frac{j}{e}\right)^{j}~{}.$
Consequently,
${n\choose r}^{-1}{r\choose j}{n-r\choose r-j}\cdot b^{{j\choose 2}}\ \sim\
\left(\frac{r^{2}\cdot b^{j/2}\cdot e}{j\cdot n\cdot\sqrt{b}}\right)^{j}~{}.$
(21)
The members of the sum $S(n,r,2,r_{2})$ attain their asymptotic maximum for
$j=r_{2}$. More precisely, letting $j=r_{2}=(1+\lambda)\log_{b}n$ we have:
$\frac{r^{2}\cdot b^{j/2}\cdot e}{j\cdot n\cdot\sqrt{b}}=O\left(\frac{\log
n}{n^{1/2-\lambda/2}}\right)~{}.$
Thus,
$S(n,r,2,r_{2})\leq\left(\frac{c_{1}\cdot\log
n}{n^{1/2-\lambda/2}}\right)^{2}+\left(\frac{c_{1}\cdot\log
n}{n^{1/2-\lambda/2}}\right)^{3}+\dots+\left(\frac{c_{1}\cdot\log
n}{n^{1/2-\lambda/2}}\right)^{r_{2}}~{}$
for a suitable constant $c_{1}$. It yields:
$S(n,r,2,r_{2})=O\left(\frac{(\log n)^{2}}{n^{1-\lambda}}\right)~{}.$ (22)
To estimate the sum $S(n,r,r_{2},r)$ we extract the term ${n\choose
r}^{-1}\cdot b^{{r\choose 2}}$:
$S(n,r,r_{2},r)={n\choose r}^{-1}\cdot b^{{r\choose
2}}\cdot\sum_{j=r_{2}}^{r}{r\choose r-j}{n-r\choose r-j}\cdot p^{{r\choose
2}-{j\choose 2}}~{}.$
To obtain the upper bound on the right-hand side sum, we substitute $\lceil
r_{1}\rceil$ for $r$ in its upper border and $\lceil r_{1}\rceil+1$ for $r$ in
all the summands. The reasoning of such a substitution is the assertion of
Lemma 2 and Remark 1. We have:
$S(n,r,r_{2},r)\leq{n\choose r}^{-1}\cdot b^{{r\choose
2}}\cdot\sum_{j=r_{2}}^{\lceil r_{1}\rceil}{\lceil r_{1}\rceil+1\choose\lceil
r_{1}\rceil+1-j}{n-\lceil r_{1}\rceil-1\choose\lceil r_{1}\rceil+1-j}\cdot
p^{{\lceil r_{1}\rceil+1\choose 2}-{j\choose 2}}~{}.$
Let us put $k=\lceil r_{1}\rceil+1-j$. Consequently,
$S(n,r,r_{2},r)\leq$ (23) $\leq{n\choose r}^{-1}\cdot b^{{r\choose
2}}\cdot\sum_{k=1}^{\lceil r_{1}\rceil-r_{2}+1}{\lceil r_{1}\rceil+1\choose
k}{n-\lceil r_{1}\rceil-1\choose k}\cdot p^{k[\lceil
r_{1}\rceil-(k-1)/2]}~{}.$
Note that
${\lceil r_{1}\rceil+1\choose k}{n-\lceil r_{1}\rceil-1\choose k}\cdot
p^{k[\lceil r_{1}\rceil-(k-1)/2]}\leq\left((\lceil r_{1}\rceil+1)\cdot
np^{\lceil r_{1}\rceil-(k-1)/2}\right)^{k},$
and
$\lceil r_{1}\rceil-(k-1)/2\geq\lceil r_{1}\rceil/2+r_{2}/2=$
$=(3/2+\lambda/2)\log_{b}n-\log_{b}\log_{b}n+O(1)~{}.$
It yields:
$(\lceil r_{1}\rceil+1)\cdot np^{\lceil
r_{1}\rceil-(k-1)/2}=O\left(\frac{(\log n)^{2}}{n^{1/2+\lambda/2}}\right)~{}.$
(24)
According to (23) and (24),
$S(n,r,r_{2},r)\leq{n\choose r}^{-1}\cdot b^{{r\choose 2}}\cdot
O\left(\frac{(\log n)^{2}}{n^{1/2+\lambda/2}}\right)~{}.$
The term ${n\choose r}^{-1}\cdot b^{{r\choose 2}}$ can be estimated using the
Stirling’s formula. The estimation is the same as in the proof of Lemma 2, see
(12). Thus,
${n\choose r_{1}}^{-1}b^{{r_{1}\choose 2}}\to 1~{},$ ${n\choose
r}^{-1}b^{{r\choose 2}}\sim\frac{(\log_{b}n)^{c}}{n^{c}}\to 1~{},$
if $r=\lceil r_{1}\rceil-c$, where $c\geq 1$. Hence,
$S(n,r,r_{2},r)=O\left(\frac{(\log n)^{2}}{n^{1/2+\lambda/2}}\right)~{}.$ (25)
Let us summarize our results:
* •
Eq. (20) shows that $S(n,r,0,1)$ is close to $1$ uniformly with respect to
$\lambda$.
* •
Eq. (22) shows that the ”mid” term $S(n,r,2,r_{2})$ of the sum-splitting (19)
is close to zero however, non-uniformly in $\lambda$. As $\lambda$ approaches
$1$ from the left (i.e. the node number approaches its upper bound)
$S(n,r,2,r_{2})$ decreases to zero slowly.
* •
Eq. (25) shows that $S(n,r,r_{2},r)$ is close to zero uniformly in $\lambda$.
(We choose $\lambda=0$ as the uniform upper bound.)
Thus, we have:
$E(X^{2}_{r})=E^{2}(X_{r})\cdot\left[1+O\left(\frac{(\log
n)^{2}}{n^{2/3}}\right)\right]\cdot\left[1+O\left(\frac{\left(\log
n\right)^{2\nu+1}}{n^{2\nu}}\right)\right]$
$=E^{2}(X_{r})\cdot\left[1+O\left(\frac{\left(\log
n\right)^{3}}{n^{\beta}}\right)\right]~{},$
where $\nu=\min\\{~{}1,-\log_{b}(1-p)~{}\\}$ and
$\beta=\min\\{~{}2/3,~{}-2\log_{b}(1-p)~{}\\}$ .
Substituting into (13) we obtain the estimation of $Var(X_{r})$.
$\diamondsuit$
Proof of Lemma 4.
It follows from the Chebyshev’s inequality [9]: if $Var(X)$ exists, then:
$\Pr[|X-E(X)|\geq t]\geq\frac{Var(X)}{t^{2}}~{},\qquad t>0~{}.$
Letting $t=E(X_{r})\cdot(\log n)^{3}\cdot n^{-\beta/2}$ and using Lemma 3, we
obtain the assertion of Lemma 4. $\diamondsuit$
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-14T16:25:27 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.778318 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Martin Nehez, Daniel Olejar, Michal Demetrian",
"submitter": "Michal Demetrian",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2105"
} |
0805.2120 | # Quantum Billiards in Optical Lattices
Simone Montangero NEST-CNR-INFM & Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei
Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa, Italy Diego Frustaglia Departamento de Física
Aplicada II, Universidad de Sevilla, E-41012 Sevilla, Spain Tommaso Calarco
Institute for Quantum Information Processing, University of Ulm, D-89069 Ulm,
Germany Rosario Fazio NEST-CNR-INFM & Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei
Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa, Italy International School for Advanced Studies
(SISSA), via Beirut 2-4, I-34014 Trieste, Italy
###### Abstract
We study finite two dimensional spin lattices with definite geometry (spin
billiards) demonstrating the display of collective integrable or chaotic
dynamics depending on their shape. We show that such systems can be quantum
simulated by ultra-cold atoms in optical lattices and discuss how to identify
their dynamical features in a realistic experimental setup. Possible
applications are the simulation of quantum information tasks in mesoscopic
devices.
During the last decades, billiards have been the testbed of classical and
quantum chaos chaos ; quantbill due to their simplicity united to the
richness of their displayed dynamics billiards . Theoretical evidences of the
quantum manifestation of chaos in billiards were first confirmed
experimentally in the spectral statistic of microwave resonators stockmann ,
quasi-two-dimensional superconducting resonators graf , and atom-optic
billiards davidson . A very important step forward in the field occurred when
it was realized that the properties of mesoscopic systems could be very
sensitive, under appropriate circumstances, to the integrability properties of
the underlying classical model richter-beenakker . We recall, as an example,
the study of conductance fluctuations in quantum dots cmarcus . More
generally, quantum billiards have shown to determine the dynamical properties
of charge chargetransp , spin spintransp and entanglement enttransp in
nanostructures. The physics associated to quantum billiards has been shown
very recently to be relevant in the study of graphene graphbill .
The ongoing interest in the study of quantum chaos stimulates the search for
new physical systems where it is possible to experimentally study complex
dynamical behaviour. In this Letter we propose to realize quantum billiards
using optical lattices, which have been proved to be an excellent arena to
study quantum many-body systems lewenstein .
Fundamental to our proposal is that optical lattices can operate as universal
simulators hamsim , i.e., by means of an appropriate dynamical control it is
possible to reproduce the dynamics of any given spin Hamiltonian. Moreover, by
means of the modelling of the form of the external trap it is possible to
effectively define finite-size lattices. The class of billiards defined in
this work are finite two dimensional optical lattices of given geometry, where
collective excitations propagate and interfere as they back-reflect against
the geometrical boundaries of the lattice. We therefore talk about spin
billiards. This class shows a rich set of possible configurations, serving as
a model system for different implementations: Depending on the system size,
boundary conditions, lattice coordination number, and interaction Hamiltonian
between the spins, one can either recover the known results on quantum
billiards or model new physical systems showing original features. In the
realm of cold atomic gases the distinction between regular and chaotic
dynamics will appear in the momentum distribution of the atoms or in the
fluorescence signal. Present-day technology permits the simulation of the spin
billiards introduced here.
Optical lattices offer unique possibilities to simulate chaotic or integrable
dynamics in a controlled way. The possibility to study billiards in this
context gives a brand new perspective to a classic, and well studied, problem;
numerous new questions can be addressed. On one side it is possible to explore
the transition to chaos in a number of different spin-Hamiltonian depending of
its symmetries. On the other side it is essential to understand the
realization of the billiard, the measurement of relevant quantities and the
sources of imperfections that may mask the physics we want to describe. We
decide to first address this last topics. To this end we consider a model
Hamiltonian which can be mapped on that of a particle hopping on a finite
lattice (the billiard). We will use the language of spin as it is natural in
this case and it applies also to those Hamiltonians where the mapping to a
tight-binding model does not apply.
The model - We consider a two dimensional $1/2$-spin lattice with nearest-
neighbor $XX$ interaction in a transverse magnetic field. The Hamiltonian
reads
$\mathcal{H}=\lambda\sum_{<m,m^{\prime}>}(\sigma_{x}^{m}\sigma_{x}^{m^{\prime}}+\sigma_{y}^{m}\sigma_{y}^{m^{\prime}})+\sum_{m}\sigma_{z}^{m}$
(1)
where $\sigma^{i}_{\alpha}$ are the Pauli matrices, $m=\mathcal{M}(i,j)$ is
the composed index of the two dimensional qubits coding $\\{i,j\\}$, and the
sum $<m,m^{\prime}>$ runs over nearest-neighbor spins on a square lattice with
coordination number four (except at the boundaries) and free boundary
conditions. We set $\lambda=1$ and $\hbar=1$. As $\mathcal{H}$ commutes with
the total magnetization, we restrict to the subspace with total magnetization
equal to one (in this particular sector a mapping onto the single particle
problem applies). The discrete space structure is a key-feature of optical
lattices, we therefore need to re-discuss the effect of different billiard
shapes on the dynamics. The first billiard under consideration is rectangular
(billiard R, Fig. 1, left). We simulate the time evolution of a wave function
initially peaked in an angle (single spin flipped, see Fig. 1 A). This
situation can be realized by starting from a Mott insulator state with unit
occupancy in a two-dimensional optical lattice rmplatt . Two atomic hyperfine
levels serve as the two pseudo-spin states, and all atoms can be prepared in
one of the two by optical pumping. A laser can then be used to excite atoms
from specific lattice sites to untrapped (continuum) states, removing them
from the lattice. Its focus can be swept all along the border of a pre-defined
region, leaving a regularly filled lattice of uniformly polarized atoms
corresponding to the chosen billiard shape. At this point a Raman $\pi$-pulse
on resonance with the transition between the two hyperfine levels can be used
to flip the state of one atom at one of the billiard’s vertices. In this
particular geometry, shining the vertex atom with the edge of the laser spot
will suffice, eliminating the need for subwavelength addressing. The
simulation of the propagation of the resulting spin wave can then take place
following a stroboscopic procedure based on lattice-driven state-dependent
collisions between neighboring atoms hamsim ; molmer . Billiard S (Fig. 1,
right) is a quarter of a Bunimovich stadium and the initial condition is, as
before, localized at a boundary angle (see Fig. 1 B). In both cases, the
initial condition reads
$|\psi_{t=0}\rangle\equiv|\mathcal{M}(0,0)\rangle.$ (2)
Note that our analysis applies also to four-fold symmetric billiards, the
symmetry axis of which passes through the site of the initial excitation
$\mathcal{M}(0,0)$. Our choice allows us to study the time evolution of an
excitation neglecting the effects of central and axial symmetries.
A B C D E F
Figure 1: Snapshots of the populations $|\psi_{t}|^{2}$ time evolution in the
rectangular billiard (left) and stadium billiard (right), for $t=0^{+}$
(uppermost figures), $t\gtrsim T_{L}/2$ (middle) and $t=10\,T_{L}$ (bottom).
Color code goes from black (zero) to blue and red with increasing probability.
The initial condition (2) is such that the dynamics will be influenced also by
very high energy levels, i.e., the dynamics is very far from being composed
only by the low-lying excitations. On the contrary, in the continuum limit and
starting with a different initial condition as, e.g., a Gaussian packet, one
would recover the usual physics of electronic billiards. Using the lattice on
one hand leads to a discretization of the space, altering the geometric nature
of curved edges (see Fig. 1B, D, F); on the other hand, through the
stroboscopic nature of the dynamic simulation it allows to “freeze” the system
at a very well defined point in its time evolution for the purpose of state
detection. The billiard dynamics is characterized by two time scales $T_{L}$
and $T_{\lambda}$: The first one is related to the characteristic length of
the billiards $L$ ($\sim 30$ sites in our simulations), corresponding to the
time needed for the first revival of excitations; the second timescale is
given by the time needed to perform a swap between two neighboring spins,
related to the inter-site coupling strength $T_{\lambda}=\pi/(4\lambda)$. The
relation of the two timescales is $T_{L}\propto 2L\,T_{\lambda}$. Fig. 1 C-F
depict snapshots of the site excitation amplitude after time evolution at two
different final times $t_{f}$ for billiards R and S: For $t_{f}\gtrsim
T_{L}/2$ the effect of different boundary shapes is already visible (Fig. 1 C
and D). For longer times, $t_{f}\gg T_{L}$ the collective excitations spread
all over the billiards, showing irregular profiles with no distinguishable
features at first sight (Fig. 1 E and F). However, for $t_{f}\propto n\,T_{L}$
($n\in\mathbb{N}$), a large revival at the initial site is still visible for
the rectangular billiard resulting from constructive interference, while this
is no longer possible for the stadium billiard. These are the first signatures
resembling chaotic and integrable dynamics in billiards realized in optical
lattices. In the following we demonstrate that this is indeed the case and
that its characteristic features can be detected and quantified
experimentally.
Figure 2: Level spacing statistic for the billiard R (red squares) and
billiard B (black circles). Dotted lines follow the Poisson (red) and Semi-
Poisson statistics (black). Inset: LSS averaged over $N_{R}=10$ different
configurations of defects with $P_{D}=5\cdot 10^{-3}$ (empty symbols)
$P_{D}=5\cdot 10^{-2}$ (full symbols). The black [red] dashed line follows the
theoretical prediction $P(s)=4s\exp(-2s)$ [$P(s)=\exp(-s)$].
We first check the level spacing statistics (LSS) for the two billiards R and
S. Following Bohigas’ conjecture we expect billiard R to show Poisson LSS,
while billiard S should present something different due to the effect of level
repulsion. Indeed, as shown in Fig. 2, we find that billiard R displays a well
defined Poisson LSS (red squares). For billiard S, instead, we find a Semi-
Poisson LSS typical of semi-integrable systems (also appearing in the Anderson
Metal-insulator transition) bohigas-semiint . The complete onset of chaos and
the appearance of a Wigner-Dyson distribution is probably prevented due to the
significant role still played by periodic orbits. A better convergence to the
theoretical distribution can be obtained by considering defects, i.e., empty
sites (see below). This allows a better statistics by averaging over $N_{R}$
different configurations of defect probabilities ($P_{D}=5\cdot 10^{-2},5\cdot
10^{-3}$), as shown in the inset of Fig. 2. Eventually, also billiard R
displays Semi-Poisson statistics due to the presence of defects (inset of Fig.
2, red full squares).
The striking differences in the LSS discussed above are reflected in other
features of the spin-billiard dynamics that can be measured experimentally, as
we show hereafter. We consider in particular the momentum distribution and the
fluorescence signal, as used for instance to detect single ions rmpions .
After its introduction by Peres peres , the survival probability or Fidelity
$F$
$F=|\langle\psi_{t=0}|\psi_{t}\rangle|^{2},$ (3)
has been very useful to characterize the transition to chaos qfid . Here the
main issue, due to the lattice spacing coinciding with optical wavelengths, is
single-atom spatial resolution. Therefore, we consider a Coarse Grained
Fidelity (CGF) defined as
$F_{n}=|\langle\sum_{<i,j>}^{<i+n,j+n>}\mathcal{M}(i,j)|\psi_{t}\rangle|^{2},$
(4)
i.e., the survival probability in a square region around the site $\\{i,j\\}$.
The CGF can be obtained via fluorescence measurements in optical lattices
without single site addressing, which is at the edge of present day technology
saddress . Even if the CGF fails in detecting the finest details of the
dynamics it still captures the main differences between the integrable and
chaotic systems. In Fig. 3 A and C we show the CGF ($n=3$) decay in the
rectangular (black) and stadium (red) billiards for different disorder
settings together with their corresponding auto-correlation functions (Fig. 3
B and D). In spite of the random noise, both the CGF (Fig. 3 C) and its auto-
correlation (Fig. 3 D) reveal the fundamental time scale $T_{L}$. Striking
differences appear between R and S billiards: Periodic oscillations persist up
to times of the order of $t_{f}\gg T_{L}$ in the integrable case (black),
while in the chaotic case (red) a damping shows up on a time scale $t\gtrsim
T_{L}$ revealing a rapid decay of correlations.
A B C D
Figure 3: Coarse grained Fidelity $F_{3}$ (A,C) as a function of time for the
integrable (black) and chaotic billiard (red) and the auto-correlation of the
signals in the left figure (B,D) for $P_{D}=\epsilon=0$ (upper panels) and
$P_{D}=5\cdot 10^{-3},\epsilon=10^{-5}$, $N_{R}=10$ (lower panels). Insets:
Magnification of the bigger figure.
Finally, we investigate the momentum distribution of the magnetization in the
two billiards at a final time $t_{f}$: The results are reported in Fig. 4 A
and B for the rectangular (left) and stadium billiards (right). Again the
results show striking differences: In the integrable case the number of
frequencies relevant to the wave function are much less than in the chaotic
case. Moreover in the former case there is a structure (even though quite
complex) in the spectrum that is absent in the latter one.
A B C D E F
Figure 4: 2D FT of the Wave function $F(\omega_{x},\omega_{y})$ for the
rectangular (left) and stadium (right) billiards at time $t_{f}=10\,T_{L}$ for
$P_{D}=\epsilon=0$ (A,B); $P_{D}=5\cdot 10^{-3},\epsilon=10^{-5},N_{R}=10$
(C,D); and $P_{D}=10^{-2},\epsilon=10^{-5},N_{R}=10$ (E,F). Color code is the
same of Fig. 1.
Experimental Implementation - As mentioned in the introduction spin billiards
can be studied experimentally in optical lattices following the idea of the
Universal Quantum Simulator hamsim . The measurements of the CGF and momentum
distribution can be performed via fluorescence and time-of-flight methods
respectively rmpions ; rmplatt . The signatures of chaos we are interested in
arise from the evolution of a single-spin excitation corresponding to single-
particle signals. In order to attain a sufficient atom number resolution to
detect it, an average over different realizations is required. Under ideal
conditions, since the evolution is fully deterministic, this should not be a
problem and the result would be fully reproducible. However, in a real
experiment, errors might introduce differences between repetitions which may
result in a corrupted output. The major error sources are two: (i)
imperfections in the realization of a square lattice with hundreds of sites
with uniform occupation number one, and (ii) side effects of the parabolic
magnetic field trapping the atoms in the studied region of the optical lattice
experr . We can model these errors via the presence of defects or “holes” in
the spin billiard (missing atom in a optical lattice site) and errors in the
gates performed to simulate the dynamics. The Hamiltonian (1) is then replaced
by
$\mathcal{H}_{1}=\lambda\sum_{<m,m^{\prime}>}(\sigma_{x}^{m}\sigma_{x}^{m^{\prime}}+\sigma_{y}^{m}\sigma_{y}^{m^{\prime}})+\sum_{m}\epsilon(t)(i+j)\sigma_{z}^{m},$
(5)
where $m=\mathcal{M}_{H}(i,j)$ takes into accounts the presence of defects and
$\epsilon(t)$ fluctuates in $[0,\epsilon]$ with flat distribution. We repeat
the previous analysis accounting for experimental errors with typical values
$P_{D}=5\cdot 10^{-3}$ and $\epsilon=10^{-5}$ averaging over $N_{R}$ different
configurations experr . Fig. 3 (lower panels) shows the coarse grained
fidelity $F_{3}$ and the auto-correlation as a function of time R and S
billiards in presence of experimental errors. In this case, it is more
difficult to distinguish between integrable and chaotic dynamics; however, a
careful inspection can still reveal differences. As before, in the integrable
case the auto-correlation revivals last for longer times $t_{f}\gg T_{L}$ and
their visibility is greater than in the chaotic case. More clear signatures
are found again in the momentum distribution (Fig. 4, lower panels): The
structures in the frequency domain lasts for very long times in the integrable
billiard (even if slightly blurred) while they disappear in the chaotic case.
Finally we would like to highlight the possible developments along the lines
presented here: The study and simulation of weak localization, quantum hall
effect, disorder effects, quantum information protocols, entanglement
dynamics, and the role of different Hamiltonian and/or parameter regimes. We
also point out that a similar analysis could be performed for alternative
experimental setups as, e.g., lattices of coupled cavities martin .
We thank M. Greiner and I. Bloch for insightful discussions. This work was
supported by the EC grants SCALA and EUROSQIP, by the “Ramón y Cajal” Program
of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science, and by the Excellence
Project P07-FQM-3037 of the Andalusian Government.
## References
* (1) see e.g.: Proceedings of the Les Houches Summer School on Chaos and Quantum Physics, Les Houches, 1989, M. Giannoni, A. Voros, and J. Zinn-Justin Eds. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991); Proceedings of the International School of Physics ”Enrico Fermi” on Quantum chaos, Course CXIX, Varenna, 1991, G. Casati, I. Guarneri, and U. Smilansky Eds. (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993).
* (2) M.V. Berry and M. Tabor Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 356 375 (1977); S.W. McDonald and A. N. Kaufman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 1189 (1979); G. Casati, B.V. Chirikov, and I. Guarnieri, ibid. 54, 1350 (1985); R.A. Jalabert, H.U. Baranger and A.D. Stone, ibid. 65, 2442 (1990); G. Casati and T. Prosen, Physica D 131 293 (1999).
* (3) see e.g.: L. Reichl, The Transition to Chaos, Springer-Verlag (2004).
* (4) J. Stein and H-J. Stöckmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2215 (1992).
* (5) H-D. Graf et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1296 (1992).
* (6) N. Davidson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1311 (1995).
* (7) K. Richter, Semiclassical Theory of Mesoscopic Quantum Systems (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2000); C.J.Beenakker Rev. Mod. Phys. 69 731 (1997).
* (8) C.M. Marcus et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 506 (1992).
* (9) C.M. Marcus et al., Chaos 3, 643 (1993); H.U. Baranger, R.A. Jalabert, and A.D. Stone, Chaos 3, 665 (1993).
* (10) D. M. Zumbühl et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 276803 (2002); I. L. Aleiner and V. I. Fal’ko, ibid. 87, 256801 (2001); O. Zaitsev, D. Frustaglia, and K. Richter, ibid. 94, 026809 (2005); ibid., Phys. Rev. B 72, 155325 (2005).
* (11) C. W. J. Beenakker et al., in ”Fundamental Problems of Mesoscopic Physics”, edited by I. V. Lerner, B. L. Altshuler, and Y. Gefen, NATO Science Series II vol. 154 (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2004); D. Frustaglia, S. Montangero, R. Fazio, Phys. Rev. B 74, 165326 (2006); J.H. Bardarson and C.W.J. Beenakker, ibid. 74, 235307 (2006); V.A. Gopar and D. Frustaglia, ibid. 77, 153403 (2008).
* (12) F. Miao et al., Science 317, 1530 (2007).
* (13) M. Lewenstein et al., Adv. Phys. 56, 243 (2007).
* (14) E. Jané et al., Quantum Inf. and Comp. 3, 15 (2003); J.J. Garcia-Ripoll, M.A. Martin-Delgado, and J.I.Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 250405 (2004).
* (15) I. Bloch, J. Dalibard, and W. Zwerger, Rev. Mod. Phys. (in press), arXiv:0704.3011.
* (16) A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 2274 (1999).
* (17) O. Bohigas, in ”Chaos and Quantum Physics”, Proceedings of the Les Houches Summer School (1989), M. J. Giannoni, A. Voros, and J. Zinn-Justin Eds. (Elsevier, New York, 1991); E. B. Bogomolny, U. Gerland, and C. Schmit, Phys. Rev. E. 59, R1315, (1999).
* (18) D. Leibfried et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281 (2003).
* (19) A. Peres, Phys. Rev. A 30, 1610 (1984).
* (20) H.M. Pastawski, P.R. Levstein, and G. Usaj, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4310 (1995); P. Jacquod, P.G. Silvestrov and C.W.J. Beenakker, Phys. Rev. E 64 055203 (2001); R. A. Jalabert and H. M. Pastawski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2490 (2001); G. Benenti et al., ibid. 87, 227901 (2001); F.M. Cucchietti et al., ibid. 91 210403 (2003).
* (21) A.V. Gorshkov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 093005 (2008).
* (22) M. Greiner, private communication.
* (23) M.J. Hartmann, F.G.S.L. Brandão, and M. B. Plenio, Nat. Phys. 2, 849 (2006).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-14T17:22:58 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.783715 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Simone Montangero, Diego Frustaglia, Tommaso Calarco, Rosario Fazio",
"submitter": "Simone Montangero",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2120"
} |
0805.2175 | # Single top quark production at the Tevatron
R. SchwienhorstaaaOn behalf of the D0 and CDF collaborations.
The Tevatron experiments D0 and CDF have found evidence for single top quark
production, based on datasets between 0.9 fb-1 and 2.2 fb-1. Several different
multivariate techniques are used to extract the single top quark signal out of
the large backgrounds. The cross section measurements are also used to provide
the first direct measurement of the CKM matrix element $|V_{tb}|$.
## 1 Introduction
Evidence for single top quark production at the Tevatron and a first direct
measurement of the CKM matrix element $|V_{tb}|$ was first reported by the D0
collaboration $\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$. In contrast to top quark pair production
through the strong interaction, which was observed in 1995
$\\!{}^{{\bf?},{\bf?}}$, single top quarks are produced via the weak
interaction. The Feynman diagrams for standard model (SM) s-channel ($tb$) and
t-channel ($tqb$) single top quark production are shown in Fig. 1. There is
third production mode, associated production of a top quark and a $W$ boson,
but its cross section is so small that it will not be considered further.
Figure 1: Feynman diagrams for s-channel (left) and t-channel (right) single
top quark production at the Tevatron.
The SM cross section for the s-channel process
${\mbox{$p\bar{p}$}}{\rightarrow}t\bar{b}+X,\bar{t}b+X$ is $0.88\pm 0.14$ pb
at NLO for $m_{\rm top}=175$ GeV $\\!{}^{{\bf?},{\bf?}}$. At the same order
and mass, the cross section for the t-channel process
${\mbox{$p\bar{p}$}}{\rightarrow}tq\bar{b}+X,\bar{t}\bar{q}b+X$ is $1.98\pm
0.30$ pb $\\!{}^{{\bf?},{\bf?}}$.
Measuring the single top quark production cross section provides a direct
measurement of the CKM matrix element $|V_{tb}|$. The single top quark final
state also allows for studies of the top quark polarization, and it is
sensitive to many models of new physics, for example flavor changing neutral
currents via the gluon $\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$ or heavy new bosons $W^{\prime}$ that
only couple to quarks $\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$. The s-channel process is also an
important background to Higgs searches in the associated production mode, and
the advanced analysis techniques used in the single top searches will be
applicable to Higgs searches as well.
The D0 collaboration has updated two of their analysis methods using a dataset
of 0.9 fb-1. The updated results, including a combination of different methods
are presented below. The CDF collaboration has analyzed a dataset of 2.2 fb-1
and significantly improved the sensitivity to single top quark production.
These new results are presented below.
## 2 D0 results
### 2.1 Event selection
The D0 analysis selects electron+jets and muon+jets events in 0.9 fb-1 of data
with the following requirements: One high-$p_{T}$ lepton (electron
($pT>15~{}GeV$) or muon ($p_{T}>18~{}GeV$)), missing transverse energy
$\mbox{$\not\\!\\!E_{T}$}>15GeV$, and between two and four jets with jet
$p_{T}>15~{}GeV$ and jet 1 $p_{T}>25GeV$, at least one is tagged with a
neural-network based b-tagging algorithm. Additional cuts remove fake-lepton
background events. Events are collected by lepton+jets trigger requirements.
The number of events observed in data and expected from the background model
and SM signal is shown in Table 1. The largest sources of systematic
uncertainty are the background normalization, jet energy scale, as well as
b-tag and trigger modelling.
Table 1: Numbers of events expected by D0 in 0.9 fb-1 for electron and muon, 1 $b$-tag and 2 $b$-tag channels combined. | 2 jets | 3 jets | 4 jets
---|---|---|---
s-channel | 16$\pm$ | 3 | 7$\pm$ | 2 | 2$\pm$ | 1
t-channel | 20$\pm$ | 4 | 12$\pm$ | 3 | 4$\pm$ | 1
$t\bar{t}$ | 59$\pm$ | 14 | 134$\pm$ | 32 | 155$\pm$ | 36
$W$+jets | 531$\pm$ | 129 | 248$\pm$ | 64 | 70$\pm$ | 20
Multijets | 96$\pm$ | 19 | 77$\pm$ | 15 | 29$\pm$ | 6
Total background | 686$\pm$ | 131 | 460$\pm$ | 75 | 253$\pm$ | 42
Data | 697 | 455 | 246
Table 1 shows that after selection cuts, the expected SM single top signal is
small compared to the background sum, and in fact the signal is significantly
smaller than the background uncertainty. Thus, more advanced techniques are
required to extract the signal.
### 2.2 Multivariate techniques
The D0 analysis employs three different multivariate techniques to extract the
single top quark signal out of the large backgrounds. The boosted decision
tree (BDT) analysis has not changed since the publication of evidence for
single top quark production $\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$. Here we focus on the Bayesian
neutral network analysis and the matrix element analysis, both of which have
been re-optimized.
In a conventional neural network, the network parameters and weights are
determined in an optimization (training) procedure. Rather than optimizing for
these network parameters once and then fixing them, the optimal network
configuration can be obtained as an average over many different values for the
network parameters. In this Bayesian procedure, an integration over all of the
possible network parameter space is performed. The network architecture is
fixed, and the weight of each set of parameters is obtained through a Bayesian
integration. The final network discriminant is then the weighted average over
all the individual networks. Fig. 2 shows the output of the BNN for the D0
data.
Figure 2: Comparison between data and background sum for the Bayesian neural
network output. Shown is the full distribution (left), and the high-
discriminant region (right). The signal has been normalized to the SM
expectation.
The Matrix element analysis starts from the Feynman diagrams for the single
top quark processes and uses transfer functions to relate the parton level
quark-level information to the reconstructed jet and other information. Matrix
elements for the single top quark signal as well as the $W$+jets backgrounds
are included. For 3-jet events, a top pair matrix element is also included.
For each event, an integration over the phase space is performed, employing
the transfer functions to compute the probability for this particular event to
arise from a specific matrix element. A likelihood function is then formed as
the ratio of the signal and signal plus background probabilities.
### 2.3 D0 summary
The cross section is measured as the peak of the Bayesian posterior
probability density, shown in Fig. 3 for the ME analysis. The three different
methods measure the following cross sections for the sum of s- and t-channel:
$\begin{array}[]{llll}\sigma^{\rm obs}\left({\mbox{$p\bar{p}$}}{\mbox{
$\rightarrow$ }}tb+X,~{}tqb+X\right)&=&4.9^{+1.4}_{-1.4}~{}{\rm
pb}&{\rm(DT)}\\\ &=&4.4^{+1.6}_{-1.4}~{}{\rm pb}&{\rm(BNN)}\\\
&=&4.8^{+1.6}_{-1.4}~{}{\rm pb}&{\rm(ME)}.\end{array}$
The measured cross sections are consistent with each other and above the SM
expectation.
The decision tree analysis has also measured the s- and t-channel cross
sections separately,
$\begin{array}[]{lll}\sigma^{\rm obs}\left({\mbox{$p\bar{p}$}}{\mbox{
$\rightarrow$ }}tb+X\right)&=&1.0\pm 0.9~{}{\rm pb}\\\ \sigma^{\rm
obs}\left({\mbox{$p\bar{p}$}}{\mbox{ $\rightarrow$
}}tqb+X\right)&=&4.2^{+1.8}_{-1.4}~{}{\rm pb},\end{array}$
where the standard model cross section is used for the single top process not
being measured.
Removing the constraint of the standard model ratio allows to form the
posterior probability density as a function of both the $tb$ and $tqb$ cross
sections. This model-independent posterior is shown in Fig. 3 (right)for the
DT analysis, using the $tb$+$tqb$ discriminant. The most probable value
corresponds to cross sections of $\sigma(tb)=0.9$ pb and $\sigma(tqb)=3.8$ pb.
Also shown are the one, two, and three standard deviation contours. While this
result favors a higher value for the $t$-channel contribution than the SM
expectation, the difference is not statistically significant. Several models
of new physics that are also consistent with this result are shown in Ref.
$\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$.
Figure 3: Posterior probability density for the matrix element analysis as a
function of the sum of s-channel and t-channel cross sections (left), and for
the BDT analysis as a function of both the s-channel and t-channel cross
sections (right).
These updated results have recently been published $\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$.
## 3 CDF results
### 3.1 Event selection
The CDF analysis selects electron+jets and muon+jets events in 2.2 fb-1 of
data with the following requirements: One high-$p_{T}$ lepton
($p_{T}>20~{}GeV$), $\mbox{$\not\\!\\!E_{T}$}>25GeV$, and two or three jets
with jet $p_{T}>20~{}GeV$, at least one of which is tagged by a displaced
vertex tagging algorithm. Additional cuts remove fake-lepton background
events. Events are collected by single-lepton trigger requirements. The matrix
element analysis uses additional triggers in the muon channel to increase the
acceptance.
The number of events observed in data and expected from the background model
and SM signal is shown in Table 2. The largest sources of systematic
uncertainty are the background normalization, jet energy scale, and b-tag
modelling.
Table 2: Numbers of events expected by CDF in 2.2 fb-1 for electron and muon, 1 $b$-tag and 2 $b$-tag channels combined. | 2 jets | 3 jets
---|---|---
s-channel | 41$\pm$ | 6 | 14$\pm$ | 2
t-channel | 62$\pm$ | 9 | 18$\pm$ | 3
$t\bar{t}$ | 146$\pm$ | 21 | 339$\pm$ | 48
$W$+bottom | 462$\pm$ | 139 | 141$\pm$ | 43
$W$+charm | 395$\pm$ | 122 | 109$\pm$ | 34
$W$+light | 340$\pm$ | 56 | 102$\pm$ | 17
$Z$+jets | 27$\pm$ | 4 | 11$\pm$ | 2
diboson | 63$\pm$ | 6 | 22$\pm$ | 2
Multijets | 60$\pm$ | 24 | 21$\pm$ | 9
Total background | 1492$\pm$ | 269 | 755$\pm$ | 91
Data | 1535 | 752
Again, it is clear that a advanced analysis techniques are required to extract
the signal.
### 3.2 CDF Likelihood Function
A multivariate likelihood is built from several kinematic variables that each
separate the single top quark signal from the backgrounds. One special
variable is a specially developed b-tagging neural network that aids in
separating b-quark jets from light quark and c-quark jets. An additional
special variable is a kinematic solver using constraints from the $W$ boson
mass and the top quark mass to determine if an event is well reconstructed.
Another special variable is the t-channel matrix element, which uses the
kinematic information provided by the kinematic solver. The likelihood
discriminant for the t-channel likelihood is shown in Fig. 4 (left).
Figure 4: Comparison between data and background sum for the t-channel
likelihood discriminant (left), the neural network discriminant (center), and
the light quark jet pseudorapidity in the high-discriminant region for the
neural network analysis (right). The signal has been normalized to the SM
expectation.
The measured cross section is obtained as the peak of a Bayesian posterior
probability. The likelihood analysis measures a cross section of
$\sigma(tb+tqb)=1.8^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$ pb, below the SM expectation.
### 3.3 CDF Neural Network
Several kinematic variables as well as the b-tagging neural network output are
combined in a neural network. Four different networks are built with 10-14
variables each, trained separately for 2-jet and 3-jet as well as 1-tag and
2-tag events. The full neural network output distribution is shown in Fig. 4
(center), and the signal region is shown in Fig. 4 (right). The neural network
analysis measures a cross section of $\sigma(tb+tqb)=2.0^{+0.9}_{-0.8}$ pb,
below the SM expectation but consistent with the SM within uncertainties.
### 3.4 CDF Matrix Element
The matrix element analysis uses the same approach as described above, but
also includes a top pair matrix element in the 2-jet bin. The matrix element
for top quark pair events has more final state particles than the single top
process, and these additional particles have to be integrated out. This is
done by integrating over the kinematics of the hadronically decaying $W$-boson
in a lepton+jets top pair event.
Figure 5: Data-background comparison for the matrix element discriminant
(left) and Bayesian posterior density distribution observed by the Matrix
element analysis.
The Bayesian posterior probability density for the Matrix element analysis is
shown in Fig. 5, showing the measured cross section and the measurement
uncertainty. The mesured cross section is $\sigma(tb+tqb)=2.2^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$
pb, again below the SM expectation but consistent with the SM within
uncertainties. The CKM matrix element $|V_{tb}|$ is also extracted from the
posterior probability and a lower limit is found to be $|V_{tb}|>0.59$ at the
95% confidence level.
## 4 Summary
Both Tevatron experiments have found better than 3 sigma evidence for single
top quark production and have made the first direct measurement of the CKM
matrix element $|V_{tb}|$ using advanced multivariate techniques. The CKM
matrix element $|V_{tb}|$ can be measured to better than 15%. Further
improvements to the analyses are in progress and both experiments are working
towards observation of single top quark production at the 5 sigma level.
## Acknowledgments
We thank the Fermilab staff and the technical staffs of the participating
institutions for their vital contributions.
## References
## References
* [1] V.M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 181802 (2007).
* [2] F. Abe et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2626 (1995).
* [3] S. Abachi et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2632 (1995).
* [4] Z. Sullivan, Phys. Rev. D 70, 114012 (2004).
* [5] Q. H. Cao, R. Schwienhorst and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 71, 054023 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0409040].
* [6] Q. H. Cao, R. Schwienhorst, J. A. Benitez, R. Brock and C. P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 72, 094027 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0504230].
* [7] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 191802 (2007) [arXiv:hep-ex/0702005].
* [8] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), accepted by Phys. Rev. Lett, arXiv:0803.3256 [hep-ex].
* [9] T. Tait and C.P. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D 63, 014018 (2001).
* [10] V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), accepted by Phys. Rev. D, arXiv:0803.0739 [hep-ex].
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-15T17:18:11 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.788875 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Reinhard Schwienhorst (for the D0 and CDF collaborations)",
"submitter": "Reinhard Schwienhorst",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2175"
} |
0805.2220 | # Quantum Tunneling Beyond Semiclassical Approximation
Rabin Banerjee, Bibhas Ranjan Majhi
S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,
JD Block, Sector III, Salt Lake, Kolkata-700098, India
E-mail: rabin@bose.res.inE-mail: bibhas@bose.res.in
Abstract:
Hawking radiation as tunneling by Hamilton-Jacobi method beyond semiclassical
approximation is analysed. We compute all quantum corrections in the single
particle action revealing that these are proportional to the usual
semiclassical contribution. We show that a simple choice of the
proportionality constants reproduces the one loop back reaction effect in the
spacetime, found by conformal field theory methods, which modifies the Hawking
temperature of the black hole. Using the law of black hole mechanics we give
the corrections to the Bekenstein-Hawking area law following from the modified
Hawking temperature. Some examples are explicitly worked out.
## 1 Introduction
Classical general relativity gives the concept of a black hole from which
nothing can escape. In 1974 Hawking [1] startled the physics community by
proving that black holes are not black; they radiate energy continuously.
Later on in 1975, he [2] showed that the radiation of the black hole perfectly
matches with the black body radiation whose temperature is
$T=\frac{{\cal{K}}}{2\pi}$, where ${\cal{K}}$ is the surface gravity of the
black hole. His calculation was completely based on quantum field theory.
Since the original analysis was technically very involved, several derivations
of Hawking radiation were subsequently presented in the literature [3, 4, 5].
None of them, however, corresponds directly to one of the heuristic pictures
that visualises the source of radiation as tunneling. This picture is similar
to an electron-positron pair creation in a constant electric field. The idea
is that the energy of the particle changes sign as it crosses the horizon, so
that a pair created just inside or outside the horizon can materialise with
zero total energy, after one member of the pair has tunneled to the opposite
side. In this method [6, 7], the particles are allowed to follow classically
forbidden trajectories, by starting just behind the horizon onward to
infinity. The particles then travel back in time, since the horizon is locally
to the future of the external region. Thus the classical one particle action
becomes complex and so the tunneling amplitude is governed by the imaginary
part of this action for the outgoing particle. However, the action for the
ingoing particle must be real, since classically a particle can fall behind
the horizon. This is an important point of our calculations as will be seen
later. The essence of tunneling based calculations is, thus, the computation
of the imaginary part of the action for the process of $s$-wave emission
across the horizon, which in turn is related to the Boltzmann factor for the
emission at the Hawking temperature. There are two different methods to
calculate the imaginary part of the action: one is by Parikh-Wilczek [6] \-
radial null geodesic method and another is the Hamilton-Jacobi method which
was first used by Srinivasan et. al. [7]. Later, many people [8] used the
radial null geodesic method to find out the Hawking temperature for different
spacetime metrics. Recently [9], tunneling of a Dirac particle through the
event horizon was also studied. All these computations are, however, confined
to the semiclassical approximation only. The issue of quantum corrections is
generally not discussed. Inspite of some sporadic attemps [10, 11] a
systemetic, thorough and complete analysis is lacking. In our previous work
[12] we found out the corrections to the temperature and entropy by including
the effects of back reaction knowing the modified surface gravity of the black
hole due to one loop back reaction for the Schwarzschild case by radial null
geodesic method. As an extension we [13] also applied this method for a
noncommutative Schwarzschild metric. Recently, a problem in this approach has
been discussed in [14, 15, 16, 17, 18] which corresponds to a factor two
ambiguity in the original Hawking temperature.
In this paper, we formulate the Hamilton-Jacobi method beyond the
semiclassical approximation by considering all the terms in the expansion of
the one particle action. We show that the higher order terms are proportional
to the semiclassical contribution. By dimensional argument the form of these
proportionality constants, upto some dimensionless parameters, are determined.
In particular, for Schwarzschild and Anti-de Sitter Schwarzschild spacetimes,
these are given by the inverse powers of the square of the mass of the black
hole, because in these cases the only macroscopic parameter is mass. By using
the principle of “detailed balance” the Hawking temperature is identified. It
involves a correction to the usual semiclassical approximation. Incidentally,
the form of the semiclassical Hawking temperature found here is general enough
to consider examples of metrics that need not be spherically symmetric. We
also show that this temperature reduces to the standard form for spherically
symmetric metrics. The modified Hawking temperature which includes corrections
to the semiclassical structure is also derived. We show that for an
appropriate choice of the dimensionless parameters, it is possible to
reproduce the one loop back reaction effects [20, 21] in the spacetime or the
quantum corrections, obtained by conformal field theory techniques, due to
trace anomaly. Also, we analyse the two loop corrections in the surface
gravity. The Hamilton-Jacobi method is then discussed in other coordinates
like Painleve. Here we show how the standard form of the Hawking temperature
can be recovered. There are no factor two ambiguities which are usually
reported in dealing with tunneling methods [15, 18]. Using the law of black
hole mechanics the corrections to the Bekenstein-Hawking area law for
Schwarzschild and AdS Schwarzschild black holes are explicitly calculated.
Interestingly the leading order correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy
is the famous logarithmic term which was found earlier in [22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30]. We also analyse the Kerr metric which is not spherically
symmetric and static, but stationary.
The organisation of our paper is as follows. In the second section we give a
brief review of the radial null geodesic method and its limitations. Section 3
is devoted for the Hamilton-Jacobi method beyond the semiclassical
approximation where we derive a general expression for Hawking temperature and
then show how one can reproduce the loop corrections to the surface gravity.
Also, the Hamilton-Jacobi method in Painleve coordinates is discussed here. In
the next two sections the derivations of corrected temperature and entropy for
some well known spacetime metrics is given. The well known logarithmic
corrections to the area law are reproduced. The final section is for
conclusions.
## 2 Radial null geodesic method: a brief review
In this section we will briefly discuss about the radial null geodesic method
[6] to find the temperature of a black hole using the picture of Hawking
radiation as quantum tunneling. Then we will show how one can include the loop
corrections due to the back reaction effect in the spacetime. We also point
out about the possible limitations of the method.
This method involves calculating the imaginary part of the action for the
(classically forbidden) process of s-wave emission across the horizon which in
turn is related to the Boltzmann factor for emission at the Hawking
temperature. We consider a general class of static (i.e. invariant under time
reversal as well as stationary), spherically symmetric spacetime of the form
$\displaystyle ds^{2}=-f(r)dt^{2}+\frac{dr^{2}}{g(r)}+r^{2}d\Omega^{2}$ (1)
where the horizon $r=r_{H}$ is given by $f(r_{H})=g(r_{H})=0$. The coordinate
singularity at the horizon is removed by going to Painleve coordinates [31].
Under the transformation
$\displaystyle dt\rightarrow dt-\sqrt{\frac{1-g(r)}{f(r)g(r)}}dr$ (2)
the metric (1) takes the form
$\displaystyle
ds^{2}=-f(r)dt^{2}+2f(r)\sqrt{\frac{1-g(r)}{f(r)g(r)}}dtdr+dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega^{2}$
(3)
This metric is stationary but not static. It has a number of interesting
features. At any fixed time the spatial geometry is flat and for any fixed
radius the boundary geometry is the same as that of the metric (1).
The basic idea of this method is to find the radial null geodesics
($ds^{2}=d\Omega^{2}=0$) for the metric (3):
$\displaystyle\dot{r}=\sqrt{\frac{f(r)}{g(r)}}(\pm 1-\sqrt{1-g(r)})$ (4)
where $+(-)$ sign gives outgoing (ingoing) null radial geodesics. Using this
one has to calculate the imaginary part of the action for a shell of energy
$\omega$. In the original work [6], the imaginary part of the action is
defined as,
$\displaystyle{\textrm{Im}}S$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{\textrm{Im}}\int_{r_{\textrm{in}}}^{r_{\textrm{out}}}p_{r}dr={\textrm{Im}}\int_{r_{\textrm{in}}}^{r_{\textrm{out}}}\int_{0}^{p_{r}}dp^{\prime}_{r}dr$
(5) $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{\textrm{Im}}\int_{r_{\textrm{in}}}^{r_{\textrm{out}}}\int_{0}^{H}\frac{dH^{\prime}}{\dot{r}}dr$
where in the last step we multiply and divide the integrand by the two sides
of Hamilton’s equation $\dot{r}=\frac{dH}{dp_{r}}|_{r}$.
Near the horizon one can expand $f(r)$ and $g(r)$ about the horizon $r_{H}$.
$\displaystyle f(r)=f^{\prime}(r_{H})(r-r_{H})+{\cal{O}}((r-r_{H})^{2})$
$\displaystyle g(r)=g^{\prime}(r_{H})(r-r_{H})+{\cal{O}}((r-r_{H})^{2})$ (6)
Substituting these in (4) $\dot{r}$ can be approximately expressed as
$\displaystyle\dot{r}\simeq\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{f^{\prime}(r_{H})g^{\prime}(r_{H})}(r-r_{H})$
(7)
Using this in (5) the imaginary part of the action is calculated. Now taking
the tunneling probability as $\Gamma\sim e^{-\frac{2}{\hbar}{\textrm{Im}}S}$
and equating it with the Boltzmann factor $e^{-\frac{\omega}{T}}$ we find the
Hawking temperature as
$\displaystyle
T_{H}=\frac{\omega\hbar}{2{\textrm{Im}}S}=\frac{\hbar\sqrt{f^{\prime}(r_{H})g^{\prime}(r_{H})}}{4\pi}.$
(8)
It is easy to confirm that for a Schwarzschild black hole the correct result
of $T_{H}=\frac{\hbar}{8\pi M}$ follows.
Recently, a problem in this approach has been pointed out in [14].
Particularly, it has been shown that
$2{\textrm{Im}}\int_{r_{\textrm{in}}}^{r_{\textrm{out}}}p_{r}dr$ is not
canonically invariant and thus it is not a proper observable. The object which
is canonically invariant is ${\textrm{Im}}\oint p_{r}dr$ where the closed path
goes across the horizon and back. For ordinary tunneling problems where the
tunneling amplitude is the same whether one tunnels from left to right or
right to left one finds that $\oint
p_{r}dr=2\int_{r_{\textrm{in}}}^{r_{\textrm{out}}}p_{r}dr$. However for the
Painleve coordinates there is only a barrier to a particle coming from inside
the horizon to outside. Particles going from outside to inside do not see a
barrier and thus the two expressions are not equivalent. Consequently $\oint
p_{r}dr\neq 2\int_{r_{\textrm{in}}}^{r_{\textrm{out}}}p_{r}dr$ thereby
invalidating the analysis leading to (8). Rather if one uses the invariant
definition $\Gamma\sim e^{-\frac{1}{\hbar}{\textrm{Im}}\oint p_{r}dr}$, the
Hawking temperature is found to be twice the original temperature. This
ambiguity has been mentioned in more details in [15, 17, 18, 19, 34, 35].
However our analysis will be based on Hamilton-Jacobi method which is free of
this factor two discrepancy. This will be shown in the next section.
Situations in which there is a back reaction have to be handled separately,
as, for instance, discussed for the Schwarzschild case [12]. But it is still
not clear how to handle other metrics. For example, in the case of Reissner-
Nordstrom metric one has to consider the tunneling of a charged particle. In
that case the invariant tunneling rate $\Gamma\sim
e^{-\frac{1}{\hbar}{\textrm{Im}}\oint p_{r}dr}$ will change. There are some
papers [32, 33] in which this case is analysed. But these are completely based
on the semiclassical approximation. No quantum effects have been included.
Also, in this method it is necessary to work in Painleve coordinates to avoid
the singularity at the horizon. So one is not allowed to perform the
calculations in the original metric coordinates, at least in the standard
formulation. Furthermore, this method corresponds to radial null geodesics and
so it is valid only for massless particles.
## 3 Hamilton-Jacobi method beyond the semiclassical approximation
We next consider an alternate method for calculating the imaginary part of the
action, making use of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation [7, 34, 35], from which we
will calculate the Hawking temperature. The analysis goes beyond the
semiclassical approximation by including all possible quantum corrections. The
semiclassical Hawking temperature is thereby appropriately altered. Equivalent
results are obtained by using either the standard Schwarzschild like
coordinates or other types, as for instance, the Painleve ones. We discuss
both cases in this section.
### 3.1 Schwarzschild like coordinate system
Let us consider a massless particle 111Though we consider only the massless
particle, this method is valid for massive case also. It has been shown
earlier [7] that ultimately the final expressions are same. Therefore for
simplicity we consider only the massless case. in the spacetime (1) described
by the Klein-Gordon equation
$\displaystyle-\frac{\hbar^{2}}{\sqrt{-g}}\partial_{\mu}[g^{\mu\nu}\sqrt{-g}\partial_{\nu}]\phi=0.$
(9)
For radial trajectories only the $(r-t)$ sector of the metric (1) is
important. Therefore under this metric the Klein-Gordon equation reduces to
$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}\partial^{2}_{t}\phi+\frac{1}{2}\Big{(}f^{\prime}(r)\sqrt{\frac{g(r)}{f(r)}}+g^{\prime}(r)\sqrt{\frac{f(r)}{g(r)}}\Big{)}\partial_{r}\phi+\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}\partial_{r}^{2}\phi=0.$
(10)
The semiclassical wave function satisfying the above equation is obtained by
making the standard ansatz for $\phi$ which is
$\displaystyle\phi(r,t)={\textrm{exp}}\Big{[}-\frac{i}{\hbar}S(r,t)\Big{]},$
(11)
where $S(r,t)$ is a function which will be expanded in powers of $\hbar$.
Substituting into the wave equation (10), we obtain
$\displaystyle\frac{i}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}\Big{(}\frac{\partial S}{\partial
t}\Big{)}^{2}-i\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}\Big{(}\frac{\partial S}{\partial
r}\Big{)}^{2}-\frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}\frac{\partial^{2}S}{\partial
t^{2}}+\hbar\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}\frac{\partial^{2}S}{\partial r^{2}}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{\hbar}{2}\Big{(}\frac{\partial f(r)}{\partial
r}\sqrt{\frac{g(r)}{f(r)}}+\frac{\partial g(r)}{\partial
r}\sqrt{\frac{f(r)}{g(r)}}\Big{)}\frac{\partial S}{\partial r}=0.$ (12)
Expanding $S(r,t)$ in a powers of $\hbar$, we find,
$\displaystyle S(r,t)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle S_{0}(r,t)+\hbar
S_{1}(r,t)+\hbar^{2}S_{2}(r,t)+...........$ (13) $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle S_{0}(r,t)+\sum_{i}\hbar^{i}S_{i}(r,t).$
where $i=1,2,3,......$. In this expansion the terms from ${\cal{O}}(\hbar)$
onwards are treated as quantum corrections over the semiclassical value
$S_{0}$. Substituting (13) in (12) and equating the different powers of
$\hbar$ on both sides, we obtain the following set of equations:
$\displaystyle\hbar^{0}~{}:~{}$ $\displaystyle\Big{(}\frac{\partial
S_{0}}{\partial t}\Big{)}^{2}-f(r)g(r)\Big{(}\frac{\partial S_{0}}{\partial
r}\Big{)}^{2}=0,$ $\displaystyle\hbar^{1}~{}:~{}$ $\displaystyle
2i\frac{\partial S_{0}}{\partial t}\frac{\partial S_{1}}{\partial
t}-2if(r)g(r)\frac{\partial S_{0}}{\partial r}\frac{\partial S_{1}}{\partial
r}-\frac{\partial^{2}S_{0}}{\partial
t^{2}}+f(r)g(r)\frac{\partial^{2}S_{0}}{\partial r^{2}}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2}\Big{(}f^{\prime}(r)g(r)+f(r)g^{\prime}(r)\Big{)}\frac{\partial
S_{0}}{\partial r}=0,$ $\displaystyle\hbar^{2}~{}:~{}$ $\displaystyle
i\Big{(}\frac{\partial S_{1}}{\partial t}\Big{)}^{2}+2i\frac{\partial
S_{0}}{\partial t}\frac{\partial S_{2}}{\partial
t}-if(r)g(r)\Big{(}\frac{\partial S_{1}}{\partial
r}\Big{)}^{2}-2if(r)g(r)\frac{\partial S_{0}}{\partial r}\frac{\partial
S_{2}}{\partial r}-\frac{\partial^{2}S_{1}}{\partial
t^{2}}+f(r)g(r)\frac{\partial^{2}S_{1}}{\partial r^{2}}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{2}\Big{(}f^{\prime}(r)g(r)+f(r)g^{\prime}(r)\Big{)}\frac{\partial
S_{1}}{\partial r}=0,$ . . . (14)
so on. Now it is interesting to note that any equation in the above set can be
simplified by using the equations coming before it. This leads to an identical
set of relations,
$\displaystyle\hbar^{0}~{}:~{}\frac{\partial S_{0}}{\partial
t}=\pm\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}\frac{\partial S_{0}}{\partial r},$ (15)
$\displaystyle\hbar^{1}~{}:~{}$ $\displaystyle\frac{\partial S_{1}}{\partial
t}=\pm\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}\frac{\partial S_{1}}{\partial r},$
$\displaystyle\hbar^{2}~{}:~{}$ $\displaystyle\frac{\partial S_{2}}{\partial
t}=\pm\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}\frac{\partial S_{2}}{\partial r},$ . . .
and so on; i.e. the functional form of the above set of linear differential
equations is same. Therefore the solutions of these equations are not
independent and $S_{i}$’s are proportional to $S_{0}$. Since $S_{0}$ has the
dimension of $\hbar$ the proportionality constants should have the dimension
of inverse of $\hbar^{i}$. Again in the units $G=c=k_{B}=1$ the Planck
constant $\hbar$ is of the order of square of the Planck Mass $M_{P}$ and so
from dimensional analysis the proportionality constants have the dimension of
$M^{-2i}$ where $M$ is the mass of black hole. Specifically, for Schwarzschild
type black holes having mass as the only macroscopic parameter, these
considerations show that the most general expression for $S$, following from
(13), is given by,
$\displaystyle S(r,t)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
S_{0}(r,t)+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}}S_{0}(r,t)$ (16)
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Big{(}1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}}\Big{)}S_{0}(r,t).$
where $\beta_{i}$’s are dimensionless constant parameters.
To obtain a solution for $S(r,t)$ it is therefore enough to solve for
$S_{0}(r,t)$ which satisfies (15). In fact the standard Hamilton-Jacobi
solution determined by this $S_{0}(r,t)$ is just modified by a prefactor to
yield the complete solution for $S(r,t)$. Since the metric (1) is stationary
it has timelike Killing vectors. Thus we will look for solutions of (15) which
behave as
$\displaystyle S_{0}=\omega t+\tilde{S}_{0}(r),$ (17)
where $\omega$ is the energy of the particle. Substituting this in (15) and
then integrating we obtain,
$\displaystyle\tilde{S_{0}}(r)=\pm\omega\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}$
(18)
where the limits of the integration are chosen such that the particle goes
through the horizon $r=r_{H}$. The $+(-)$ sign in front of the integral
indicates that the particle is ingoing (outgoing). Using (17) and (18) in (16)
we obtain
$\displaystyle
S(r,t)=\Big{(}1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}}\Big{)}\Big{[}\omega
t\pm\omega\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}\Big{]}.$ (19)
Therefore the ingoing and outgoing solutions of the Klein-Gordon equation (9)
under the back ground metric (1) is given by exploiting (11) and (19),
$\displaystyle\phi_{{\textrm{in}}}={\textrm{exp}}\Big{[}-\frac{i}{\hbar}(1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}})\Big{(}\omega
t+\omega\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}\Big{)}\Big{]}$ (20)
and
$\displaystyle\phi_{{\textrm{out}}}={\textrm{exp}}\Big{[}-\frac{i}{\hbar}(1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}})\Big{(}\omega
t-\omega\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}\Big{)}\Big{]}.$ (21)
Now for the tunneling of a particle across the horizon the nature of the
coordinates change. The sign of the metric coefficients in the $(r-t)$ sector
is altered. This indicates that ‘$t$’ coordinate has an imaginary part for the
crossing of the horizon of the black hole and correspondingly there will be a
temporal contribution to the probabilities for the ingoing and outgoing
particles. This has similarity with[16] where they show for the Schwarzschild
metric that two patches across the horizon are connected by a discrete
imaginary amount of time.
The ingoing and outgoing probabilities of the particle are, therefore, given
by,
$\displaystyle
P_{{\textrm{in}}}=|\phi_{{\textrm{in}}}|^{2}={\textrm{exp}}\Big{[}\frac{2}{\hbar}(1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}})\Big{(}\omega{\textrm{Im}}~{}t+\omega{\textrm{Im}}\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}\Big{)}\Big{]}$
(22)
and
$\displaystyle
P_{{\textrm{out}}}=|\phi_{{\textrm{out}}}|^{2}={\textrm{exp}}\Big{[}\frac{2}{\hbar}(1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}})\Big{(}\omega{\textrm{Im}}~{}t-\omega{\textrm{Im}}\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}\Big{)}\Big{]}$
(23)
Now the ingoing probability $P_{\textrm{in}}$ has to be unity in the classical
limit (i.e. $\hbar\rightarrow 0$) - when there is no reflection and everything
is absorbed - instead of zero or infinity [36].Thus, in the classical limit,
(22) leads to,
$\displaystyle{\textrm{Im}}~{}t=-{\textrm{Im}}\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}.$
(24)
From the above one can easily show that ${\textrm{Im}}~{}t=-2\pi M$ for the
Schwarzschild spacetime which is precisely the imaginary part of the
transformation $t\rightarrow t-2i\pi M$ when one connects the two regions
across the horizon as shown in [16]. Therefore the probability of the outgoing
particle is
$\displaystyle
P_{{\textrm{out}}}={\textrm{exp}}\Big{[}-\frac{4}{\hbar}\omega\Big{(}1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}}\Big{)}{\textrm{Im}}\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}\Big{]}.$
(25)
Now using the principle of “detailed balance” [7, 13]
$\displaystyle
P_{{\textrm{out}}}={\textrm{exp}}\Big{(}-\frac{\omega}{T_{h}}\Big{)}P_{\textrm{in}}={\textrm{exp}}\Big{(}-\frac{\omega}{T_{h}}\Big{)}$
(26)
we obtain the temperature of the black hole as
$\displaystyle T_{h}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{\hbar}{4}\Big{[}(1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}}){\textrm{Im}}\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}\Big{]}^{-1}$
(27) $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
T_{H}\Big{(}1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}}\Big{)}^{-1}$
where
$\displaystyle
T_{H}=\frac{\hbar}{4}\Big{(}{\textrm{Im}}\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}\Big{)}^{-1}$
(28)
is the standard semiclassical Hawking temperature of the black hole and other
terms are the corrections due to the quantum effect. Using this expression and
knowing the metric coefficients $f(r)$ and $g(r)$ one can easily find out the
temperature of the corresponding black hole.
Some comments are now in order. The first point is that (28) yields a novel
form of the semiclassical Hawking temperature. For instance, it can be used
for metrics that need not be spherically symmetric. Later, in section $4.3$,
this will be exemplified in the case of the Kerr metric. For a spherically
symmetric metric it is possible to show that (28) reproduces the familiar form
(8). Inserting the near horizon expansion (6) in (28) and performing the
contour integration, (8) is obtained. Note that this form is the standard
Hawking temperature found [34, 35] by the Hamilton-Jacobi method. There is no
ambiguity regarding a factor of two in the Hawking temperature as reported in
the literature [34, 35]. This issue is completely avoided in the present
analysis where the standard expression for the Hawking temperature is
reproduced.
The other point is that the form of the solution (17) of (15) is not unique,
since any constant multiple of ‘$S_{0}$’ can be a solution as well. For that
case one can easily see that the final expression (27) for the temperature
still remains unchanged. It is only a matter of rescaling the particle energy
‘$\omega$’. This shows the uniqueness of the expression (27) for the Hawking
temperature.
We will now show that various choices of the coefficients $\beta_{i}$ in (27)
correspond to higher order loop corrections to the surface gravity of the
black hole, obtained by including back reaction effects [20, 21] or by
accounting for the trace anomaly [22]. To see this note that the standard
relation between the surface gravity (${\cal{K}}$) and the Hawking temperature
($T_{h}$) is
$\displaystyle T_{h}=\frac{{\cal{K}}}{2\pi}.$ (29)
Hence the modified form of the surface gravity of the black hole following
from (27), is given by
$\displaystyle{\cal{K}}={\cal{K}}_{0}\Big{(}1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}}\Big{)}^{-1}.$
(30)
where ${\cal{K}}_{0}=2\pi T_{H}$ is the standard semiclassical surface
gravity.
Now if we choose the dimensionless parameters $\beta_{i}$’s in terms of a
single dimensionless parameter $\alpha$ in the following way,
$\displaystyle\beta_{i}=\alpha^{i}$ (31)
then the expression within the parenthesis in (30) is simplified to
$\displaystyle 1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle
1+\Big{(}\frac{\alpha\hbar}{M^{2}}+\frac{\alpha^{2}\hbar^{2}}{M^{4}}+\frac{\alpha^{3}\hbar^{3}}{M^{6}}+\frac{\alpha^{4}\hbar^{4}}{M^{8}}+........\Big{)}=(1-\frac{\alpha\hbar}{M^{2}})^{-1}.$
(32)
Therefore under this choice of the parameters the surface gravity (30)
simplifies to the following form
$\displaystyle{\cal{K}}={\cal{K}}_{0}\Big{(}1-\frac{\alpha\hbar}{M^{2}}\Big{)}.$
(33)
This expression was found earlier [20, 21] by considering the one loop back
reaction effects in the spacetime. Moreover, the coefficient $\alpha$ is
related to the trace anomaly. Using conformal field theory techniques it was
shown [22] that the one loop quantum correction to the surface gravity, for
the Schwarzschild black hole, is given by (33) where,
$\displaystyle\alpha=-\frac{1}{360\pi}\Big{(}-N_{0}-\frac{7}{4}N_{\frac{1}{2}}+13N_{1}+\frac{233}{4}N_{\frac{3}{2}}-212N_{2}\Big{)}$
(34)
and $N_{s}$ denotes the number of fields with spin ‘$s$’.
Likewise, the higher order loop corrections in the surface gravity can also be
reproduced by this method. The only important part is to choose the expansion
coefficients $\beta_{i}$’s suitably. For instance, if $\beta_{i}$’s are chosen
as below,
$\displaystyle\beta_{i}=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(i-k)_{C_{k}}\alpha^{(i-2k)}\gamma^{k}$
(35)
with $i\geq 2k$, then substituting this in (30) and simplifying, one can show
that
$\displaystyle{\cal{K}}={\cal{K}}_{0}\Big{(}1-\frac{\alpha\hbar}{M^{2}}-\frac{\gamma\hbar^{2}}{M^{4}}\Big{)}$
(36)
which is nothing but the corrected form of the surface gravity of a black hole
due to two loop back reaction effects in the spacetime. $`\gamma$’ is a
dimensionless parameter corresponding to the contribution from the second
loop. This indicates that one can reproduce the all loop back reaction effects
in the spacetime by keeping all the terms in the expansion of $S(r,t)$ (13)
and suitably choosing the expansion coefficients.
### 3.2 Painleve coordinate system
Here we will discuss the Hamilton-Jacobi method in Painleve coordinates and
explicitly show how one can obtain the standard Hawking temperature. As
before, consider a massless scalar particle in the spacetime metric (3)
described by the Painleve coordinates. Since the Klein-Gordon equation (9) is
in covariant form, the scalar particle in the background metric (3) also
satisfies (9). Therefore under this metric the Klein-Gordon equation reduces
to
$\displaystyle-(\frac{g}{f})^{\frac{3}{2}}\partial^{2}_{t}\phi+\frac{2g\sqrt{1-g}}{f}\partial_{t}\partial_{r}\phi-\frac{gg^{\prime}}{2f\sqrt{1-g}}\partial_{t}\phi+g\sqrt{\frac{g}{f}}\partial^{2}_{r}\phi+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{g}{f}}(3g^{\prime}-\frac{f^{\prime}g}{f})\partial_{r}\phi=0.$
(37)
As before, substituting the standard ansatz (11) for $\phi$ in the above
equation, we obtain,
$\displaystyle-(\frac{g}{f})^{\frac{3}{2}}\Big{[}-\frac{i}{\hbar}\Big{(}\frac{\partial
S}{\partial t}\Big{)}^{2}+\frac{\partial^{2}S}{\partial
t^{2}}\Big{]}+\frac{2g\sqrt{1-g}}{f}\Big{[}-\frac{i}{\hbar}\frac{\partial
S}{\partial t}\frac{\partial S}{\partial r}+\frac{\partial^{2}S}{\partial
r\partial t}\Big{]}-\frac{gg^{\prime}}{2f\sqrt{1-g}}\frac{\partial S}{\partial
t}$
$\displaystyle+g\sqrt{\frac{g}{f}}\Big{[}-\frac{i}{\hbar}\Big{(}\frac{\partial
S}{\partial r}\Big{)}^{2}+\frac{\partial^{2}S}{\partial
r^{2}}\Big{]}+\frac{1}{2}(3g^{\prime}-\frac{f^{\prime}g}{f})\frac{\partial
S}{\partial r}=0.$ (38)
Neglecting the terms of order $\hbar$ and greater we find to the lowest order,
$\displaystyle(\frac{g}{f})^{\frac{3}{2}}\Big{(}\frac{\partial S}{\partial
t}\Big{)}^{2}-\frac{2g\sqrt{1-g}}{f}\frac{\partial S}{\partial
t}\frac{\partial S}{\partial r}-g\sqrt{\frac{g}{f}}\Big{(}\frac{\partial
S}{\partial r}\Big{)}^{2}=0.$ (39)
It has been stated earlier that the metric (3) is stationary. Therefore
following the same argument as before it has a solution of the form (17).
Inserting this in (39) yields,
$\displaystyle\frac{d\tilde{S}_{0}(r)}{dr}=\omega\sqrt{\frac{1-g(r)}{f(r)g(r)}}\Big{(}-1\pm\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-g(r)}}\Big{)}$
(40)
Integrating,
$\displaystyle\tilde{S}_{0}(r)=\omega\int_{0}^{r}\sqrt{\frac{1-g(r)}{f(r)g(r)}}\Big{(}-1\pm\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-g(r)}}\Big{)}dr.$
(41)
The $+(-)$ sign in front of the integral indicates that the particle is
ingoing (outgoing). Therefore the actions for ingoing and outgoing particles
are
$\displaystyle S_{\textrm{in}}(r,t)=\omega
t+\omega\int_{0}^{r}\frac{1-\sqrt{1-g}}{\sqrt{fg}}dr$ (42)
and
$\displaystyle S_{\textrm{out}}(r,t)=\omega
t-\omega\int_{0}^{r}\frac{1+\sqrt{1-g}}{\sqrt{fg}}dr$ (43)
Since in the classical limit (i.e. $\hbar\rightarrow 0$) the probability for
the ingoing particle ($P_{\textrm{in}}$) has to be unity, $S_{\textrm{in}}$
must be real. Following identical steps employed in deriving (24) we obtain,
starting from (42), the analogous condition,
$\displaystyle{\textrm{Im}}~{}t=-{\textrm{Im}}\int_{0}^{r}\frac{1-\sqrt{1-g}}{\sqrt{fg}}dr$
(44)
Substituting this in (43) we obtain the action for the outgoing particle:
$\displaystyle
S_{\textrm{out}}(r,t)=\omega{\textrm{Re}}~{}t-\omega{\textrm{Re}}\int_{0}^{r}\frac{1+\sqrt{1-g}}{\sqrt{fg}}dr-2i\omega{\textrm{Im}}\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{fg}}$
(45)
Therefore the probability for the outgoing particle is
$\displaystyle
P_{\textrm{out}}=|e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}S_{\textrm{out}}}|^{2}=e^{-\frac{4}{\hbar}\omega{\textrm{Im}}\int_{0}^{r}\frac{dr}{\sqrt{f(r)g(r)}}}$
(46)
Now using the principle of “detailed balance” (26) we obtain the same
expression (28) for the standard Hawking temperature which was calculated in
Schwarzschild like coordinates by the Hamilton-Jacobi method. Inclusion of
higher order terms is straightforward and leads to the same relation as (27).
## 4 Calculation of Hawking temperature
In this section we will consider some standard metrics to show how the
semiclassical Hawking temperature can be calculated from (28). For the
Schwarzschild and Anti-de Sitter Schwarzschild black hole the modified form of
the Hawking temperatures due to the corrections beyond semiclassical
approximation will be explicitly shown by using (27).
### 4.1 Schwarzschild black hole
The spacetime metric is given by
$\displaystyle
ds^{2}=-(1-\frac{2M}{r})dt^{2}+(1-\frac{2M}{r})^{-1}dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega^{2}.$
(47)
So the metric coefficients are
$\displaystyle f(r)=g(r)=(1-\frac{r_{H}}{r});\,\,\,r_{H}=2M.$ (48)
Since this metric is spherically symmetric we use the formula (8) to compute
the semiclassical Hawking temperature. This is found to be,
$\displaystyle T_{H}=\frac{\hbar}{4\pi r_{H}}=\frac{\hbar}{8\pi M}.$ (49)
which is the standard expression. Now using (27) it is easy to write the
corrected Hawking temperature:
$\displaystyle T_{h}=\frac{\hbar}{8\pi
M}\Big{(}1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar}{M^{2i}}\Big{)}^{-1}.$ (50)
In particular, for the choice (31), this yields,
$\displaystyle T_{h}=\frac{\hbar}{8\pi
M}\Big{(}1-\frac{\alpha\hbar}{M^{2}}\Big{)}$ (51)
which is the modified form of the Hawking temperature. Such a structure was
obtained earlier [12] in radial null geodesic approach by explicitly taking
into account the one loop back reaction effect. Also, as stated earlier, such
a form follows from conformal field theory techniques [22] where $\alpha$ is
given by (34).
### 4.2 Anti-de Sitter Schwarzschild black hole
The AdS-Schwarzschild metric is given by
$\displaystyle
ds^{2}=-\Big{(}1-\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}\Big{)}dt^{2}+\Big{(}1-\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}\Big{)}^{-1}dr^{2}+r^{2}d\Omega^{2}.$
(52)
Here,
$\displaystyle f(r)=g(r)=\Big{(}1-\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{r^{2}}{l^{2}}\Big{)}.$
(53)
Since the metric is spherically symmetric we employ similar steps as before to
obtain the semiclassical Hawking temperature,
$\displaystyle T_{H}=\frac{\hbar}{4\pi}\frac{3r_{+}^{2}+l^{2}}{l^{2}r_{+}}.$
(54)
Also, by (27), the corrected form of the Hawking temperature due to quantum
effects, is
$\displaystyle
T_{h}=\frac{\hbar}{4\pi}\frac{3r_{+}^{2}+l^{2}}{l^{2}r_{+}}\Big{(}1+\sum_{i}\beta_{i}\frac{\hbar^{i}}{M^{2i}}\Big{)}^{-1}.$
(55)
Once again, for the choice (31), this yields,
$\displaystyle
T_{h}=\frac{\hbar}{4\pi}\frac{3r_{+}^{2}+l^{2}}{l^{2}r_{+}}\Big{(}1-\frac{\alpha\hbar}{M^{2}}\Big{)}$
(56)
which reproduces the corrected Hawking temperature by including the one loop
back reaction effect [21].
### 4.3 Kerr black hole
This example provides a nontrivial application of our formula (28) for
computing the semiclassical Hawking temperature. Here the metric is not
spherically symmetric, invalidating the use of (8).
In Boyer-Linquist coordinates the form of the Kerr metric is given by
$\displaystyle ds^{2}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\Big{(}1-\frac{2Mr}{\rho^{2}}\Big{)}dt^{2}-\frac{2Mar~{}{\textrm{sin}}^{2}\theta}{\rho^{2}}(dtd\phi+d\phi
dt)$ (57) $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{\rho^{2}}{\Delta}dr^{2}+\rho^{2}d\theta^{2}+\frac{{\textrm{sin}}^{2}\theta}{\rho^{2}}~{}\Big{[}(r^{2}+a^{2})^{2}-a^{2}\Delta~{}{\textrm{sin}}^{2}\theta\Big{]}d\phi^{2}$
where
$\displaystyle\Delta(r)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
r^{2}-2Mr+a^{2};\,\,\,\rho^{2}(r,\theta)=r^{2}+a^{2}~{}{\textrm{cos}}^{2}\theta$
$\displaystyle a$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{J}{M}$ (58)
and $J$ is the Komar angular momentum. We have chosen the coordinates for Kerr
metric such that the event horizons occur at those fixed values of $r$ for
which $g^{rr}=\frac{\Delta}{\rho^{2}}=0$. Therefore the event horizons are
$\displaystyle r_{\pm}=M\pm\sqrt{M^{2}-a^{2}}.$ (59)
This metric is not spherically symmetric and static but stationary. So it must
have timelike Killing vectors. Although in our general formulation we consider
only the static, spherically symmetric metrics, it is still possible to apply
this methodology for such a metric. The point is that for radial trajectories,
the Kerr metric simplifies to the following form
$\displaystyle
ds^{2}=-\Big{(}\frac{r^{2}+a^{2}-2Mr}{r^{2}+a^{2}}\Big{)}dt^{2}+\Big{(}\frac{r^{2}+a^{2}}{r^{2}+a^{2}-2Mr}\Big{)}dr^{2}$
(60)
where, for simplicity, we have taken $\theta=0$ (i.e. particle is going along
$z$-axis). This is exactly the form of the $(r-t)$ sector of the metric (1).
Since in our formalism only the $(r-t)$ sector is important, our results are
applicable here. In particular if the metric has no terms like $(drdt)$ then
we can apply (28) to find the semiclassical Hawking temperature. Here,
$\displaystyle f(r)=g(r)=\Big{(}\frac{r^{2}+a^{2}-2Mr}{r^{2}+a^{2}}\Big{)}$
(61)
Substituting these in (28) we obtain,
$\displaystyle
T_{H}=\frac{\hbar}{4}\Big{(}{\textrm{Im}}\int\frac{r^{2}+a^{2}}{(r-r_{+})(r-r_{-})}\Big{)}^{-1}.$
(62)
The integrand has simple poles at $r=r_{+}$ and $r=r_{-}$. Since we are
interested only with the event horizon at $r=r_{+}$, we choose the contour as
a small half-loop going around this pole from left to right. Integrating, we
obtain the value of the semiclassical Hawking temperature as
$\displaystyle T_{H}=\frac{\hbar}{4\pi}\frac{r_{+}-r_{-}}{r_{+}^{2}+a^{2}}.$
(63)
This agrees with results quoted in the literature [37].
## 5 Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and area law
The semiclassical Bekenstein-Hawking area law [38, 39, 2] is given by
$\displaystyle S_{\textrm{BH}}=\frac{A}{4\hbar}$ (64)
where ‘$A$’ is the area of the horizon. This is altered when quantum effects
come into play. Here, using the modified form of the temperature for
Schwarzschild and AdS-Schwarzschild black hole derived in the previous
section, we will explicitly show the corrections to the Bekenstein-Hawking
area law with the help of the second law of thermodynamics. This law of black
hole thermodynamics which expresses the conservation of energy by relating the
change in the black hole mass $M$ to the changes in its entropy
$S_{\textrm{bh}}$, angular momentum $J$ and electric charge $Q$, is given by
$\displaystyle dM=T_{h}dS_{\textrm{bh}}+\Phi dQ+\Omega dJ$ (65)
where the angular velocity $\Omega$ and the electrostatic potential
$\Phi=\frac{\partial M}{\partial Q}$ are constant over the event horizon of
any stationary black hole. From this conservation law the entropy is computed
as,
$\displaystyle S_{\textrm{bh}}=\int\frac{1}{T_{h}}(dM-\Phi dQ-\Omega dJ)$ (66)
### 5.1 Schwarzschild black hole
It has no charge and spin. Hence (66) simplifies to
$\displaystyle S_{\textrm{bh}}=\int\frac{dM}{T_{h}}$ (67)
Substituting the value of temperature from (50) in (67) we obtain,
$\displaystyle S_{\textrm{bh}}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{4\pi
M^{2}}{\hbar}+8\pi\beta_{1}\ln
M-\frac{4\pi\hbar\beta_{2}}{M^{2}}+{\textrm{higher order terms in $\hbar$}}$
(68) $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{\pi
r_{H}^{2}}{\hbar}+8\pi\beta_{1}\ln
r_{H}-\frac{16\pi\hbar\beta_{2}}{r_{H}^{2}}+{\textrm{higher order terms in
$\hbar$}}$
The area of the event horizon is
$\displaystyle A=4\pi r_{H}^{2}$ (69)
so that,
$\displaystyle S_{\textrm{bh}}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{A}{4\hbar}+4\pi\beta_{1}\ln
A+\frac{64\pi^{2}\hbar\beta_{2}}{A}+......................$ (70)
It is noted that the first term is the usual semiclassical area law (64). The
other terms are the quantum corrections. Now it is possible to express the
quantum corrections in terms of $S_{\textrm{BH}}$ by eliminating $A$:
$\displaystyle S_{\textrm{bh}}=S_{\textrm{BH}}+4\pi\beta_{1}\ln
S_{\textrm{BH}}+\frac{16\pi^{2}\beta_{2}}{S_{\textrm{BH}}}+.........$ (71)
Interestingly the leading order correction is logarithmic in $A$ or
$S_{\textrm{BH}}$ which was found earlier in [22, 23] by field theory
calculations and later in [24, 29] with $\beta_{1}=-\frac{1}{8\pi}$ by quantum
geometry method. The higher order corrections involve inverse powers of $A$ or
$S_{\textrm{BH}}$.
### 5.2 Anti-de Sitter Schwarzschild black hole
Since this black hole also does not have charge and spin, the appropriate
equation defining the entropy is given by (67). The first point to observe is
that the event horizon $r=r_{+}$ is defined by
$\displaystyle\Big{(}1-\frac{2M}{r_{+}}+\frac{r_{+}^{2}}{l^{2}}\Big{)}=0.$
(72)
This shows that it is possible to interpret $M$ as a function of
$r_{+}$;$M=M(r_{+})$. Hence $dM=\frac{\partial M}{\partial r_{+}}dr_{+}$.
Calculating $\frac{\partial M}{\partial r_{+}}$ from (72) we obtain
$\displaystyle dM=\frac{3r_{+}^{2}+l^{2}}{2l^{2}}dr_{+}.$ (73)
Substituting this and (55) in (67) and integrating, we obtain the corrected
Bekenstein-Hawking entropy as
$\displaystyle S_{\textrm{bh}}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{\pi
r_{+}^{2}}{\hbar}+8\pi\beta_{1}\ln r_{+}+.........$ (74)
Here also the area $A$ satisfies (69). Re-expressing (74) in terms of the
semiclassical expression $S_{\textrm{BH}}$ (64), we obtain,
$\displaystyle S_{\textrm{bh}}=S_{\textrm{BH}}+4\pi\beta_{1}\ln
S_{\textrm{BH}}+.............$ (75)
The leading order correction is again logarithmic as found earlier in [26, 27]
by a statistical method with $\beta_{1}=-\frac{1}{4\pi}$.
## 6 Conclusions
We have given a general expression (28) for the semiclassical Hawking
temperature by the Hamilton-Jacobi method which corresponds directly to the
picture that visualises the source of radiation as tunneling. For the
particular case of a spherically symmetric metric, our expression reduces to
the standard form (8). Going beyond the semiclassical approximation, the one
particle action is computed by including all higher order corrections. From
this action, the modified Hawking temperature for the Schwarzschild and AdS-
Schwarzschild black holes are given. The Hamilton-Jacobi method is also
studied in other coordinates like Painleve. Here also the Hawking temperature
is explicitly calculated which exactly matches with that evaluated in
Schwarzschild like coordinates. In all these cases there is no ambiguity
regarding a factor of two in the temperature, as reported in [15, 18, 34, 35].
In this paper, the factor of two problem in the Hawking temperature has been
taken care of by considering the contribution from the imaginary part of the
temporal coordinate since it changes its nature across the horizon. Also, this
method is free of the rather ad hoc way of introducing an integration
constant, as reported in [36]. Our approach, on the other hand, is similar to
in spirit [16] where it has been shown that ‘$t$’ changes by an imaginary
discrete amount across the horizon. Indeed, the explicit expression for this
change, in the case of Schwarzschild metric, calculated from our general
formula (24) agrees with the findings of [16].
The other significant point of this paper is that for an appropriate choice of
the dimensionless parameters appearing in the single particle action, it is
possible to reproduce the one loop results obtained by including back reaction
effects [20, 21] or those based on conformal field theory techniques [22].
Apart from the one loop case, we have also discussed the nature of two loop
corrections to the surface gravity of the black hole. By using a law of black
hole mechanics, the corrections to the Bekenstein-Hawking area law are given
for Schwarzschild and AdS-Schwarzschild black holes. Interestingly, the
leading order correction is a logarithmic function of the horizon area $A$ or
the semiclassical entropy $S_{\textrm{BH}}$, as reported earlier in [22, 23,
24, 28, 29, 25, 26, 27, 30].
An important part of the analysis is that this is done in four dimensions and
the expansion coefficients, apart from some undetermined parameters, are
identified by a dimensional analysis. Also, explicit higher order computations
were presented for Schwarzschild type black holes that have mass as the only
macroscopic parameter. As was discussed, this simplified the dimensional
analysis allowing for a compact expression for the modified one particle
action. It remains an open issue to extend this analysis to include higher
order corrections for other black hole geometries.
## References
* [1] S.W.Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974).
* [2] S.W.Hawking, “Particle creation by black holes”, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975) [Erratum-ibid. 46, 206 (1976)].
* [3] J.B.Hartle and S.W.Hawking, “Path-integral derivation of black hole radiance”, Phys. Rev. D 13, 2188 (1976).
* [4] G.W.Gibbons and S.W.Hawking, “Action integrals and partition functions in quantum gravity”, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2752 (1977).
* [5] S.M.Christensen and S.A.Fulling, “Trace anomalies and the Hawking effect”, Phys. Rev. D, 2088 (1977).
* [6] M.K.Parikh and F.Wilczek, “Hawking radiation as tunneling”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5042 (2000) [arXiv:hep-th/9907001].
M.K.Parikh, “A secret tunnel through the horizon”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13,
2351 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0405160].
* [7] K.Srinivasan and T.Padmanabhan, “Particle production and complex path analysis”, Phys. Rev. D 60, 024007 (1999) [arXiv:gr-qc/9812028].
S. Shankaranarayanan, K. Srinivasan and T. Padmanabhan,“Method of complex
paths and general covariance of Hawking radiation”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 571
(2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0007022].
S.Shankaranarayanan, T.Padmanabhan and K.Srinivasan, “Hawking radiation in
different coordinate settings: complex path approach”, Class. Quantum Grav.
19, 2671 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0010042].
S.Shankaranarayanan, “Temperature and entropy of Schwarzschild-de Sitter space
time”, Phys. Rev. D 67, 084026 (2003) [arXiv:gr-qc/0301090].
* [8] Qing-Quan Jiang, Shuang-Qing Wu and Xu Cai,“Hawking radiation as tunneling from the Kerr and Kerr-Newman black holes”, Phys. Rev. D 73 064003 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0512351].
Yapeng Hu, Jingyi Zhang and Zheng Zhao, “Massive particles’ Hawking radiation
via tunneling from the G.H Dilaton black hole”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21 2143
(2006) [arXiv:gr-qc/0611026].
Zhibo Xu and Bin Chen, “Hawking Radiation from General Kerr-(anti)de Sitter
Black Holes”, Phys. Rev. D 75 024041 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0612261].
Cheng-Zhou Liu and Jian-Yang Zhu, “Hawking radiation as tunneling from
Gravity’s rainbow”, [arXiv:gr-qc/0703055].
* [9] R.Kerner and R.B.Mann, “Fermions tunnelling from black holes”, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 095014 (2008) [arXiv:0710.0612].
R.D.Criscienzo and L.Vanzo, “Fermion Tunneling from Dynamical Horizons”,
[arXiv:0803.0435].
R.Kerner and R.B.Mann, “Charged Fermions Tunnelling from Kerr-Newman Black
Holes”, [arXiv:0803.2246].
De-You Chen, Qing-Quan Jiang, Shu-Zheng Yang and Xiao-Tao Zu, “Fermions
tunneling from the charged dilatonic black holes”, [arXiv:0803.3248].
D.Y.Chen, Q.Q.Jiang and X.T.Zu, “Hawking radiation of Dirac particles via
tunneling from rotating black holes in de Sitter spaces”, [arXiv:0804.0131].
* [10] M.Arzano, A.J.M.Medved and E.C.Vagenas, “Hawking radiation as tunneling through the quantum horizon”, JHEP 0509, 037 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0505266].
* [11] A.J.M.Medved and E.C.Vagenas, “On Hawking radiation as tunneling with back-Reaction”, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20, 2449 (2005) [arXiv:gr-qc/0504113].
* [12] R.Banerjee and B.R.Majhi, “Quantum tunneling and back reaction”, Phys. Lett. B 662, 62 (2008) [arXiv:0801.0200].
* [13] R.Banerjee, B.R.Majhi and S.Samanta, “Noncommutative black hole thermodynamics”, [arXiv:0801.3583] (to appear in Phys. Rev. D).
* [14] B.D.Chowdhury, “Problems with tunneling of thin shells from black holes”, Pramana 70, 593 (2008) [arXiv:hep-th/0605197].
* [15] E.T.Akhmedov, V.Akhmedova and D.Singleton, “Hawking temperature in the tunneling picture”, Phys. Lett. B 642, 124 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0608098].
* [16] E.T.Akhmedov, T.Pilling and D.Singleton, “Subtleties in the quasi-classical calculation of Hawking radiation”, [arXiv:0805.2653].
* [17] E.T.Akhmedov, V.Akhmedova, D.Singleton and T.Pilling, “Thermal radiation of various gravitational backgrounds”, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A 22, 1705 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0605137].
* [18] T.Pilling, “Black Hole Thermodynamics and the Factor of 2 Problem”, Phys. Lett. B 660, 402 (2008) [arXiv:0709.1624].
* [19] T.K.Nakamura, “Factor two discrepancy of Hawking radiation temperature”, [arXiv:0706.2916].
* [20] J.W.York,Jr., “Black hole in thermal equlibrium with a scalar field”, Phys. Rev. D 31, 775 (1985).
* [21] C.O.Lousto and N.Sanchez, “Back reaction effects in black hole spacetimes”, Phys. Lett. B 212, 411 (1988).
* [22] D.V.Fursaev, “Temperature and entropy of a quantum black hole and conformal anomaly”, Phys. Rev. D 51, R5352 (1995) [arXiv:hep-th/9412161].
* [23] R.B.Mann and S.N.Solodukhin, “Universality of quantum entropy for extreme black holes”, Nucl. Phys. B 523, 293 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9709064].
* [24] R.K.Kaul and P.Majumdar, “Logarithmic corrections to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5255 (2000) [arXiv:gr-qc/0002040].
* [25] T.R.Govindarajan, R.K.Kaul and V.Suneeta, “Logarithmic correction to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the BTZ black hole”, Class. Quantum Grav. 18, 2877 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0104010].
* [26] S.Das, P.Majumdar and R.K.Bhaduri, “General logarthmic corrections to black hole entropy”, Class. Quantum Grav. 19, 2355 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0111001].
* [27] S.S.More, “Higher order corrections to black hole entropy”, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, 4129 (2005) [gr-qc/0410071].
* [28] S.Mukherji and S.S.Pal, “Logarithmic corrections to black hole entropy and AdS/CFT correspondence”, JHEP 0205, 026 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0205164].
* [29] A.Ghosh and P.Mitra, “An improved estimate of black hole entropy in the quantum geometry approach”, Phys. Lett. B 616, 114 (2005) [arXiv:gr-qc/0411035].
* [30] For a review and a complete list of papers on logarithmic corrections, see D.N.Page, “Hawking radiation and black hole thermodynamica”, New Journal of Phys. 7, 203 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0409024].
* [31] P.Painleve, “La mcanique classique et la thorie de relativit” C.R. Acad. Sci. (Paris) 173, 677 (1921).
* [32] Qing-Quan Jiang and Shuang-Qing Wu, “Hawking radiation of charged particles as tunneling from Reissner-Nordstrom-de Sitter black holes with a global monopole”, Phys. Lett. B 635, 151 (2006) [arXiv:hep-th/0511123].
* [33] Yapeng Hu, Jingyi Zhang and Zheng Zhao, “Massive uncharged and charged particles’ tunneling from the Horowitz-Strominger Dilaton black hole”, Int.J.Mod.Phys. D 16, 847 (2007) [arXiv:gr-qc/0611085].
* [34] M.Angheben, M.Nadalini, L.Vanzo and S.Zerbini, “Hawking radiation as tunneling for extremal and rotating black holes”, JHEP 0505, 014 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0503081].
* [35] R.Kerner and R.B.Mann, “Tunneling, temperature, and Taub-NUT black holes”, Phys. Rev. D 73, 104010 (2006) [arXiv:gr-qc/0603019].
* [36] P.Mitra, “Hawking temperature from tunneling formalism”, Phys. Lett. B 648, 240 (2007) [arXiv:hep-th/0611265].
* [37] S.M.Carroll, “An Introduction to General Relativity: Spacetime and Geometry”, San Francisco, CA, USA: Addison Wesley, (2004).
* [38] J.D.Bekenstein, PhD Thesis Princeton University, Princeton, NJ (1972).
J.D.Bekenstein, “Black holes and the second law”, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 737
(1972).
J.D.Bekenstein, “Black holes and entropy”, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973).
J.D.Bekenstein, “Generalised second law of thermodynamics in black hole
physics”, Phys. Rev. D 9 3292 (1974).
* [39] J.M.Bardeen, B.Carter and S.W.Hawking, “The four laws of black hole mechanics”, Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 161 (1973).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-15T07:01:07 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.793177 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Rabin Banerjee and Bibhas Ranjan Majhi",
"submitter": "Bibhas Majhi Ranjan",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2220"
} |
0805.2255 | # Cosmological evolution of interacting phantom (quintessence) model in Loop
Quantum Gravity
Puxun Wu 1,2111wpx0227@gmail.com and Shuang Nan Zhang 1,3,4 1Department of
Physics and Tsinghua Center for Astrophysics, Tsinghua University, Beijing
100084, China
2School of Sciences and Institute of Math-Physics, Central South University of
Forestry and Technology, Changsha, Hunan 410004, China
3 Key Laboratory of Particle Astrophysics, Institute of High Energy Physics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 918-3, Beijing 100049, China
4 Physics Department, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL
35899, USA
###### Abstract
The dynamics of interacting dark energy model in loop quantum cosmology (LQC)
is studied in this paper. The dark energy has a constant equation of state
$w_{x}$ and interacts with dark matter through a form
$3cH(\rho_{x}+\rho_{m})$. We find for quintessence model ($w_{x}>-1$) the
cosmological evolution in LQC is the same as that in classical Einstein
cosmology; whereas for phantom dark energy ($w_{x}<-1$), although there are
the same critical points in LQC and classical Einstein cosmology, loop quantum
effect reduces significantly the parameter spacetime ($c,w_{x}$) required by
stability. If parameters $c$ and $w_{x}$ satisfy the conditions that the
critical points are existent and stable, the universe will enter an era
dominated by dark energy and dark matter with a constant energy ratio between
them, and accelerate forever; otherwise it will enter an oscillatory regime.
Comparing our results with the observations we find at $1\sigma$ confidence
level the universe will accelerate forever.
###### pacs:
98.80.Cq
## I Introduction
Many cosmological observations show that our universe is undergoing an
accelerating expansion and now mainly consists of two dark components: dark
matter and dark energy. The dark matter is a clumpy component that traces the
baryonic matter and accounts for about $23\%$ of present total cosmic energy;
the dark energy is an exotic energy with negative pressure and accounts for
about $72\%$ of total cosmic energy today. The simplest candidate of dark
energy is the cosmological constant Constant , however it suffers from two
problems. One is the cosmological constant problem: why is the inferred value
of cosmological constant so tiny (120 orders of magnitude lower) compared to
the typical vacuum energy values predicted by the quantum field theory? The
other is the coincidence problem: why is the dark energy density comparable to
the matter density right now? Therefore a dynamical scalar field: quintessence
Quint is proposed as an alternative of dark energy, but it can not explain
the region of the equation of state less than $-1$, which is favored by
observations Nesseris . Later Caldwell Cald proposed a phantom field to
explain the present cosmic accelerating expansion. This field possesses of a
negative kinetic energy and so has a super negative equation of state. In the
Einstein gravity it is found that if the universe is dominated by the phantom
energy, it will end with a big rip, i.e., a future singularity Cald2 . Many
works have been done trying to avoid this singularity McInne . There are many
other scalar field models: such as quintom Quintom and hessence Hessence .
However these scale field dark energy models still suffer from the coincidence
problem. A possible alleviation for this problem is to assume the existence of
an interaction between dark matter and dark energy Chimento2003 .
Recent investigations have shown that there are some new nice features
appearing in Loop Quantum Cosmology (LQC) (see LQC ; LQC2 for recent
reviews), such as: easier inflation Easy and correspondence between LQC and
braneworld cosmology Copeland2006 . The LQC is the application in the
cosmology context of the Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) (see LQG for recent
reviews), which is a theory trying to quantize the gravity with a non-
perturbative and background-independent method. Due to the loop quantum effect
the standard Friedmann equation can be modified by adding a correction term
LQC2 ; Fried1 ; Fried2 ; Fried3 ,
$\displaystyle
H^{2}=\frac{1}{3}\rho\bigg{(}1-\frac{\rho}{\rho_{c}}\bigg{)}\;,$ (1)
where $H$ is the Hubble parameter, $8\pi G\equiv 1$, $\rho$ is the total
cosmic energy density,
$\rho_{c}\equiv\frac{\sqrt{3}}{16\pi^{2}\gamma^{3}G^{2}\hbar}$ denotes the
critical loop quantum density and $\gamma$ is the dimensionless Barbero-
Immirzi parameter (it is suggested that $\gamma=0.2375$ by the black hole
thermodynamics in LQG Ashtekar ). Since this modified equation is correct
under the condition that the quantum state is semiclassical, this condition is
assumed to be satisfied forever in this paper. In addition we assume the
quantum correlations do not build up during long-term evolution of cosmology,
otherwise there are additional correction terms from LQC which become
important Bojowald2008 . The correction term appearing in Eq. (1) essentially
encodes the discrete quantum geometric nature of spacetime. When this
correction term becomes dominant, the universe begins to bounce and then
expands backwards. By studying the early universe inflation and the fate of
future singularity in LQC, it is found that the big bang singularity, the big
rip and other future singularities can be avoided LQC2 ; Fried1 ; Fried2 ;
Samart . Recently Samart and Gumjudpai Samart , Wei and Zhang Hao studied the
dynamics of phantom, quintom and hessence dark energy models in LQC, and found
the results are different from that obtained in classical Einstein cosmology.
In this paper we will investigate the evolution of our universe dominated by a
scalar field in LQC, which has constant equation of state and interacts with
dark matter, and then investigate whether there are some interesting features
arising from the loop quantum gravity effect.
## II The interacting model
We consider a spatially flat universe in which there are only dark matter and
dark energy with a constant equation of state $w_{x}$. Apparently $w_{x}>-1$
corresponds a quintessence model and $w_{x}<-1$ is a phantom case. In addition
we assume that between the dark matter and dark energy there is an interaction
term $\Gamma$. Thus the conservation equations for dark matter and dark energy
can be expressed as
$\displaystyle\dot{\rho}_{x}+3H(1+w_{x})\rho_{x}=-\Gamma\;,$ (2)
$\displaystyle\dot{\rho}_{m}+3H\rho_{m}=\Gamma\;,$ (3)
where $\rho_{x}$ and $\rho_{m}$ correspond to the energy densities of dark
energy and dark matter respectively, and a dot denotes the derivative with
respect to cosmic time $t$. The interacting term $\Gamma$ is assumed to be
$\Gamma=3Hc(\rho_{x}+\rho_{m})$, where $c$ is a coupling constant denoting the
transfer strength. A positive $c$ corresponds to energy transferred from dark
energy to dark matter and the other way around for a negative one. In this
paper we constrain our discussion in the case of $c>0$. This type of
interaction, motivated by analogy with dissipation of cosmological fluids, has
been introduced to solve the coincidence problem Chimento2003 , and has been
studied in the context of quintessence Zimdahl , phantom Guo and the
(generalized) Chaplygin gas model Zhang . In addition the observational
constraints for this type interaction dark energy model have been studied in
Refs. Olivares ; Wang .
In LQC, using the conservation equation of cosmic total energy
$\dot{\rho}+3H\left(\rho+p\right)=0$, where $\rho=\rho_{x}+\rho_{m}$, one can
easily obtain the effective modified Raychaudhuri equation
$\displaystyle\dot{H}=-\frac{~{}1}{~{}2}\left(\rho+p\right)\left(1-2\frac{\rho}{\rho_{\rm
c}}\right),$ (4)
where $p$ is the total pressure ($p=w_{x}\rho_{x}$ in this paper).
To analyze the dynamical system, we set
$\displaystyle N=\ln a,\qquad u=\frac{\rho_{x}}{3H^{2}},\qquad
v=\frac{\rho_{m}}{3H^{2}},$ (5)
where $a_{0}=1$ is assumed. Using Eqs.(2, 3, 4), one can obtain
$\displaystyle
u^{\prime}=-3u(1+w_{x})-3c(u+v)+3u(u+w_{x}u+v)\big{(}-1+\frac{2}{u+v}\big{)}\;,$
(6) $\displaystyle
v^{\prime}=-3v+3c(u+v)+3v(u+w_{x}u+v)\big{(}-1+\frac{2}{u+v}\big{)}\;,$ (7)
where the prime denotes a derivative with respect to $N$. As discussed in
Refs. Chimento2003 ; Guo ; Olivares this interacting model can solve, or at
least ameliorate the coincidence problem in classical Einstein cosmological
since in the dynamical system there is a late time attractor solution with a
constant energy ratio between dark energy and dark matter. Therefore,
regardless the initial conditions, the universe evolves to a final state
characterized by a constant dark matter to dark energy ratio. Here we will
discuss in LQC whether the dynamics system of interacting model exists the
attractor solution, and then study the cosmic evolutions within different
conditions. In order to obtain the possible attractor for the system given by
Eqs. (6, 7), we should firstly solve these equations with $u^{\prime}=0$ and
$v^{\prime}=0$ to get the critical points:
$\displaystyle
Point\;A:u_{c}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+\frac{4c}{w_{x}}},\qquad
v_{c}=1-u_{c}.$ (8) $\displaystyle
Point\;B:u_{c}=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+\frac{4c}{w_{x}}},\qquad
v_{c}=1-u_{c}\;.$ (9)
Both two critical points correspond to the era dominated by dark matter and
dark energy with a constant energy ratio between them and exist for
$c\leq\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$. Apparently these critical points are the same as that
obtained in classical Einstein cosmology Olivares . If the critical point is
stable, it is a late time attractor; otherwise the solution is oscillatory. In
order to investigate the stability of the critical point, we linearize the
system near the critical point and arrive at
$\displaystyle\delta u^{\prime}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\bigg{[}3c+3(-1+2u_{c}+v_{c})+3w_{x}+6w_{x}u_{c}\bigg{(}1-\frac{u_{c}+2v_{c}}{(u_{c}+v_{c})^{2}}\bigg{)}\bigg{]}\delta
u$ (10)
$\displaystyle-\bigg{[}3(c+u_{c})+\frac{6w_{x}u_{c}^{2}}{(u_{c}+v_{c})^{2}}\bigg{]}\delta
v$ $\displaystyle\delta v^{\prime}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\bigg{[}3c+3(1+w_{x})(-v_{c}+\frac{2v_{c}}{u_{c}+v_{c}})-6\frac{v_{c}(u_{c}+w_{x}u_{c}+v_{c})}{(u_{c}+v_{c})^{2}}\bigg{]}\delta
u$ (11)
$\displaystyle-\bigg{[}3+3c-3(1+w_{x})u_{c}-6v_{c}+\frac{6w_{x}u_{c}^{2}}{(u_{c}+v_{c})^{2}}\bigg{]}\delta
v$
Apparently there are two eigenvalues of the coefficient matrix of the above
equations. If the real parts of two eigenvalues for a critical point are all
negative, this critical point is stable and is an attractor; otherwise it is
unstable and thus oscillatory. We find the point B is always unstable, however
the point A is an attractor if the equation of state for dark energy $w_{x}$
and the coupling factor $c$ satisfy the conditions $\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}\leq
c\leq\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$ and $w_{x}>-2$. Comparing our results with that
obtained in Einstein cosmology where point A is stable only under condition
$c\leq\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$ Olivares , we find that for quintessence dark energy
$w_{x}>-1$ the results in LQC are the same as that in Einstein cosmology if a
positive $c$ is considered since $\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}<0$. However for
phantom dark energy $w_{x}<-1$ the conclusions seem to be different: in region
$c<\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}$ or $w_{x}<-2$, the point A is stable in Einstein
cosmology, but it is unstable in LQC, that is, the quantum correction effect
will break the stability of point A if the interaction factor $c$ is smaller
than $\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}$ or the equation of state for phantom is less than
$-2$. In Fig. (1) we show the stability regions of $(c,w_{x})$ parameter
space. Regions I$+$II are allowed for Einstein cosmology; however in LQC only
region II is allowed to obtain a stable solution.
Since in LQC the interacting quintessence model has the same dynamics as that
in Einstein cosmology, thereafter we will only discuss the case of phantom
$w_{x}<-1$. In Figs. (2, 3), we plot the numerical results for $c$ and $w_{x}$
satisfying the conditions $\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}\leq c\leq\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$
and $w_{x}>-2$. Fig. 2 shows the evolutionary properties of the universe
controlled by the interacting phantom energy with $w=-1.2$, $c=0.2$ and
different initial conditions. Apparently the trajectories converge to the same
final state determined by parameter $c$ and $w_{x}$. Since in the final state
$\Omega_{x}=u_{c}$ and $\Omega_{m}=1-u_{c}$, our universe will contain both
dark matter and phantom energy, and the energy ratio between them approaches a
constant. Fig. (3) shows the evolutionary curve of the equation of state for
total cosmic energy $w=p_{x}/(\rho_{x}+\rho_{m})$ with $w_{x}=-1.2$ and
$c=0.2$, we find in the final state the equation of state is a constant and
$w>-1$, which means that the total energy density decreases with the cosmic
expansion but the universe accelerates forever. Therefore if
$\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}\leq c\leq\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$ and $w_{x}>-2$, regardless
the initial conditions, the universe will enter a final state with a constant
energy ratio between dark energy and dark matter and accelerate forever.
In the following we will give the numerical results for the cases
$c<\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}$, $w_{x}<-2$ and $c>\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$ according to
the Eqs. (2, 3, 4) with $\rho_{c}=1.5$. The cases $c<\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}$
and $w_{x}<-2$ are allowed for the stable solution in classical Einstein
cosmology but ruled out by loop quantum effect. In Figs. (4, 5) we plot the
evolutionary curves of $H(t)$ and $\rho(t)$ for the case
$c<\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}$ with $w_{x}=-1.2$ and $c=0.1$. In Figs (6, 7) we
give the results for the case $w_{x}<-2$ with $w_{x}=-2.5$ and $c=0.25$. It is
easy to find from these figures that at beginning the phantom energy density
increases with time, which then leads to the increase of total cosmic energy
density. When the total energy density equals to $\rho_{c}/2$, $H$ takes the
maximum value. When $\rho$ reaches its maximum value $\rho_{max}\sim\rho_{c}$,
$H=0$ and then the universe undergos contraction until bounce. Therefore the
universe will oscillate forever.
Figs (8, 9) show the results for the case $c>\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$ with
$w_{x}=-1.2$ and $c=0.35$ which corresponds to the case that the critical
points do not exist. Comparing these figures with Figs. (4, 5, 6, 7), we find,
although the universe finally also enters an oscillating regime, the process
is different from that obtained with the $c<\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}$ or
$w_{x}<-2$. It is found that in this case the energy densities of dark energy
and dark matter have the same evolution with time, and the $H$ changes from
positive to negative (or inverse) when $\rho=0$ or $\rho\approx\rho_{c}$,
while in case $c<\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}$ or $w_{x}<-2$, $H$ changes from
positive to negative (or inverse) only at $\rho\approx\rho_{c}$
## III Conclusion
In this paper the cosmological evolution with the interacting phantom or
quintessence dark energy in loop quantum cosmology is studied. We consider the
case of dark energy with a constant equation of state $w_{x}$ and the
interaction term with the form $\Gamma=3Hc(\rho_{x}+\rho_{m})$. It is found
that in LQC the dynamic of interacting quintessence model is the same as that
obtained in classical Einstein cosmological; whereas for interacting phantom
model, the loop quantum effect reduces significantly the parameter space, in
which the attractor solution exists. In LQC we obtain the critical point is
existent and stable under the conditions $\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}\leq
c\leq\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$ and $w_{x}>-2$; however in classical Einstein cosmology
only the condition $c\leq\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$ is required. If the coupling
parameter $c$ satisfies the stable and existent conditions for stable tracking
solution, our universe will enter an ere dominated by both dark energy and
dark matter with a constant energy ratio between them, and accelerate forever,
although the total energy density decreases with cosmic expansion, otherwise
the universe will enter an oscillatory regime.
Recently using the WMAP3 WMAP3 data Olivares et al. Olivares obtained that
at $1\sigma$ confidence level $c\leq 0.0023$. More recently in Ref. Wang by
combining the Gold Sne Ia, BAO and CMB data the authors found that at
$1\sigma$ confidence level $-0.99<w<-0.83$ and $c=0.0057_{-0.0026}^{+0.0030}$,
which show that at $1\sigma$ confidence level our universe will enter a final
stable state and can not oscillate. Letting $c=0.0057$ we find in LQC if
$-1.006\leq w<-1$ the universe with an interaction between dark matter and
dark energy will accelerate forever; whereas if $w<-1.006$ it will enter an
oscillatory regime. Therefore it is clear that at $2\sigma$ confidence level
the current observations seem to be unable to predict the late time evolution
of our universe with the interacting dark energy in LQC .
###### Acknowledgements.
We are grateful to Professor Hongwei Yu for helpful discussions. P. Wu is
partially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under
Grant No. 10705055, the Youth Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial
Education Department under Grant No. 07B085, and the Hunan Provincial Natural
Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 08JJ4001. S. N. Zhang is supported
in part by the Ministry of Education of China, Directional Research Project of
the Chinese Academy of Sciences under project No. KJCX2-YW-T03 and by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China under project Nos. 10521001,
10733010 and 10725313.
## References
* (1) S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989); V. Sahni and A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phy. D. 9, 373 (2000); P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003); T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. 380, 235 (2003).
* (2) C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B 302, 668 (1988); B. Ratra and P. E. J. Peebles, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3406 (1988); R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582 (1998).
* (3) S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043531 (2004); R. Lazkoz, S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 0511, 010 (2005); U. Alam, V. Sahni, T. D. Saini and A. A. Starobinsky, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 354, 275 (2004);Y. Wang and P. Mukherjee, Astrophys. J. 606, 654 (2004);D. Huterer and A. Cooray, Phys. Rev. D 71, 023506 (2005); R. A. Daly and S. G. Djorgovski, Astrophys. J. 597, 9 (2003).
* (4) R. R. Caldwell, Phys. Lett. B 545, 23 (2002);
* (5) R. R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski, and N. N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 071301 (2003); S. Nesseris and L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 70, 123529 (2004). S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 571, 1 (2003); S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Lett. B 562, 147 (2003); S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 70, 103522 (2004); S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov, and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 71, 063004 (2005); P. Wu and H. Yu, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05, 008 (2006);
* (6) S.M. Carroll, M. Hoffman, M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D 68, 023509 (2003); J. Cline, S. Jeon, G. Moore, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043543 (2004); B. McInnes, J. High Energy Phys. 0208, 029 (2002); V. Sahni, Y. Shtanov, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 0311, 014 (2003); P.F. Gonzalez-Diaz, Phys. Rev. D 68, 021303 (2003); M. Bouhmadi-Lopez, J.A. Jimenez Madrid, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 0505, 005 (2005). E. Elizalde, S. Nojiri, S.D. Odintsov, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043539 (2004). P. Wu and H. Yu, Nucl. Phys. B 727, 355 (2005).
* (7) B. Feng, X. Wang and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 607, 35 (2005); B. Feng, M. Li, Y. Piao and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 634, 101 (2006); Z. Guo, Y. Piao, X. Zhang and Y. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 608, 177 (2005); P. Wu and H. Yu, Int. J. Mod. Phy. D 14, 1873 (2005); Z. Guo, Y. Piao, X. Zhang and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 74, 127304 (2006); R. Lazkoz, G. Leon, I. Quiros, Phys. Lett. B 649, 103 (2007); R. Lazkoz, G. Leon, Phys. Lett. B 638, 303 (2006); Y. Cai, T. Qiu, Y. Piao, M. Li and X. Zhang, J. High Energy Phys. 0710, 071 (2007); Y. Cai, M. Li, J. Lu, Y. Piao, T. Qiu and X. Zhang, arXiv:hep-th/0701016[astro-ph]; Y. Cai, H. Li, Y. Piao and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B 646, 141 (2007); G. Zhao, J. Xia, M. Li, B. Feng and X. Zhang, Phys.Rev. D 72, 123515 (2005); X. Zhang and T. Qiu, Phys.Lett. B 642, 187 (2006). Setare M R, 2006 Phys. Lett. B 641 130
* (8) H. Wei, R. G. Cai and D. F. Zeng, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 3189 (2005); H. Wei and R. G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 72, 123507 (2005); M. Alimohammadi and H. Mohseni Sadjadi, Phys. Rev. D 73, 083527 (2006); W. Zhao and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 73, 123509 (2006); H. Wei, N. N. Tang and S. N. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 75, 043009 (2007).
* (9) L. P. Chimento, A. S. Jakubi, D. Pavon and W. Zimdahl, Phys. Rev. D 67, 083513 (2003); L. P. Chimento and D. Pavon, Phys. Rev. D 73, 063511 (2006).
* (10) M. Bojowald, Living Rev. Rel. 8, 11 (2005); M. Bojowald, gr-qc/0505057; A. Ashtekar, M. Bojowald and J. Lewandowski, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.7, 233 (2003); A. Ashtekar, gr-qc/0702030;
* (11) A. Ashtekar, AIP Conf. Proc. 861, 3 (2006).
* (12) M. Bojowald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 261301 (2002); M. Bojowald and K. Vandersloot, Phys. Rev. D 67, 124023 (2003); M. Bojowald, J. E. Lidsey, D. J. Mulryne, P. Singh and R. Tavakol, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043530 (2004); S. Tsujikawa, P. Singh and R. Maartens, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 5767 (2004); J. E. Lidsey, D. J. Mulryne, N. J. Nunes and R. Tavakol, Phys. Rev. D 70, 063521 (2004); D. J. Mulryne, N. J. Nunes, R. Tavakol and J. E. Lidsey, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 20, 2347 (2005); N. J. Nunes, Phys. Rev. D 72, 103510 (2005).
* (13) E. J. Copeland, J. E. Lidsey and S. Mizuno, Phys. Rev. D 73, 043503 (2006).
* (14) C. Rovelli, Living Rev. Rel. 1, 1 (1998); T. Thiemann, Lect. Notes Phys. 631, 41 (2003); A. Corichi, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 24, 1 (2005); A. Perez, gr-qc/0409061; A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, R53 (2004); A. Ashtekar, arXiv:0705.2222; C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004); A. Ashtekar, New J. Phys. 7, 198 (2005); T. Thiemann, hep-th/0608210.
* (15) A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 74, 084003 (2006).
* (16) M. Sami, P. Singh and S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D 74, 043514 (2006); T. Naskar and J. Ward, arXiv:0704.3606 [gr-qc].
* (17) P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 73, 063508 (2006); X. Zhang and Y. Ling, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 0708, 012 (2007).
* (18) A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, A. Corichi and K. Krasnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 904 (1998); M. Domagala and J. Lewandowski, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 5233 (2004); K. A. Meissner, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 5245 (2004).
* (19) M. Bojowald, arXiv: 0801.4001[ar-qc].
* (20) D. Samart and Burin Gumjudpai, Phys. Rev. D 76, 043514 (2007). Gumjudpai B, 2007 Preprint 0706.3467
* (21) H. Wei and S. N. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 76, 063005 (2007).
* (22) W. Zimdahl, D. Pavon and L. P. Chimento, Phys. Lett. B 521, 133 (2001).
* (23) Z. K. Guo, R. G. Cai and Y. Z. Zhang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05, 002 (2005); Z. K. Guo and Y. Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 71, 023501 (2005). Szydlowski M, Stachowiak T and Wojtak R, 2006 Phys. Rev. D 73 063516
* (24) H. Zhang and Z. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 73, 043518 (2006); P. Wu and H. Yu, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 4661 (2007).
* (25) J. He and B. Wang, arXiv:0801.4233v1 [astro-ph].
* (26) G. Olivares, F. Atrio-Barandela and D. Pavon, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063513 (2008).
* (27) D. N. Spergel, et al., Astrophys. J. Supp. 148, 175 (2003).
Figure 1: The stable regions of ($w_{x}$, $c$) parameter space. In the region
II, critical point A is a late time attractor in LQC. In Einstein cosmology
critical point A is a late time attractor in the region I+II. III represents
the region of the solution without physical meaning. Figure 2: The phase
diagram of the interacting phantom dark energy in LQC with $w_{x}=-1.2$ and
$c=0.2$. Figure 3: The evolution of $w$ for total cosmic energy with
$w_{x}=-1.2$ and $c=0.2$. Figure 4: The evolution of $H$ with time under the
condition of $c<\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}$. Parameters are set as $w=-1.2$,
$c=0.1$ and $\rho_{c}=1.5$. Figure 5: The evolution of cosmic energy density
with time under the condition of $c<\frac{1+w_{x}}{w_{x}}$. The solid, dashed
and dotted curves correspond to $\rho_{x}+\rho_{m}$, $\rho_{x}$ and $\rho_{m}$
respectively. Parameters are set as $w=-1.2$, $c=0.1$ and $\rho_{c}=1.5$.
Obviously $\rho_{x}$ triggers the recollapses, while $\rho_{m}$ triggers the
bounces. Figure 6: The evolution of $H$ with time under the condition of
$w_{x}<-2$. Parameters are set as $w=-2.5$, $c=0.25$ and $\rho_{c}=1.5$.
Figure 7: The evolution of cosmic energy density with time under the
condition of $c>\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$. The solid, dashed and dotted curves
correspond to $\rho_{x}+\rho_{m}$, $\rho_{x}$ and $\rho_{m}$ respectively.
Parameters are set as $w=-2.5$, $c=0.25$ and $\rho_{c}=1.5$. Figure 8: The
evolution of $H$ with time under the condition of $c>\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$.
Parameters are set as $w=-1.2$, $c=0.35$ and $\rho_{c}=1.5$. Figure 9: The
evolution of cosmic energy density with time under the condition of
$c>\frac{-w_{x}}{4}$. The solid, dashed and dotted curves correspond to
$\rho_{x}+\rho_{m}$, $\rho_{x}$ and $\rho_{m}$ respectively. Parameters are
set as $w=-1.2$, $c=0.35$ and $\rho_{c}=1.5$.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-15T10:46:26 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.798353 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Puxun Wu and Shuang Nan Zhang",
"submitter": "Puxun Wu",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2255"
} |
0805.2262 | # Search for the decay $K_{S}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$
F. Archilli for KLOE collaboration111 F. Ambrosino, A. Antonelli, M.
Antonelli, F. Archilli, P. Beltrame, G. Bencivenni, S. Bertolucci, C. Bini, C.
Bloise, S. Bocchetta, F. Bossi, P. Branchini, P. Campana, G. Capon, T.
Capussela, F. Ceradini, F. Cesario, P. Ciambrone, F. Crucianelli, E. De Lucia,
A. De Santis, P. De Simone, G. De Zorzi, A. Denig, A. Di Domenico, C. Di
Donato, B. Di Micco, M. Dreucci, G. Felici, M. L. Ferrer, S. Fiore, P.
Franzini, C. Gatti, P. Gauzzi, S. Giovannella, E. Graziani, W. Kluge, V.
Kulikov, G. Lanfranchi, J. Lee-Franzini, D. Leone, M. Martini, P. Massarotti,
S. Meola, S. Miscetti, M. Moulson, S. Müller, F. Murtas, M. Napolitano, F.
Nguyen, M. Palutan, E. Pasqualucci, A. Passeri, V. Patera, F. Perfetto, P.
Santangelo, B. Sciascia, A. Sciubba, A. Sibidanov, T. Spadaro, M. Testa, L.
Tortora, P. Valente, G. Venanzoni, R.Versaci
We present results of a direct search for the decay $K_{S}\rightarrow
e^{+}e^{-}$ with the KLOE detector, obtained with a sample of
$e^{+}e^{-}\to\phi\to\mbox{$K_{S}$}\mbox{$K_{L}$}$ events produced at DAΦNE,
the Frascati $\phi$–factory, for an integrated luminosity of 1.9
$\rm\,fb^{-1}$. The Standard Model prediction for this decay is
$\mathrm{BR}(K_{S}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-})=2\times 10^{-14}$. The search has
been performed by tagging the $K_{S}$ decays with simultaneous detection of a
$K_{L}$ interaction in the calorimeter. Background rejection has been
optimized by using both kinematic cuts and particle identification. At the end
of the analysis chain we find $\mathrm{BR}(K_{S}\rightarrow
e^{+}e^{-})<9.3\times 10^{-9}$ at 90% CL, which improves by a factor of $\sim
15$ on the previous best result, obtained by CPLEAR experiment.
## 1 Introduction
The decay $K_{S}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$, like the decay $K_{L}\rightarrow
e^{+}e^{-}$ or $K_{L}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$, is a flavour-changing
neutral-current process, suppressed in the Standard Model and dominated by the
two-photon intermediate state $\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$. For both $K_{S}$ and$K_{L}$,
the $e^{+}e^{-}$ channel is much more suppressed than the $\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ one
(by a factor of $\sim 250$) because of the $e-\mu$ mass difference. The
diagram corresponding to the process
$\mbox{$K_{S}$}\rightarrow\gamma^{*}\gamma^{*}\rightarrow\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ is
shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1: Long distance contribution to
$\mbox{$K_{S}$}\rightarrow\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ process, mediated by two-photon
rescattering.
Using Chiral Perturbation Theory ($\chi$pT) to order $\mathcal{O}(p^{4})$, the
Standard Model prediction BR$(K_{S}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-})$ is evaluated to be
$\sim 2\times 10^{-14}$. A value significantly higher than expected would
point to new physics. The best experimental limit for $BR(K_{S}\rightarrow
e^{+}e^{-})$ has been measured by CPLEAR $\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$, and it is equal to
$1.4\times 10^{-7}$, at $90\%$ CL. Here we present a new measurement of this
channel, which improves on the previous result by a factor of $\sim 15$.
## 2 Experimental setup
The data were collected with KLOE detector at DAΦNE, the Frascati
$\phi$–factory. DAΦNE is an $e^{+}e^{-}$ collider that operates at a center-
of-mass energy of $\sim 1020{\rm\,M{e\kern-0.70007ptV}}$, the mass of the
$\phi$ meson. $\phi$ mesons decay $\sim 34\%$ of the time into nearly
collinear $K^{0}\bar{K}^{0}$ pairs. Because $J^{PC}(\phi)=1^{--}$, the kaon
pair is in an antisymmetric state, so that the final state is always
$K_{S}$$K_{L}$. Therefore, the detection of a $K_{L}$ signals the presence of
a $K_{S}$ of known momentum and direction, independently of its decay mode.
This technique is called $K_{S}$ tagging. A total of $\sim 4$ billion $\phi$
were produced, yielding $\sim 1.4$ billion of $K_{S}$$K_{L}$ pairs.
The KLOE detector consists of a large cylindrical drift chamber (DC),
surrounded by a lead/scintillating-fiber sampling calorimeter (EMC). A
superconductig coil surrounding the calorimeter provides a $0.52{\rm\,T}$
magnetic field. The drift chamber $\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$, $4{\rm\,m}$ in diameter
and $3.3{\rm\,m}$ long, is made of carbon-fibers/epoxy and filled with a light
gas mixture, $90\%$ He-$10\%$iC4H10. The DC position resolutions are
$\sigma_{xy}\approx 150\mathrm{\mu m}$ and $\sigma_{z}\approx 2{\rm\,mm}$. DC
momentum resolution is $\sigma(p_{\perp})/p_{\perp}\approx 0.4\%$. Vertices
are reconstructed with a spatial resolution of $\sim 3{\rm\,mm}$.
The calorimeter $\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$ is divided into a barrel and two endcaps and
covers $98\%$ of the solid angle. The energy and time resolutions are
$\sigma_{E}/E=5.7\%/\sqrt{E({\rm G{e\kern-0.70007ptV}})}$ and
$\sigma_{t}=57{\rm\,ps}/\sqrt{E({\rm G{e\kern-0.70007ptV}})}\oplus
100{\rm\,ps}$, respectively.
To study the background rejection, a MC sample of $\phi$ decays to all
possible final states has been used, for an integrated luminosity of $\sim
1.9\rm\,fb^{-1}$. A MC sample of $\sim 45000$ signal events has been also
produced, to measure the analysis efficiency.
## 3 Data analysis
The identification of $K_{L}$-interaction in the EMC is used to tag the
presence of $K_{S}$ mesons. The mean decay lenghts of $K_{S}$ and $K_{L}$ are
$\lambda_{S}\sim 0.6{\rm\,cm}$ and $\lambda_{L}\sim 350{\rm\,cm}$,
respectively. About $50\%$ of $K_{L}$’s therefore reach the calorimeter before
decaying. The $K_{L}$ interaction in the calorimeter barrel
($K_{\mathrm{crash}}$) is identified by requiring a cluster of energy greater
than $125{\rm\,M{e\kern-0.70007ptV}}$ not associated with any track, and whose
time corresponds to a velocity $\beta=r_{cl}/ct_{cl}$ compatible with the kaon
velocity in the $\phi$ center of mass, $\beta^{*}\sim 0.216$, after the
residual $\phi$ motion is considered. Cutting at $0.17\leq\beta^{*}\leq 0.28$
we selected $\sim 650$ million $K_{S}$-tagged events ($K_{\mathrm{crash}}$
events in the following), which are used as a starting sample for the
$K_{S}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$ search.
$K_{S}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$ events are selected by requiring the presence of
two tracks of opposite charge with their point of closest approach to the
origin inside a cylinder $4{\rm\,cm}$ in radius and $10{\rm\,cm}$ in length
along the beam line. The track momenta and polar angles must satisfy the
fiducial cuts $120\leq p\leq 350{\rm\,M{e\kern-0.70007ptV}}$ and
$30^{\circ}\leq\theta\leq 150^{\circ}$. The tracks must also reach the EMC
without spiralling, and have an associated cluster. In Fig. 2, the two-track
invariant mass evaluated in electron hypothesis ($M_{ee}$) is shown for both
MC signal and background samples. A preselection cut requiring
$M_{ee}>420{\rm\,M{e\kern-0.70007ptV}}$ has been applied, which rejects most
of $K_{S}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ events, for which $M_{ee}\sim
409{\rm\,M{e\kern-0.70007ptV}}$. The residual background has two main
components: $K_{S}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ events, populating the low
$M_{ee}$ region, and $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ events, spreading
over the whole spectrum. The $K_{S}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ events have such
a wrong reconstructed $M_{ee}$ because of track resolution or one pion
decaying into a muon. The $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ events enter
the preselection because of a machine background cluster, accidentally
satisfying the $K_{\mathrm{crash}}$ algorithm. After preselection we are left
with $\sim 5\times 10^{5}$ events. To have a better separation between signal
and background, a $\chi^{2}$-like variable is defined, collecting informations
from the clusters associated to the candidate electron tracks. Using the MC
signal events we built likelihood functions based on: the sum and the
difference of $\delta t$ for the two tracks, where $\delta t=t_{cl}-L/\beta c$
is evaluated in electron hypothesis; the ratio $E/p$ between the cluster
energy and the track momentum, for both charges; the cluster depth, evaluated
respect to the track, for both charges. In Fig. 2, the scatter plot of
$\chi^{2}$ versus $M_{ee}$ is shown, for MC signal and background sources. The
$\chi^{2}$ spectrum for background is concentrated at higher values respect to
signal, since both $K_{S}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ and
$\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ events have pions in the final state.
A signal box to select the $K_{S}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$ events can be
conveniently defined in the $M_{ee}-\chi^{2}$ plane (see Fig. 2); nevertheless
we investigated some more independent requirements in order to reduce the
background contamination as much as possible before applying the
$M_{ee}-\chi^{2}$ selection.
Charged pions from $K_{S}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ decay have a momentum in
the $K_{S}$ rest frame $p_{\pi}^{\ast}\sim 206{\rm\,M{e\kern-0.70007ptV}}$.
The distribution of track momenta in the $K_{S}$ rest frame, evaluated in the
pion mass hypothesis, is shown in Fig. 2, for MC background and MC signal. For
most of $K_{S}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ decays, at least one pion has well
reconstructed momentum, so that the requirements
$\mbox{min}(p^{\ast}_{\pi}(1),p^{\ast}_{\pi}(2))\geq
220{\rm\,M{e\kern-0.70007ptV}}\quad,\quad
p^{\ast}_{\pi}(1)+p^{\ast}_{\pi}(2)\geq 478{\rm\,M{e\kern-0.70007ptV}}$ (1)
rejects $\sim 99.9\%$ of these events, while retaining $\sim 92\%$ of the
signal.
To reject $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ events we have applied a cut
on the missing momentum, defined as:
$P_{\mathrm{miss}}=\left|\vec{P}_{\phi}-\vec{P}_{L}-\vec{P}_{S}\right|$ (2)
where $\vec{P}_{L,S}$ are the neutral kaon momenta, and $\vec{P}_{\phi}$ is
the $\phi$ momentum. The distribution of $P_{\mathrm{miss}}$ is shown in Fig.
2, for MC background and for MC signal events. We require
$P_{\mathrm{miss}}\leq 40{\rm\,M{e\kern-0.70007ptV}}\,,$ (3)
which rejects almost completely the $3\pi$ background source which is
distributed at high missing momentum.
A signal box is defined in the $M_{ee}-\chi^{2}$ plane as shown Fig. 2. The
$\chi^{2}$ cut for the signal box definition has been chosen to remove all MC
background events: $\chi^{2}<70$. The cut on $M_{ee}$ is practically set by
the $p^{*}_{\pi}$ cut, which rules out all signal events with a radiated
photon with energy greter than $20{\rm\,M{e\kern-0.70007ptV}}$, correspondig
to an invariant mass window: $477<M_{ee}\leq 510{\rm\,M{e\kern-0.70007ptV}}$.
The signal box selection on data gives $N_{obs}=0$. The upper limit at $90\%$
CL on the expected number of signal events is $UL(\mu_{S})=2.3$.
## 4 Results
The total selection efficiency on $K_{S}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$ events is
evaluated by MC, using the following parametrization:
$\epsilon_{sig}=\epsilon(K_{crash})\times\epsilon(sele|K_{crash})\,,$ (4)
where $\epsilon(K_{crash})$ is the tagging efficiency, and
$\epsilon(sele|K_{crash})$ is the signal selection efficiency on the sample of
tagged events. The efficiency evaluation includes contribution from radiative
corrections. The number of $K_{S}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ events
$N_{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}$ counted on the same sample of $K_{S}$ tagged events is
used as normalization, with a similar expression for the efficiency. The upper
limit on BR($K_{S}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}$) is evaluated as follows:
$UL(BR(K_{S}\rightarrow
e^{+}e^{-}))=UL(\mu_{s})\times\mathcal{R}_{tag}\times\frac{\epsilon_{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}(sele|K_{crash})}{\epsilon_{sig}(sele|K_{crash})}\times\frac{BR(K_{S}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-})}{N_{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}},$
where $\mathcal{R}_{tag}$ $\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$ is the tagging efficiency ratio,
corresponding to a small correction due to the $K_{\mathrm{crash}}$ algorithm
dependence on $K_{S}$ decay mode, and it is equal to $0.9634(1)$.Using
$\epsilon_{sig}(sele|K_{crash})=0.465(4)$,
$\epsilon_{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}(sele|K_{crash})=0.6102(5)$ and
$N_{\pi^{+}\pi^{-}}=217,422,768$, we obtain
$UL(BR(K_{S}\rightarrow e^{+}e^{-}(\gamma)))=9.3\times 10^{-9},\;{\rm
at}\;90\%\,{\rm CL}\,.$ (5)
Our measurement improves by a factor of $\sim 15$ on the CPLEAR result
$\\!{}^{{\bf?}}$, for the first time including radiative corrections in the
evaluation of the upper limit.
Figure 2: Top left: $\chi^{2}$ vs $M_{ee}$ distributions for MC signal
(black), MC backgrounds $K_{S}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ and
$\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ (light and dark grey respectively),
$M_{ee}$ distributions for MC signal (black) and MC backgrounds (grey) is
shown in the inset; top right: $p_{\pi}^{\ast}$ distributions for MC signal
(black) and MC background (grey scale); bottom left: $\chi^{2}$ vs
$P_{\mathrm{miss}}$ distributions for MC signal (black) and MC background
(grey scale); bottom right: $\chi^{2}$ vs $M_{ee}$ distributions for MC signal
(grey scale), data ($\blacksquare$), $K_{S}\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$
($\blacktriangledown$) and $\phi\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}$ ($\bigstar$)
after background rejection cuts.
## References
## References
* [1] G. Ecker and A. Pich, Nucl. Phys. B 366 (1991) 189.
* [2] A. Angelopoulos et al., Phys. Lett. B 413 (1997) 232.
* [3] KLOE collaboration, M. Adinolfi et al., Nucl. Istrum. Meth. A 488 (2002) 51.
* [4] KLOE collaboration, M. Adinolfi et al., Nucl. Istrum. Meth. A 482 (2002) 363.
* [5] KLOE collaboration, F. Ambrosino et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 48 (2006) 767
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-15T14:58:36 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.802256 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Flavio Archilli, for KLOE Collaboration",
"submitter": "Flavio Archilli Dr",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2262"
} |
0805.2539 | # A method for the quantitative study of atomic transitions in a magnetic
field based on an atomic vapor cell with L=$\lambda$
Armen Sargsyan, Grant Hakhumyan, Aram Papoyan, David Sarkisyan∗ Institute for
Physical Research, Armenian Academy of Sciences, Ashtarak-0203, Armenia
Aigars Atvars, and Marcis Auzinsh Department of Physics, University of
Latvia, 19 Rainis blvd., Riga, LV-1586 Latvia
###### Abstract
We describe the so-called ”$\lambda$-Zeeman method” to investigate individual
hyperfine transitions between Zeeman sublevels of atoms in an external
magnetic field of 0.1 mT $\div$ 0.25 T. Atoms are confined in a nanocell with
thickness L = $\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the resonant wavelength (794 nm or
780 nm for D1 or D2 line of Rb). Narrow resonances in the transmission
spectrum of the nanocell are split into several components in a magnetic
field; their frequency positions and probabilities depend on the B-field.
Possible applications are described, such as magnetometers with nanometric
spatial resolution and tunable atomic frequency references.
Atomic spectroscopy, Zeeman effect, Nanometric cell, Rb vapor, Magnetic field
###### pacs:
32.70.Jz; 42.62.Fi; 32.10.Fn; 42.50.Hz
It is well known that energy levels of atoms placed in an external magnetic
field undergo frequency shifts and changes in their transition probabilities.
These effects were studied for hyperfine (hf) atomic transitions in the
transmission spectra obtained with an ordinary cm-size cell containing Rb and
Cs vapor was used in Ref1 . However, because of Doppler-broadening (hundreds
of MHz), it was possible to partially separate different hf transitions only
for B $>$ 0.15 T. Note that even for these large B values the lines of 87Rb
and 85Rb are strongly overlapped, and pure isotopes have to be used to avoid
complicated spectra. In order to eliminate the Doppler broadening, the well-
known saturation absorption (SA) technique was implemented to study the Rb hf
transitions Ref2 . However, in this case the complexity of the Zeeman spectra
in a magnetic field arises primarily from the presence of strong crossover
(CO) resonances, which are also split into many components. That is why, as is
mentioned in Ref2 , the SA technique is applicable only for B $<$ 5 mT. The CO
resonances can be eliminated with selective reflection (SR) spectroscopy Ref3
, but to correctly determine of the hf transition position, the spectra must
undergo further non-trivial processing. Another method based on the
fluorescence spectrum emitted from a nanocell at thickness L = $\lambda$/2 was
presented in Ref4 . However, in this case the sub-Doppler spectral line-width
is relatively large ($\sim$ 100 MHz); also the laser power has to be
relatively large to detect a weak fluorescence signal. Coherent population
trapping (CPT) allows one to study the behavior of hf transitions in a
magnetic field with very high accuracy (several kHz) Ref5 , however the
experimental realization is complicated; moreover, measuring hf level shifts
of several GHz for B $\sim$ 0.1 T using CPT is not realistic.
Figure 1: Experimental setup. FI - Faraday isolator, 1 - $\lambda$/4 plate, 2
- lens (F = 35 cm), 3 - ring magnets, 4 - nanocell and the oven, 5 -
photodetectors, DSO-digital storage oscilloscope.
We present a method based on narrow (close to natural linewidth) velocity
selective optical pumping/saturation (VSOP) resonance peaks of reduced
absorption located at the atomic transitions Ref6 . The VSOP peaks appear at
laser intensity $\sim$ 1 mW/cm2 in the transmission spectrum of the nanocell
with atomic vapor column of thickness L = $\lambda$, where $\lambda$ is the
resonant wavelength of the laser radiation (794 nm or 780 nm for Rb D1 or D2
line). At B $>$ 0, the VSOP resonance is split into several Zeeman components,
the number of which depends on the quantum numbers F of the lower and upper
levels. The amplitudes of these peaks and their frequency positions depend
unambiguously on the B value. This so called ”$\lambda$-Zeeman method” (LZM)
allows one to study not only the frequency shift of any individual hf
transition, but also the modification in transition probability in the region
of 0.1 mT - 0.25 T (LZM is expected to be valid up to several T).
Figure 2: a) 87Rb, 85Rb D1 line atomic transitions, $\sigma^{+}$ excitation;
b) Fg = 1 $\rightarrow$ Fe = 1,2 transmission spectra for B = 59 mT (a), 31 mT
(b), 11.5 mT (c), and 0 (d); lower curve is SA spectrum.
Experimental realization of LZM is simple enough (see Fig.1). The circularly
polarized beam of an extended cavity diode laser (ECDL, $\lambda$ = 794 nm, PL
$\sim$ 5 mW, $\gamma_{L}$ $<$ 1 MHz) resonant with the 87Rb D1 transition
frequency, after passing through Faraday isolator, was focused ($\oslash$ 0.5
mm) onto Rb nanocell with a vapor column of thickness L = $\lambda$ at an
angle close to normal. The design of a nanocell is presented in Ref6 . The
source temperature of the atoms of the nanocell was 110 ∘C, corresponding to a
vapor density N $\sim$ $10^{13}$ cm3, but the windows were maintained at a
temperature that was 20 ∘C higher. Part of the laser radiation was diverted to
a cm-size Rb cell to obtain a B = 0 SA spectrum, which served as frequency
reference. The nanocell transmission and SA spectra were detected by
photodetectors and recorded by a digital storage oscilloscope.
Figure 3: Transmission spectra for B = 0.24 T (a), 0.23 T (b), 0.154 T (c),
0.117 T (d) ; lower curve is SA spectrum.
Small longitudinal magnetic fields (B $<$ 25 mT) were applied to the nanocell
by a system of Helmholtz coils (not shown in Fig.1). The B-field strength was
measured by a calibrated Hall gauge. Among the advantages of LZM is the
possibility to apply much stronger magnetic fields using widely available
strong permanent ring magnets (PRM). In spite of the strong inhomogeneity of
the B-field (in our case it can reach 15 mT/mm), the variation of B inside the
atomic vapor column is a few $\mu$T, i.e., by several orders less than the
applied B value because of the small thickness of the nanocell (794 nm). The
allowed transitions between magnetic sublevels of hf states for the 87Rb D1
line in the case of $\sigma^{+}$ (left circular) polarized excitation are
depicted in Fig. 2a (LZM also works well for $\sigma^{-}$ excitation). Fig. 2b
shows the nanocell transmission spectra for the Fg=1 $\rightarrow$ Fe=1,2
transitions at different values of B (the labels denote corresponding
transitions shown in Fig.2a). As it is seen, all the individual Zeeman
transitions are clearly detected. The two transitions Fg=1 $\rightarrow$ Fe=1
(not shown in Fig. 1a) are detectable for B $<$ 12 mT, while at higher B their
probabilities are strongly reduced (this is also confirmed theoretically Ref4
). Note that the absence of CO resonances in transmission spectra is an
important advantage of the nanocell Ref6 .
Figure 4: a) (1) - ratio A(1)/A(3), (2) - ratio A(1)/A(2) versus B; b) (1) -
$\Delta$(1,3), (2)- $\Delta$(1,2) versus B.
Transmission spectra for larger B values are presented in Fig. 3 (also for
Zeeman transitions of the 85Rb D1 line). The strong magnetic field was
produced by two $\oslash$ 30 mm PRMs with $\oslash$ 3 mm holes to allow
radiation to pass placed on opposite sides of the nanocell oven and separated
by a distance that was varied between 35 and 50 mm (see Fig. 1). To control
the magnetic field value, one of the magnets was mounted on a micrometric
translation stage for longitudinal displacement. In particular, the B-field
difference of curves (a) and (b) is obtained by a PRM displacement of 0.67 mm,
corresponding to a rate of 15 mT/mm. The frequency difference between the VSOP
peaks numbered 4 (curves (a), (b)) for this case is 100 MHz. By a 20 $\mu$m
displacement of the PRM it is easy to detect $\sim$ 3 MHz frequency shift of
peak 4. The advantage of submicron-size magnetic field probe can be fully
exploited for the case of larger B-field gradient, as well as after further
optimization of the method (reduction of laser intensity, implementation of
frequency modulation and lock-in detection, etc.). An important advantage of
LZM is that the amplitude of VSOP peaks is linearly proportional to the
corresponding Zeeman transition probability, which offers the possibility to
quantitatively study the modification of individual Zeeman transition
probabilities in a magnetic field. Thus, in weak magnetic fields (B $\sim$ 0),
the probabilities of transitions labeled 1, 2, and 3 compose the ratio 6:3:1,
which varies rapidly as B increases. Fig. 4a presents the amplitude ratio
A(1)/A(3) (curve 1) and A(1)/A(2) (curve 2) as a function of B (hereafter the
dots and solid lines denote experiment and theory, respectively). Fig. 4b
shows the frequency difference $\Delta$(1,3) and $\Delta$(1,2) between
transitions labeled 1 and 3 (curve 1) and 1 and 2 (curve 2) as a function of
B. Obviously, by measuring $\Delta$(1,3) and $\Delta$(1,2) it is possible to
determine the strength of magnetic field, even in the absence of reference
spectra.
Figure 5: a) 87Rb D2 line atomic transitions, $\sigma^{+}$ excitation; b) (1)
- ratio A(7)/A(6), (2) - ratio A(8)/A(6), (3) - ratio A(9)/A(6) versus B.
We also implemented LZM to study transitions Fg=1 $\rightarrow$ Fe=0,1,2,3 of
the 87Rb D2 line ($\lambda$ = 780 nm; all the other experimental parameters
and conditions are the same). The possible Zeeman transitions for $\sigma^{+}$
polarized excitation are depicted in Fig. 5a. Particularly, it was revealed
that for B $>$ 10 mT, also the 87Rb D2, Fg=1 $\rightarrow$ Fe=3 ”forbidden”
transitions (labeled 7,8,9) appear in spectrum, for which new selection rules
with respect to the quantum number F apply. Moreover, for 20 mT $<$ B $<$ 0.2
T the probability of transition 7 exceeds that of 6, the strongest transition
at B = 0. Fig. 5b gives the B-field dependence of amplitude (transition
probability) ratio A(7)/A(6), A(8)/A(6), and A(9)/A(6) (curves 1,2,3). Both in
Fig. 4a and Fig. 5b, there is good agreement between experiment and theory.
The nanocell transmission spectrum for these transitions at B = 0.21 T is
presented in Fig. 6. The two arrows show the positions of the 85Rb Fg=2
$\rightarrow$ Fe=4 Zeeman transitions (theory Ref4 well predicts that their
probabilities have to be small).
Figure 6: Transmission spectrum, B = 0.21 T; upper insets: $\Delta$(7,6)
(left), and $\Delta$(8,7) (right) versus B.
The upper insets show the B-field dependence of $\Delta$(7,6) and
$\Delta$(8,7). We should note that transition 7 is strongly shifted (by 5.6
GHz) from the B = 0 position of the Fg=1 $\rightarrow$ Fe=2 transition. The
latter allows development of a frequency reference based on a nanocell and
PRMs, widely tunable over a range of several GHz by simple displacement of the
magnet. LZT can be successfully implemented also for studies of the D1 and D2
lines of Na, K, Cs, and other atoms.
## Acknowledgements
This work is partially supported by INTAS South-Caucasus Grant 06-1000017-9001
and by SCOPES Grant IB7320-110684/1. We acknowledge support from the ERAF
grant VPD1/ERAF/CFLA/05/APK/2.5.1./000035/018, and A.A acknowledges support
from the ESF project.
E-mail of David Sarkisyan: david@ipr.sci.am.
## References
* (1) P. Tremblay, A. Nichaud, M. Levesque, S. Treriault, M. Breton, J. Beaubien, N. Cyr, Phys. Rev. A 42 (1990).
* (2) M.U. Momeen, G. Rangarajan, P.C. Deshmukh, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 40, 3163 (2007).
* (3) N. Papageorgiou, A. Wies, V. Sautenkov, D. Bloch, M. Ducloy, Appl. Phys. B 59, 123 (1994).
* (4) D. Sarkisyan, A. Papoyan, T. Varzhapetyan, J. Alnis, K. Blush, M. Auzinsh, J. of Opt. A: Pure and Appl. Opt. 6, S142 (2004); D. Sarkisyan, A. Papoyan, T. Varzhapetyan, K. Blush, M. Auzinsh, JOSA B 22, 88 (2005). The relative transition probability and magnetic sublevel energy simulation in the magnetic field is based on the eigenvalue and eigenvector dependence from the magnetic field calculation of the Hamilton matrix for the full hfs manifold.
* (5) R. Wynands, A. Nagel, Appl. Phys. B: Las. Opt. 68, 1 (1999).
* (6) D. Sarkisyan, T. Varzhapetyan, A. Sarkisyan, Yu. Malakyan, A. Papoyan, A. Lezama, D. Bloch, M. Ducloy, Phys. Rev. A 69, 065802 (2004); C. Andreeva, S. Cartaleva, L. Petrov, S.M. Saltiel, D. Sarkisyan, T. Varzhapetyan, D. Bloch, M. Ducloy, ibid. 76, 013837 (2007) and references therein; A. Sargsyan, D. Sarkisyan, A. Papoyan, Y. Pashayan-Leroy, P. Moroshkin, A.Weis, A. Khanbekyan, E. Mariotti, L. Moi, to be published in Laser Phys. (2008).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-16T14:00:33 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.809744 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Armen Sargsyan, Grant Hakhumyan, Aram Papoyan, David Sarkisyan, Aigars\n Atvars, and Marcis Auzinsh",
"submitter": "Yevgenya Pashayan-Leroy T",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2539"
} |
0805.2575 | # A semi-quantitative scattering theory of amorphous materials
Mingliang Zhang zhang@phy.ohiou.edu Yue Pan pan@phy.ohiou.edu F. Inam
inam@phy.ohiou.edu D. A. Drabold drabold@ohio.edu Department of Physics and
Astronomy, Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701
###### Abstract
It is argued that topological disorder in amorphous solids can be described by
local strains related to local reference crystals and local rotations. An
intuitive localization criterion is formulated from this point of view. The
Inverse Participation Ratio and the location of mobility edges in band tails
is directly related to the character of the disorder potential in amorphous
solid, the coordination number, the transition integral and the nodes of wave
functions of the corresponding reference crystal. The dependence of the decay
rate of band tails on temperature and static disorder are derived. Ab initio
simulations on a-Si and experiments on a-Si:H are compared to these
predictions.
mobility edge, decay rate of band tails, IPR, topological disorder, local
rotation
###### pacs:
71.23.An, 71.55.Jv, 61.43. j
Electronic localization induced by diagonal disorder or by structural disorder
has been intensively studied over nearly fifty yearskra . However, key
properties like the energy dependence of the Inverse Participation Ratio
(IPR), the location of the mobility edges and the decay rate of and tails are
expressed in an obscure way, not directly accessible to experiment or
simulationedg . Perturbation theory has been applied to approximate the
electron states of amorphous solids (AS), starting with a crystalline
counterpart as zero order solutionmofe even before Anderson’s classical
workedg . In this Letter we suggest that a local formulation of perturbation
theory is effective for the localized states confined to one distorted region
and for the first time relate important physical quantities such as the decay
rate of band tails and energy dependence of IPR etc. to basic material
properties.
Similar to the theory of elasticitylov , the distorted regions in AS can be
characterized by local strains referring to their local reference crystal
(LRC) and local rotations. By a suitable choice of origin and orientation of
LRC, the atomic displacements of a distorted region of AS relative to its LRC
are small. Thus the relative change in potential energy for each distorted
region in AS is small. Perturbation theory is justified for each distorted
region. The semi-classical approximation (SCA)pipa can further simplify the
calculation of scattering waves caused by a distorted region, since the de
Broglie wavelength for low-lying excitations is of order one bond length
($\approx$2.35 Å in a-Sihar ), a distance much shorter than the characteristic
range in which the random potential fluctuatesori ; yp1 . The motion of
electronic packet under extra force of AS relative to LRC can be described by
the Ehrenfest theorempipa .
We first formulate an intuitive localization criterion for the states confined
to one distorted region. Then the IPR, the position of mobility edge and
Urbach energy are related to the distortion relative to the LRC, the
coordination number and the inter-cell transition integral. The predictions
are consistent with available experiments. We also performed ab initio local
density approximation (LDA)sie and tight binding approximation (TBA)dra ; lud
computations on a-Si to verify our results.
Consider a distorted region $\mathcal{D}$, with linear size $L$. Using the
primitive cell of LRC numbering the atoms in $\mathcal{D}$, the x-component of
extra force suffered by an electron relative to that of LRC is
$F_{x}(\mathbf{r})=\sum_{\mathbf{n}\beta}\frac{\partial^{2}U(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R}_{\mathbf{n}})}{\partial
R_{\mathbf{n}x}\partial R_{\mathbf{n}\beta}}u_{\mathbf{n}\beta}^{s},\text{ \ \
\ }\beta=x,y,z$ (1)
later its characteristic value of is denoted as $F$. $\mathbf{n}$ is lattice
index, $\mathbf{R}_{\mathbf{n}}$ and $u_{\mathbf{n}\beta}^{s}$ are the
position vector and the $\beta$th component of the static displacement of the
atom $\mathbf{n}$ respectively. $U(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R}_{\mathbf{n}})$ is the
potential energy felt by an electron at $\mathbf{r}$ from the atom at
$\mathbf{R}_{\mathbf{n}}$.
A Bloch wave $\psi_{n\mathbf{k}}^{c}$ of LRC passes through $\mathcal{D}$, and
in SCApipa , the change in the $x$ component of the wave vector after
scattering is
$\Delta k_{x}\thicksim\frac{(FL)_{x}}{\nabla_{k_{x}}E_{n\mathbf{k}}}$ (2)
$FL$ measures the magnitude of random potential in $\mathcal{D}$. The phase
shift $\delta_{n\mathbf{k}}$ of state $\psi_{n\mathbf{k}}^{c}$
is determined by the change in momentum and the propagation path of the Bloch
wave
$\delta_{n\mathbf{k}}\thicksim\frac{FL^{2}}{|\nabla_{\mathbf{k}}E_{n\mathbf{k}}|}$
(3)
where $E_{n\mathbf{k}}$ is dispersion relation of the $n$th energy band of the
LRC. $FL^{2}$ is the strength of a potential well (the product of the depth of
potential well and the range of force) in standard scattering theorycal . If
the first coordination shell around an atom is spherically symmetric, the
dispersion relation in TBA iscal
$E_{n\mathbf{k}}\thicksim E_{n0}-zI_{n}\cos k_{x}a\text{ .}$ (4)
Here $E_{n0}$ is the middle of the $n$th band ($k_{x}a=\pi/2$), $z$ is the
coordination number of a cell, $I_{n}$ is the transition integral for the
$n$th band, $a$ is the lattice constant in LRC. For a semi-quantitative
discussion, crude dispersion relation (4) will not invalidate essential
points. If the phase shift $\delta_{n\mathbf{k}}$ of the secondary scattering
waves relative to the primary wave is $\thicksim\pi$, then outside
$\mathcal{D}$, scattering waves will interfere destructively with the primary
Bloch state. No probability amplitude appears outside $\mathcal{D}$. A
localized state is therefore formed inside $\mathcal{D}$ due to the
constructive interference of a Bloch state $\psi_{n\mathbf{k}}^{c}$ and its
secondary scattering waves.
Bloch states of LRC at top of valence and at bottom of the conduction edges
are susceptible to the random potential. The former is shorter wave, sensitive
to details of atomic displacements of a distorted region. The latter is long
wave: a small random potential will easily produce a change in momentum
comparable to $\hbar\mathbf{k}$ itself. In other words, states with small
group velocity are easily localized. The group velocity of an electron in
state $\psi_{n\mathbf{k}}^{c}$ in TBA is
$v_{n\mathbf{k}}^{g}\thicksim\frac{zI_{n}a}{\hbar}\sin k_{x}a$, states near to
bottom ($k_{x}a\thicksim 0$) and states near to top ($k_{x}a\thicksim\pi$ )
have small $v_{n\mathbf{k}}^{g}$. According to Eq.(3), they are more easily
localized than the states in the middle of a band for a given random
potential. For $k$ close to $\frac{\pi}{a}$, with TBA dispersion relation (4),
group velocity of state $\psi_{k}^{v}$ is
$v_{k}^{g}=\frac{Iz}{\hbar}(\frac{E_{0}-E}{Iz})^{1/2}$,
$E_{0}=E_{0}^{V}+zI_{V}$ is the top of the valence band. By Eq. (3), under
TBA, for a valence state $\psi_{k}^{v}$ with energy $E_{k}$, the change in
phase shift with energy is
$\frac{d\delta_{k}}{dE}=\frac{FL^{2}}{a(E_{0}-E_{k})^{3/2}(Iz)^{1/2}}$. For a
given distorted region, Bloch states close to $E_{0}$ will suffer larger phase
shift. They are more readily localized than the states in the middle of the
band. Similar conclusion holds for the Bloch states in the bottom of
conduction band. In Fig. 1 the IPR is plotted against electron energy for a
model of a-Si. Large IPR appears at the edges of a band, in agreement with the
above prediction.
The upper mobility edge of the valence band is the deepest energy level
$E_{\mathbf{k}_{\ast}^{V}}^{V}$that the largest distorted region could
localize, i.e. produce a phase shift $\pi$ for the corresponding Bloch state.
In TBA, this leads to $\sin k_{\ast}^{V}a=\frac{FL^{2}}{zI^{V}a\pi}$. The
energy difference between the top of a band and the mobility edge is
$E_{me}^{V}=z_{V}I^{V}\\{1-[1-(\frac{FL^{2}}{z_{V}I^{V}a\pi})^{2}]^{1/2}\\}\thicksim\frac{(\frac{FL^{2}}{a\pi})^{2}}{z_{V}I^{V}}$,
last $\thicksim$ only holds for $\frac{FL^{2}}{z_{V}I^{V}a\pi}<<1$. It is
obvious that stronger random potential and narrower band lead to a deeper
mobility edge. The lower mobility edge of the conduction band can be obtained
similarly. The energy difference $\Delta_{m}$ between the lower mobility edge
of the conduction band and the upper edge of the valence band is
$\Delta_{m}\thickapprox
G^{C}+[\frac{(\frac{FL^{2}}{a\pi})^{2}}{z_{V}I^{V}}+\frac{(\frac{F_{C}L_{C}^{2}}{a_{C}\pi})^{2}}{z_{C}I^{C}}]$
(5)
where $G^{C}$ is the band gap of LRC. Because the van Hove singularity is
smeared out in AS, gap in amorphous solid is ambiguous. $\Delta_{m}$ can be
defined in a simulation by identifying two edge states.
In the middle of a band $k_{x}a=\frac{\pi}{2}$, the group velocity reaches its
maximum $\frac{zI_{n}a}{\hbar}$. By Eq. (3), to localize the states in the
middle of the $n$th band, we need $\frac{FL}{zI_{n}}\frac{L}{a}\gtrsim\pi$.
States in the middle of a band are most difficult to localize. If those states
are localized, the whole band is localized. A stronger localization condition
is $\Delta k\thicksim k$. In the middle of band
$k_{x}=\frac{\pi}{2}\frac{1}{a}$, by Eq. (2) the change in wave vector is
$\frac{FL}{zI_{n}a}$. It leads to the condition to localize a whole band
$\frac{FL}{zI_{n}}\gtrsim\frac{\pi}{2}$ (smaller than
$\frac{FL}{zI_{n}}\thicksim 6-34$)sri . The deeper localized states in AS are
generated by the deeper Bloch states of LRC, are spread in several distorted
regions. Because current local description only considers the states localized
in one distorted region, we cannot expect a better estimate.
The IPR $I_{j}$ of a localized eigenstate $\psi_{j}$ could be approximated
askra $I_{j}\thicksim\frac{a^{3}}{\xi_{j}^{3}}$, $\xi_{j}$ is the
localization length of $\psi_{j}$. If a Bloch wave $\psi_{n\mathbf{k}}^{c}$
suffers a phase shift $\pi$ by some distorted region to produce $\psi_{j}$, it
is localized in range $\xi_{j}:$ $\xi_{j}\Delta k\thicksim\pi$. The change in
wave vector is
$\Delta\mathbf{k}\thicksim\frac{FL}{\nabla_{\mathbf{k}}E_{\mathbf{k}}}$,
$\xi_{j}\thicksim\frac{\pi}{\Delta
k}=\frac{\pi\nabla_{k}E_{k}}{FL}\thicksim\frac{\pi zI_{n}a\sin ka}{FL}$ (6)
($\thicksim$ is obtained under TBA). According to Eq.(1),
$F\thicksim\epsilon$, $\epsilon$ is the relative change in lattice constant.
To minimize the free energy, a denser region with shorter bonds and small
angles will gradually decay away toward the mean density rather than exhibit
an abrupt transit to a diluter region and vice versa. Therefore the size $L$
of a denser distorted region is proportional to $\epsilon$. Eq. (6) indicates
$\xi\thicksim\frac{a}{\epsilon^{2}}$mofe . The advantage of Eq.(6) is that it
reveals the role of the coordination number $z$ and the transition integral
$I$. The dependence on $\mathbf{k}$ (wave length and propagation direction of
Bloch wave) is also displayed in Eq. (6): close to band edge of LRC,
$ka\thicksim 0$ or $\frac{\pi}{a}$, the localization length is small and IPR
is high (see Fig. 1).
Making use of Eqs. (6) and (4),
$\xi_{j}(E_{k^{j}})=\frac{\pi
zI_{V}a}{FL}[1-(\frac{E_{k^{j}}-b_{me}^{V}+zI_{V}-E_{me}^{V}}{I_{V}z})^{2}]^{1/2}$
(7)
$b_{me}^{V}$ is the location of the mobility edge of valence band. When we
approach $b_{me}^{V}$ from the upper side with higher energy, it is easy to
find $\xi_{j}\rightarrow L$ from Eq. (7), localization length $\xi$ approach
to the size $L$ of whole sample as $(E_{k^{j}}-b_{me}^{V})^{\alpha},$ where
$\frac{1}{2}<\alpha<1,$ it is close the lower bound of previous worksmcon .
The trend expressed by (7) is consistent with a simulation based upon time-
dependent Schrodinger equationrae .
For a localized state derived from Bloch wave $\psi_{k^{j}}^{c}$ in LRC, the
energy dependence of IPR can be found
$I(E_{k^{j}})\thicksim\frac{(FL/\pi
zI_{V})^{3}}{[1-(\frac{E_{k^{j}}-E_{0}^{V}}{zI_{V}})^{2}]^{3/2}}$ (8)
This is a new prediction of our work. Eqs. (7) and (8) are not quite satisfied
because $E_{k^{j}}$ is the corresponding energy level in LRC, not the
eigenvalue of the localized state $\psi_{j}^{a}$. It can be cured by taking
into account energy level shift caused by the disorder in AS relative to LRC.
Fig. 1 shows IPR vs. eigenvalues in a 512-atom model of a-Siori . As expected
from Eq. (8), IPR decreases from highest values at band edges to small values
in the band interior. The functional form (8) fits the simulation rather well.
Figure 1: IPR of 512-atom model of a-Si, dots from ab initio calculationsie ,
dashed line and solid line are from two parameter ($FL$ and $zI$) least
squares fit and eye guide fit with Eq.(8).
According to Eq. (8), the least squares fitting parameters in Fig. 1 are
$(FL)_{V}=1.256$eV, $(zI)_{V}=3.185$eV, $E_{0}^{V}=-7.390$eV,
$(FL)_{C}=1.437$eV, $(zI)_{C}=3.502$eV, $E_{0}^{C}=-1.080$eV. The width of
valence band of c-Si is about 2.7eV, the width of conduction band is about
2.3eVcol . The fit parameters are reasonable-something like what we expect for
Si. Gap for c-Si is 1.12eVcol , using above parameters with help of Eq.(5),
the distance between mobility edges is 2.205eV. Result from LRC model falls in
the range 1.58-2.43 eV of the observed optical gapden ; kod ; hag .
In a distorted region of a-Si where bonds are shortened, valence states have
more amplitude in the middle of bonds. Random potential $V_{a}-V_{c}$ (the
difference between the amorphous and crystalline potentials) is important only
in the middle of bonds rather than close to the core of atoms. Electrons will
feel $V_{a}-V_{c}$ more than a region where bonds more close normal. Valence
tail states are easily localized in a distorted region with shorter bondsori ;
jj . On the other hand, in a distorted region with longer bonds, the
conduction levels are lowered and the probability of conduction electrons
staying in the middle of nearest neighbor atoms becomes larger than a region
where bonds are closer to the mean. Conduction tail states are more readily
localized in a distorted region with longer bonds and large anglesori ; jj .
The effect of three- and four- point correlation on the shape of band tail is
subtle: localized states adhere to 1D filaments in AS networkyp1 . In the
spirit of scattering theory of line shapesto , the decay rate $E_{U}^{V(C)}$
of valence (conduction) tail can be derived from the relative shift of energy
levels of LRC. Suppose $\Delta b$ is the distribution width of bond length
(BL), the blurring $\delta k$ in wave vector $k$ is $\frac{\Delta b}{b}k$. The
shift of level $E_{k}^{v}$ ($E_{k}^{c}$) for a Bloch state $\psi_{k}^{v}$
($\psi_{k}^{c}$) in valence (conduction) band by the disorder in AS is $\Delta
E_{k}^{v(c)}=\int d\tau(V_{a}-V_{c})|\psi_{k}^{v(c)}|^{2}$. The relative level
shift due to this BL distribution is $\delta k\frac{d}{dk}\Delta E_{k}^{c}$.
It is easy to see $V_{a}-V_{c}\varpropto\frac{\Delta a}{a}V_{c}$. Then
$E_{U}^{V(C)}\thicksim\frac{\Delta b}{b}k\cdot\frac{1}{k}\frac{\Delta
b}{b}V_{c}=(\frac{\Delta b}{b})^{2}|V_{c}|=\frac{(\frac{\Delta
b}{b}|V_{c}|)^{2}}{|V_{c}|}$ (9)
If we make a correspondence between structural disorder $\frac{\Delta
b}{b}|V_{c}|$ and on-site spread $W$ of levels, Eq.(9) is comparable to
$E_{U}\thicksim 0.5\frac{W^{2}}{B}$ ($B$ is the band width) at and
$E_{U}\thicksim\frac{\pi}{4}\frac{W^{2}}{3\pi^{2}\frac{\hbar^{2}}{2mL^{2}}}$
sce , where $L$ and $W$ are correlation length and variance of random
potential. Eq. (9) is also consistent with an assumption of Cody et. al. to
explain their absorption edge data in a-Si:Hcod . Since the width of BL
distribution is $\frac{\Delta b}{b}\thickapprox 0.1$ and $|V_{c}|\thicksim
1-10$eV, the order of magnitude of mobility edge should be $(\frac{\Delta
b}{b})|V_{c}|$, several tenth eV to 1eV, so that the decay rate of band tails
is around several tens to several hundred meV. Both agree with experimental
observationssher . Eq.(9) indicates $E_{U}^{V(C)}$ is proportional to static
disorder that is characterized by $(\frac{\Delta b}{b})^{2}$, in consistent
with the fact that $E_{U}^{V(C)}$ of a-Si:H increased with deposition
powersher . $\Delta b$ and $b$ could also be explained as the width and the
average value of BA distribution.
Because local compression is compensated by adjacent local tensile in AS,
$E_{U}^{V}\thicksim\frac{\varsigma^{V}}{\varsigma^{C}}E_{U}^{C}$, where
$\varsigma^{V}$ ($\varsigma^{C}$) is an order one dimensionless constant
characterizing the peak (node) of valence (conduction) states. In a-Si and
a-Si:H, random potential $(V_{a}-V_{c})$ has larger distortion in the middle
of Si-Si bonds, since valence states are more in the middle of bonds than
conduction stateshar , they feel the distortion more. Therefore
$\varsigma^{V}>\varsigma^{C}$. One expect $E_{U}^{V}$ $>$ $E_{U}^{C}$. This
agrees with measurements in a-Si:H: $E_{U}^{V}\thicksim$43-103meV vs.
$E_{U}^{C}\thicksim$27-37 meV, linear relation among $E_{U}^{V}$ and
$E_{U}^{C}$ has also been observedsher .
Figure 2: $E_{U}^{V}$ and $E_{U}^{C}$ vs. $\sigma_{cos\theta}^{2}$: 6 squares
are extracted from TBA, dotted line and solid line are least square fits with
and without (0,0) points.
To test correctness of Eq.(9), we undertook a TBA calculation for DOS of six
a-Si models with 20,000 atomsdra ; lud ; mou . $E_{U}^{V(C)}$, the width
$\sigma_{\cos\theta}$ of BA distributions and the width $\Delta b$ of BL
distribution are extracted. Fig.2 clearly shows good linear relation between
$E_{U}^{V}$ ($E_{U}^{C}$) and $\sigma_{\cos\theta}^{2}$, curves pass origin
($E_{U}^{V(C)}$ is zero for crystal) as displayed in Eq. (9). It can be
further tested in ion implanted samples, where a continuous increase disorder
from crystal to amorphous are realized by increasing the dosesor . The
$E_{U}^{V}$ ($E_{U}^{C}$) vs. ($\Delta b)^{2}$ curve does not pass origin (not
showing here), this is an indication that BA disorder is a little more
decisive in determine the shape of a band tail than BL disorder for a well
relaxed structureori ; jj .
The electron-phonon interaction is strong in ASatf . At finite temperature,
the displacement of an atom in AS deviate from the position in the LRC at zero
temperature is a vector sum of the static displacement $\mathbf{u}_{s}$ and
thermal vibration displacement $\mathbf{u}_{T}(t)$ from the zero temperature
configuration of AS, $t$ is the time moment. In ordinary absorption
experiment, time interval $T$ is much longer than the period of the slowest
mode, therefore
$\overline{E_{U}^{C}}=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}dt\varsigma^{C}(\frac{\mathbf{u}_{s}+\mathbf{u}_{T}(t)}{a})^{2}|V_{c}|$.
Atoms vibrate around their equilibrium points in AS, the time average of the
cross term $\mathbf{u}_{s}\cdot\mathbf{u}_{T}(t)$ is zero. Thus Urbach energy
from static disorder and from thermal disorder is additivecod
$\overline{E_{U}^{C}}=E_{Us}^{C}+E_{UT}^{C},$
$E_{Us}^{C}=\varsigma^{C}(\frac{u_{s}}{a})^{2}|V_{c}|$. Thermal part
$E_{UT}^{C}=\varsigma^{C}\frac{\overline{\mathbf{u}_{T}^{2}}}{a^{2}}|V_{c}|$,
$\overline{\mathbf{u}_{T}^{2}}=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}dt[\mathbf{u}_{T}(t)]^{2}$
is the long time average of the square of amplitude of vibration. An ultra-
fast probe of absorption edge may find oscillating in $\overline{E_{U}^{C}}$.
Since $\overline{\mathbf{u}_{T}^{2}}\varpropto\frac{k_{B}T}{B_{C}}a^{2}$cal ,
$B_{C}$ is binding energy in the diluter regions where conduction tail states
are localized, $E_{UT}^{C}=\varsigma^{C}k_{B}T\frac{|V_{c}|}{B_{C}}$.
$\overline{E_{U}^{C}}$ linearly increases with temperature. Similarly result
holds for $\overline{E_{U}^{V}}$. The is consistent with the fact that above
350K absorption edge linearly increase with $k_{B}T$ in a-Si:Hwei ; alj .
Because $B_{V}>B_{C}$, $E_{U}^{C}$ is more susceptible to thermal disorder
than $E_{U}^{V}$dra1 , as observed in ref. alj .
For realistic amorphous solid with topological disorder, by viewing an AS as
many distorted regions relative to corresponding LRC, we push forward
essential understanding on localized states confined in one distorted region.
The predicted IPR, mobility edge, the dependence on static disorder and on
temperature of the decay rate of band tails agree with available experiments
and simulations. We explained the fact that valence tail states are more
localized in a denser region with smaller BA and shorter BL and conduction
tail states are more localized in diluter region with longer BL and larger BA
in a-Siori ; jj . Localized states in several distorted regions and other
problems involving global topology will be addressed in future.
Acknowledgements: We thank the Army Research Office for support under MURI
W91NF-06-2-0026, and the National Science Foundation for support under grant
No. DMR 0600073, 0605890.
## References
* (1) B. Kramer et al., Rep. Prog. Phys. 56, 1469 (1993); P. A. Lee et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 57, 287 (1985); D. J. Thouless, Phys. Rep. 13, 93 (1974).
* (2) P. W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 109, 1492 (1958); P. W. Anderson, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 69, No.5, 1097 (1972).
* (3) for review see K. Moorjani and C. Feldman, Rev. Mod. Phys., 36, 1042 (1964).
* (4) A. E. H. Love, A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity, 4th edition, Cambridge University Press (1927).
* (5) A. B. Pippard, Dynamics of Conduction Electrons, New York, Gordon & Beach, (1965).
* (6) W. A. Harrison, Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids, Freeman, San Francisco, (1980).
* (7) Y. Pan et al. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids (2008) doi:10.1016/j.jnoncysol.2008.02.021.
* (8) Y. Pan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., accepted.
* (9) E. Artacho et al., J. Phys. Condens. Matter 20, 064208 (2008); Siesta on a-Si-512 with single zeta polarized basis sets (SZP: 1 function for 3s, 3 for 3p and 5 for 3d).
* (10) D. A. Drabold et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3631 (1993)
* (11) J. J. Ludlam et al., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 17, L321 (2005).
* (12) J. Callaway, Quantum Theory of the Solid State, Academic Press, London (1974).
* (13) V. Srivastava, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, 1, 4311 (1989).
* (14) N. F. Mott, Conduction in non-crystalline materials, 2nd ed, Oxford, (1993).
* (15) H. De Raedt et al., Zeitschrift fur Physik B: Condensed Matter, 77, 243 (1989).
* (16) B. V. Zeghbroeck, http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~bart/book, Chapter 2, (2007).
* (17) A. Deneuville et al., J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 14, 4531 (1981).
* (18) A. O. Kodolbas, Materials Science and Engineering B98, 161 (2003).
* (19) K. Haga et al., Japn. J. Appl. Phys., Part 2, 25, L39 (1986).
* (20) J. Dong et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 1928 (1998).
* (21) for example, A. M. Stoneham, Rev. Mod. Phys. 41, 82 (1969).
* (22) S. Abe et al., J. Phys. Soc. Japan 50, 2185 (1981).
* (23) C. M. Soukoulis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 616 (1984).
* (24) G. D. Cody et al., Phys. Rev Lett. 47, 1480 (1981).
* (25) S. Sherman et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 69, 3242 (1996).
* (26) N. Mousseau etal., Phys. Rev. B 61, 1896 (2000).
* (27) for example, S. Sorieul et al., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 18, 8493 (2006).
* (28) R. Atta-Fynn et al., Phys. Rev. B 69, 245204 (2004).
* (29) G. Weiser et al., J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 114, 298 (1989).
* (30) S. Aljishi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2811 (1990).
* (31) D. A. Drabold et al., Phys. Rev. B 60, 721 (1999).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-16T16:28:28 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.813247 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "M.-L. Zhang, Y. Pan, F. Inam and D. A. Drabold",
"submitter": "MingLiang Zhang Dr.",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2575"
} |
0805.2676 | # An analytical formulation for soliton-potential dynamics
Kurosh Javidan
Department of physics, Ferdowsi university of Mashhad
91775-1436 Mashhad Iran
E-mail:javidan@um.ac.ir
###### Abstract
An analytical model for the soliton-potential interaction is presented, by
constructing a collective coordinate for the system. Most of the characters of
the interaction are derived analytically while they are calculated by other
models numerically. We find that the behaviour of the soliton is like a point
particle ’living’ under the influence of a complicated potential, that is a
function of soliton velocity and the potential parameters. The analytic model
does not have a clear prediction for the islands of initial velocities in
which the soliton may reflect back or escape over the potential well.
## 1 Introduction
Topological solitons are widely use as models for the description of particles
generated as nontrivial solutions of nonlinear field theories. Skyrmions are
solitons which are used as a model of hadrons. Some solitonic solutions appear
in two-dimensional Quantum chromodynamics ($QCD_{2}$). In bosonized $QCD_{2}$
these type of solutions emerge as describing baryons and quark solitons,
respectively. The generalized sine-Gordon model arises as the low-energy
effective action of bosonized $QCD_{2}$ for unequal quark mass parameters.
Also in the strong-coupling limit the static classical soliton which describes
a baryon in $QCD_{2}$ turns out to be ordinary sine-Gordon kink. Modeling of
optical self focusing phenomena, magnetic fluxes in real Josephson junctions
are examples from other branches of physics.
In the meantime, dynamical evolution of a soliton during the interaction with
potentials is an important phenomenon from the mathematical point of view and
also because of its applications. Most of the researches are in base of
numerical studies because such systems are generally non-integrable. So it is
clear that we need suitable models with analytic solutions to test the
validity of such phenomenon and predict their behaviour.
In this paper an analytic model for the interaction of sine-Gordon solitons
with defects is presented and the results are compared with numerical
simulation outcomes from other models. So we need a brief review of the
available models which presents in section 2. The analytic model is introduced
and will be solved in section 3. Presented model will be compared with other
models in section 4. The results for the soliton-barrier system are presented
in section5. The results will be compared with the predictions of other models
in this section too. In section 6 soliton-well system is discussed. Some
conclusion and remarks will be presented in section 7.
## 2 Models for soliton-potential systems
model 1: The potential generally arises from medium properties. The effects of
medium disorders and impurities can be added to the equation of motion as
perturbative terms. In this method, scattering of a soliton by a single
impurity has been modeled as[1, 2]
$\phi_{tt}-\phi{xx}+\left(1+\sigma\delta(x)\right)\frac{\partial
U}{\partial\phi}=0$ (1)
where$\sigma$ denotes the strength of impurity and $\frac{\partial
U}{\partial\phi}=sin\phi$ for the sine-Gordon model. For an attractive
potential well,$\sigma$ is negative ($\sigma<0$ ) and for a barrier $\sigma$
is a positive number ($\sigma>0$).
The impurity has been added as an external potential in this model . The
interaction can be analyzed in term of some degree of freedom for the soliton
( position of the center of the soliton) and an impurity mode for the external
potential.
In this approach the impurity causes the interaction of a soliton with an
effective potential. In particular soliton can be trapped by an attractive
potential because of energy loss due to radiation. In this model the impurity
is not a rigid object. It has a localized oscillating state,so-called impurity
mode.
In the absence of the impurity ($\sigma=0$ ) equation (1) has an exact one
soliton solution as
$\phi_{k}=4\arctan\left(\exp\left(\frac{x-X(t)}{\sqrt{1-V^{2}}}\right)\right)$
(2)
where $X(t)=X_{0}-Vt$ and V is the soliton velocity.
If we linearize equation around its ground state, we have
$\phi_{tt}-\phi{xx}+\left(1+\sigma\delta(x)\right)\phi=0$ (3)
which has a localized oscillating mode
$\phi_{impurity}(x,t)=a(t)\exp\left(-\sigma\frac{\left|x\right|}{2}\right)=0$
(4)
Two dynamical variables, X(t) and a(t) explain the dynamics of the soliton-
potential system. One can describe the soliton-impurity interaction by
substituting $\phi=\phi_{k}+\phi_{impurity}$ into the lagrangian of the system
and integrating over the variable ’x’ [2]. After that, the kink coordinate
X(t) and impurity mode a(t) are considered as collective coordinate variables
and their evolution describe the situation of the soliton during the
interaction. Therefore the soliton is changed to a point particle with an
effective mass of $m_{eff}=8$ in the effective potential
$V(X)=\frac{2\sigma}{\cosh^{2}{X}}$. This potential creates the effective
force
$F(X)=-V^{\prime}(X)=\frac{4\sigma sinh(X)}{cosh^{3}(X)}$ (5)
Model 2: The effects of the potential also can be taken into account by making
some parameters of the equation of motion (or lagrangian) to be as functions
of space or time [3, 4]. In this approach, a finite size, finite strength
potential is included by appropriately modifying the coefficient of the
nonlinear term in the lagrangian or equation of motion. The effective
lagrangian from this model for the sine-Gordon soliton-potential system is
${\cal
L}=\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi-\lambda^{2}\left(1-cos\phi\right)$ (6)
with solution
$\phi_{k}=4\arctan\left(\exp\left(\lambda\frac{x-X(t)}{\sqrt{1-V^{2}}}\right)\right)$
(7)
$\lambda$ is chosen as
$\lambda=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{clrr}1&\left|x\right|>p\\\
\lambda_{0}&\left|x\right|<p\end{array}\right\\}$ (8)
where p is the width of the potential. For $\lambda_{0}<1$ we have a potential
well and $\lambda_{0}>1$ describes a potential barrier. A delta-like potential
with the strength of $\epsilon_{0}$ is constructed with the constraint
$\lambda_{0}p=\epsilon_{0}$.
Model 3: One can add such effects to the lagrangian of the system by
introducing a suitable nontrivial metric for the back ground space-time,
without missing the topological boundary conditions [5, 6, 7, 8]. In other
words, the metric carries the information of the medium. The general form of
the action in an arbitrary metric is:
$I=\int{{\cal L}(\phi,\partial_{\mu}\phi)\sqrt{-g}d^{n}xdt}$ (9)
where ”g” is the determinant of the metric $g^{\mu\nu}(x)$. Energy density of
the ”field + potential” can be found by varying ”both” the field and the
metric [7]. For the lagrangian of the form
${\cal L}=\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi-U(\phi)$ (10)
the equation of motion becomes [7, 9]
$\frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}\left(\sqrt{-g}\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\phi+\partial_{\mu}\phi\partial^{\mu}\sqrt{-g}\right)+\frac{\partial
U(\phi)}{\partial\phi}=0$ (11)
The suitable metric in the presence of a weak potential V(x) is [5, 6, 7]:
$g_{\mu\nu}(x)\cong\left(\begin{array}[]{clrr}1+V(x)&0\\\
0&-1\end{array}\right)$ (12)
The equation of motion (11) (describes by Lagrangian (10)) in the background
space-time (12) is
$\left(1+V(x)\right)\frac{\partial^{2}\phi}{\partial
t^{2}}-\frac{\partial^{2}\phi}{\partial
x^{2}}-\frac{1}{2\left|1+V(x)\right|}\frac{\partial V(x)}{\partial
x}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial U(\phi)}{\partial\phi}=0$
(13)
For the sine-Gordon model, we have $U(\phi)=1-\cos\phi$. A potential of the
form $V(x)=ae^{-b(x-c)^{2}}$ has been chosen in [7] while a square shape
potential has been used for simulations in [8]. In the above potential,
parameter ”a” controls the strength of the potential, ”b” represents its
range, and ”c” indicates the center of the potential. If $a>0$, the potential
shows a barrier and for $a<0$ the potential acts as a potential well.
## 3 collective coordinate system for model 3
The center of a soliton can be considered as a particle, if we look at this
variable as a collective coordinate. The collective coordinate could be
related to the potential by using one of the above models. The third model is
able to give us analytic solution for the evolution of the soliton center
during the soliton-potential interaction.
Here we work on the sine-Gordon model with its one soliton solution of (2). By
inserting the solution (2) in the lagrangian (10) and using metric (12), with
adiabatic approximation [1, 2] we have
${\cal
L}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{-g}\right)^{3}\frac{4\dot{X}^{2}}{\cosh^{2}\left(x-X(t)\right)}-\sqrt{-g}\frac{4}{\cosh^{2}\left(x-X(t)\right)}$
(14)
For the weak potential V(x) (14) becomes
${\cal
L}\approx\left(1+\frac{3}{2}V(x)\right)\frac{2\dot{X}^{2}}{\cosh^{2}\left(x-X(t)\right)}-\left(1+\frac{1}{2}V(x)\right)\frac{4}{\cosh^{2}\left(x-X(t)\right)}$
(15)
X(t) remains as a collective coordinate if we integrate (15) over variable x
$L=\int{{\cal
L}dx}=4\dot{X}^{2}+3\dot{X}^{2}\int{\frac{V(x)dx}{\cosh^{2}\left(x-X(t)\right)}}-8-2\int{\frac{V(x)dx}{\cosh^{2}\left(x-X(t)\right)}}$
(16)
The equation of motion for the variable X(t) results from the (16)
$8\ddot{X}+6\ddot{X}\int{\frac{V(x)dx}{\cosh^{2}\left(x-X(t)\right)}}+\left(6\dot{X}^{2}+4\right)\int{\frac{V(x)\sinh\left(x-X(t)\right)dx}{\cosh^{3}\left(x-X(t)\right)}}=0$
(17)
It is a general equation for the any kind of potential. If we take the
potential $V(x)=-\epsilon\delta(x)$ then (17) becomes
$8\ddot{X}\left(1-\frac{3\epsilon}{4\cosh^{2}X}\right)+\left(\frac{3\dot{X}^{2}}{2}+1\right)\frac{4\epsilon\sinh
X}{\cosh^{3}X}=0$ (18)
The above equation shows that the energy peak of the soliton moves under the
influence of a complicated force which is function of its position and
velocity. Note that an effective force in the form of equation (5) of model 1
appears in equation (18) when the soliton velocity is small
$(\dot{X}\rightarrow 0)$. If $\epsilon>0$ we have a barrier and $\epsilon<0$
creates a potential well. The energy of the soliton in the presence of the
potential becomes
$E=4\dot{X}^{2}+\frac{3\epsilon\dot{X}^{2}}{\cosh^{2}X}+8+\frac{2\epsilon}{\cosh^{2}X}$
(19)
When the soliton is far from the center of the potential
($X\rightarrow\infty$) (19) reduces to $E=4\dot{X}^{2}+8$. It is the energy of
a particle with a mass of 8. Some of the features of the soliton behaviour can
be found from the (19). For example, suppose that a potential barrier of
height $\epsilon$ is located at the origin. A soliton with a low velocity
reflects back from the barrier and a high energy soliton climbs over the
barrier and passes over it. So we have a critical value for the velocity of
the soliton which separates these two situations. The energy of a soliton in
the origin (X=0) comes from
(19)$E(X=0)=\left(4+3\epsilon\right)\dot{X}^{2}+8+2\epsilon$. The minimum
value of the energy for a soliton in this situation is $E=8+2\epsilon$. On the
other hand, a soliton which comes from the infinity with initial velocity
$v_{c}$ has the energy of $E\left(X=\infty\right)=4v_{c}^{2}+8$. It is clear
that it can pass though the barrier if $v_{c}>\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon}{2}}$.
Equation (18) has an exact solution as follows
$\frac{3\dot{X}^{2}+2}{3\dot{X_{0}}^{2}+2}=\frac{\cosh^{2}X\left(\cosh^{2}X_{0}+\frac{3\epsilon}{4}\right)}{\cosh^{2}X_{0}\left(\cosh^{2}X+\frac{3\epsilon}{4}\right)}$
(20)
where $X{0}$ and $\dot{X}_{0}$ are initial position and initial velocity
respectively. Many of the characters of soliton-potential system can be
extracted from the above solution. In the next sections some results are
discussed and also compared with the results of the other models.
## 4 Comparing of the models
These three models can be compared numerically. All these models (for a delta-
like potential) have a parameter in their equation of motion,$\sigma$ in model
1, $\lambda_{0}$ in model 2 and $\epsilon$ in model 3. The parameters control
the strength of the external potential.
It is possible to compare these three parameters in a specific situation by
simulation and adjusting parameters to have same results by different models
for that specific situation. It is expected to find approximately the relation
between the parameters in other situations. A set of simulations for the three
models have been performed for finding $v_{c}$ with respect to different
values of the potential strength with using three models. It is observed that
model 3 predicts the value of $v_{c}=\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon}{2}}$ when the
soliton is far from the center of the potential ($X_{0}\rightarrow\infty$).
Simulations using models 1 and 2 show the same $\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon}{2}}$
behaviour. An effective strength is found by interpolation of simulation
results on the $\sqrt{\frac{\alpha+\beta\epsilon}{2}}$ for both models 1 and 2
with respect to parameter of model 3. Figure 1a shows the results of
simulations for (1) with sine-Gordon model. Effective strength of model 1 with
respect to model 3 is
$\epsilon_{1}=(0.0275\pm 0.0022)+(0.786\pm 0.0064)\sigma$ (21)
with standard deviation of $8.5\times 10^{-6}$. Figure 1b presents the results
of the fitting for the model 2. The result of the fitting is
$\epsilon_{2}=(-0.0645\pm 0.00221)+(0.8004\pm 0.0065)\lambda_{0}$ (22)
with standard deviation of $6\times 10^{-5}$
Figures 1 show that the three models are in agreement with each other if,
$v_{c}=\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon_{effective}}{2}}$ where the effective parameters
are calculated for models 1 and 2 with respect to parameter of the model 3.
Simulations have been done using Ronge-Kutta method for time derivatives and
finite difference method for space derivatives. Space grids have been chosen
$\Delta x=0.01,0.05$ and some times 0.025. Time cells have been chosen $\Delta
t=\frac{\Delta x}{4}$ in the simulations. Delta function was simulated by the
function $\sqrt{\frac{\alpha}{\pi}}e^{-\alpha x^{2}}$ with several values for
$\alpha$.
Figure 1: The critical velocity $v_{c}$ respect to strength of the potential.
Figure 1a presents the results of model 1 and figure 1b for model 2.Dotted
plots denotes the fitted curve on the function
$\sqrt{\frac{\alpha+\beta\epsilon}{2}}$ and solid lines with data points show
the simulation results.
## 5 Soliton-barrier system
A soliton-barrier system is modeled with $\epsilon>0$ in (18) or (20).
Consider a soliton with initial velocity of $\dot{X}_{0}$ at initial position
of $X_{0}=-\infty$. Equation (20) shows that the soliton reaches the infinity
again with the final velocity $\dot{X}=\pm\dot{X}_{0}$. The soliton goes to
$-\infty(+\infty)$ if its initial velocity is less (more) than the critical
velocity $v_{c}$. If the soliton is located at some position like $X_{0}$
(which is not necessary infinity) the critical velocity will not be
$\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon}{2}}$. Neither model 1 nor model 2 has analytical
prediction for the critical velocity in this situation. However we can
investigate this situation numerically using these models. Now let us study
the situation with model 3. The soliton can pass over the barrier if the
soliton energy is greater than the energy of a static soliton at the top of
the barrier. So a soliton in the initial position $X_{0}$ with initial
velocity of $\dot{X}_{0}$ has the critical initial velocity if its velocity
becomes zero at the top of the barrier $X=0$. Consider a soliton with initial
conditions of $X_{0}$ and $\dot{X}_{0}$. If we set $X=0$ and $\dot{X}=0$ in
equation (20) then $v_{c}=\dot{X}_{0}$. Therefore we have from (20)
$v_{c}=\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon}{2}\frac{\cosh^{2}X_{0}-1}{\cosh^{2}X_{0}+\frac{3\epsilon}{4}}}$
(23)
Figure 2a presents the critical velocity as a function of initial position
($X_{0}$) with $\sigma=0.4,0.6$ and 0.75 in model 1. The equivalent potential
strength using model 3 from (21) is $\epsilon_{1}=0.3419,0.4991$ and 0.6170
which are shown in the figure 2a with solid lines. Dotted lines in figure 2b
show the critical velocity as a function of initial position ($X_{0}$) using
model 2 with $\lambda_{0}=0.5,1.0$ and 2.0. The solid lines in figure 2b show
the equivalent situations using model 3 with $\epsilon_{2}=0.2357,0.7359$ and
1.5363. These figures show that model 3 is in a very good agreement with model
1 and model 2.
Figure 2: 2a shows the Critical velocity $v_{c}$ respect to initial position
$X_{0}$ simulated with model 1 and figure 2b presents the simulation results
for model 2. Solid lines with data points present simulation results and
dashed lines are plotted using equation (23) with equivalent effective
strength calculated from (21) and (22).
If the initial velocity is less than $v_{c}$ then exists a return point in
which the velocity of the soliton is zero. This point is derived from (20)
$X_{stop}=\cosh^{-1}\left(\sqrt{\frac{3\epsilon}{2\alpha-4}}\right),\alpha=\left(3\dot{X}^{2}+2\right)\left(1+\frac{3\epsilon}{4\cosh^{2}X_{0}}\right)$
(24)
where $X_{0}$ and $\dot{X}_{0}$ are initial position and initial velocity
respectively. If the above equation is rearranged as
$\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{stop}}=\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{0}}+\dot{X}_{0}^{2}\left(\frac{2}{\epsilon}+\frac{3}{2\cosh^{2}X_{0}}\right)$
(25)
one can find a linear relation between $\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{stop}}$ and
$\dot{X}_{0}^{2}$. Figure 3a shows $\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{stop}}$ as a function
of $\dot{X}_{0}^{2}$ with constant value for $X_{0}$ and some values of
$\epsilon$ using model 1. All the simulations result the same value at
$\dot{X}_{0}=0$ which is equal to $\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{0}}$. Equation (24)
also shows another linear relation between $\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{stop}}$ and
$\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{0}}$. Figure 3b demonstrates the numerical simulations
with model 1 for this situation. Model 1 is in agreement with linear relation
between $\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{stop}}$ and $\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{0}}$ as well
as linear relation between $\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{stop}}$ and
$\dot{X}_{0}^{2}$, which are conclude from the analytic model 3. Model 2 also
show the same linear relations.
Figure 3: Figure 3a shows linear relation between
$\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{stop}}$ and $\dot{X_{0}}^{2}$. Linear relation between
$\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{stop}}$ and $\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{0}}$ has been shown in
figure3b. Simulations have been done with model 1.
The trajectory of a soliton during the interaction by the potential,X(t)
follows from (20) as
$t=\int^{X(t)}_{X(t=0)}\left(\sqrt{\frac{\left(3\dot{X}^{2}+2\right)\left(\cosh^{2}X_{0}+\frac{3\epsilon}{4}\right)}{3\cosh^{2}X_{0}}\frac{\cosh^{2}X}{\cosh^{2}X+\frac{3\epsilon}{4}}-\frac{2}{3}}\right)^{-1}dX$
(26)
The above integral has been evaluated numerically by using Rubmerg’s method
and X(t) was plotted versus t. This result was compared with direct simulation
using model 1. Figure 4 shows the result for a system with $\epsilon=0.4$,
$X_{0}=-5$ and $\dot{X}_{0}=-0.5$. There is a little difference between the
predicted final velocities from different models after interaction. The
difference is reduced when the height of the potential($\epsilon$) reduces.
The difference is due to the approximation which is used for deriving (15)
from (14).
Figure 4: Trajectory of a soliton during the interaction with a delta-like
potential. Solid line presents the result of model 1. Dashed lines show the
same situation calculated with analytic model 3.
Same results have been found when the soliton reflects back after the
interaction. Another interesting experiment is finding the time that a soliton
needs to reach a fixed point when it has different initial velocities. This
situation has been investigated with both model 1 and model 3. Figure 5 shows
the results for some different soliton-potential systems.
Figure 5: The time that a soliton at initial position $X_{0}=-5$ needs to
reach the final position X=0 as a function of soliton initial velocity. Solid
lines show the simulation results using model 1 and the dashed lines present
same situation calculated with model 3.
Several different simulations have been set up and the results of the three
models compared. All the simulations show very good agreements between three
models. Collation between model 2 and analytic model 3 also shows a good
agreement between these two models, as well as what we can see between the
model 1 and model 3. In order to avoid adding more figures, the results of
model 1 has been reported. So we can conclude that the analytic model 3 can
predict the characteristics of a soliton-barrier system. It is concluded that
the soliton ’lives’ like a point particle but the extended nature of the
soliton induces some effects on the potential and therefore the effective
potential becomes more complicated than what we see in a point particle-
barrier systems.
## 6 Soliton-well system
The soliton-well system is a very interesting problem. The behaviour of a
soliton during the interaction with a potential well is very different from a
point particle in the same situation. It is found that some differences can be
explained by the characters of the effective potential.
Changing $\epsilon$ to $-\epsilon$ in (20) changes potential barrier to
potential well. The solution for the system is
$\frac{3\dot{X}^{2}+2}{3\dot{X}_{0}^{2}+2}=\frac{\cosh^{2}X\left(\cosh^{2}X_{0}-\frac{3\epsilon}{4}\right)}{\cosh^{2}X_{0}\left(\cosh^{2}X-\frac{3\epsilon}{4}\right)}$
(27)
Let’s examine the validity of (26) by simulating model 1. Models 1 and 2 have
similar behaviour. Here the simulations are performed using only model 1.
Consider a potential well with the depth of $\epsilon$. A soliton at the
initial position $X_{0}$ moves toward the well with the initial velocity of
$\dot{X_{0}}$. It interacts with the potential and reaches a maximum distance
from the center potential $X_{max}$. The velocity of the soliton at $X_{max}$
is zero. $X_{max}$ can be found from (24) but with $\epsilon<0$. Figure 6
shows the results of simulations with $\epsilon=-0.3,-0.2$ and -0.1. The
dashed lines show the results of linear fitting on the simulation data with
model 1 and the solid lines presents the results of model 3 with effective
potentials from (21).
Figure 6: The dashed lines with data points show results of simulations using
model 1 and the solid lines present same situation calculated with model 3.
The effective potentials has been calculated with (21).
Simulations are in agreement with linear relation between
$\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{0}}$ and $\frac{1}{\epsilon}$. Also there is another
linear relation between $\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{0}}$ and
$\frac{1}{\cosh^{2}X_{max}}$.
The time required for a soliton with an initial velocity $V_{0}$, from initial
position $X_{0}$ to reach the origin also has been simulated using model 1 and
has been calculated using model 3. Figures 7 show the results for a soliton
with an initial position $X_{0}=-5$. The effective potential from (21) has
been used in model 3.
Figure 7: The time needed for a soliton to travel from initial position
$X_{0}=-5$ to origin as a function of soliton initial velocity. Figure7a shows
the simulation results using model 1 and same situation calculated with model
3. The strength of the potential is $\epsilon=-0.4$. Figure 7b presents the
results for $\epsilon=-0.3$.
These results show that the equation (21) is valid for the potential well too.
Also we see that the model 3 covers the bahaviour of soliton-well system with
an acceptable precision.
A soliton can pass through the potential well if it has suitable initial
velocity. Figure 8 presents the simulation results using model 1 and
calculation using model 3.
Figure 8: Trajectory of a soliton during the interaction with a potential
well. Solid line shows the simulation results using model 1 and dashed lines
presents the results of the model 3.
A soliton with a low initial velocity might get trapped by the potential and
oscillate in the well. The Period of the oscillation can be calculated with
model 3 from (24) with a negative potential strength
$\left(\epsilon<0\right)$.
Figure 9 demonstrates an oscillating situation. This figure presents the
trajectory of a soliton in a potential well with $\sigma=-0.4$ for the model 1
($\epsilon_{effective}=-0.29$ for model 3). The soliton is located at the
initial position $X_{0}=-3$ and starts moving with an initial velocity
$\dot{X_{0}}=0.01$. The period of the oscillation simulated by model 1 is ,
$T\approx 398$ while the period calculated by (27) is about 372.
Figure 9: Oscillation of a soliton in a potential well. Solid line presents
the results simulation using model 1and dashed line shows the trajectory of
the soliton calculated with model 3.
Due to using adiabatic approximation in model 3, the results show noticeable
differences among the models when the velocity has rapid or big changes. In a
situation where a soliton moves from an initial position very far from the
potential with a very low velocity the models fail to match by using the
fitting equations (21) and (22). This means that a better approximation is
needed, but the analytic model is acceptable.
Figure 10: Final soliton velocity as a function of its initial velocity for
$\epsilon=-0.5$. Zero final velocity means that the soliton is captured by the
potential well.
An attractive situation in the soliton-well interaction is the fine structure
of the islands of trapping. In model 1, the final situation of a soliton with
an initial velocity lower than the critical velocity is very sensitive to its
initial conditions and the strength of the well. In most of the cases when the
incoming velocity of the soliton is smaller than critical velocity the soliton
cannot escape from the potential. Particularly, after the first interaction
soliton will stop and then it will return to interact with the potential
again. For most of the initial conditions, the soliton will lose its energy
again during the following interactions and finally becomes trapped by the
potential. Equation (18) of model 3 clearly shows that the effective force is
a function of the soliton velocity, so it may be dissipative. However, for
some specific initia1 velocities, the soliton may escape to ($\pm\infty$)
after some interactions. Finding an analytical description for the windows of
trapping in the model 3 is hard and we couldn’t find a clear analytical
formulation for this phenomenon using model 3. But this situation can be
studied with solving equation (18) numerically. For investigating of this
phenomenon in the model 3, a plot of ”initial velocity respect to final
velocity” of the soliton is needed. Figure 10 shows the outgoing velocity of
the soliton as a function of its incoming velocity. The initial position of
$X_{0}=-2$ was used in simulations. The outgoing velocity has been calculated
when the soliton reaches $X=\pm 10$. Zero final velocity means that the
soliton is captured by the potential. The differential equation (18) has been
integrated numerically by using ”quality-controlled” step size in Runge-Kutta
method with maximum error less than 0.001. Simulations at this precision show
reflection and also transmission from the potential well at some initial
velocities. We have to check the validity of the results by examining the
windows of escaping of figure 10. For this purpose we need the trajectory of
the soliton with an initial velocity in the region of escaping, but with a
higher precision. Some simulations with better precisions have been performed
using Maple which contains some advanced algorithm with higher precision. The
results show that for most of the escaping windows the soliton trapped in the
well if we simulate the situation with better approximation. This means that
this situation is very sensitive to the precision of numerical calculations.
However there are some values of initial velocities in which the soliton can
transmit over the well or may reflect back.This phenomenon needs a deeper
investigation.
## 7 Conclusion and Remarks
In this article, an analytical model for the soliton-potential interaction has
been presented. It is shown that the model has a very close relation with
other models in the way that it is possible to fit this model over the other
models. The model gives the critical velocity in the soliton-potential
interaction as a function of initial conditions of the soliton and the
characters of the potential. The model predicts specific relations between
some functions of initial conditions and other functions of final state of the
soliton during the interaction. Also the model presents a good approximation
for the trajectory of the soliton during the interaction. The oscillation
period of the soliton in the well can also be calculated by the analytical
model. Simulations using other models are in agreement with the present
analytic model. But this model does not predict the narrow windows of soliton
reflection from the potential well.
The model can be used for prediction the results of other potentials beside
the sine-Gordon model.
Acknowledgments:
Author is grateful to A.R. Mokhtari and A.R. Etezadi for discussions and
helps.
## References
* [1] Kivshar Y S, Fei Z and Vasquez L 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett 67 1177
* [2] Fei Z, Kivshar Y S and Vasquez L 1992 Phys. Rev.A46 5214
* [3] Piette B, Zakrzewski W J and Brand J 2005 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.38 10403-10412
* [4] Piette B. Zakrzewski W.J.2007 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.40 No 2, 329-346
* [5] Kalbermann G 1999 Phys. Lett A252 37-42
* [6] Javidan K and Sarbishaei M 2001 Indian J. Physics B75 (5) 413-418
* [7] Javidan K. 2006 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 39 No 33 10565-10574
* [8] Jassem H. Al-Alawi, W.J. Zakrzewski (2007) J. Phys. A 40, 11319-1131
* [9] Felsager B. (1998) Geomrtry, Particles, and fields (New York: Springer-Verlag) pp 434-437
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-19T07:52:54 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.818712 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Kurosh Javidan",
"submitter": "Kurosh Javidan",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2676"
} |
0805.2679 | # Time-preserving Structural Stability of Hyperbolic Differential Dynamics
with Noncompact Phase Spaces
Xiongping Dai Department of Mathematics
Nanjing University
Nanjing, 210093, P. R. CHINA xpdai@nju.edu.cn
(Date: May 17, 2008)
###### Abstract.
Let $S\colon\mathbb{E}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$ where
$T_{w}\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{R}^{n}$ for all $w\in\mathbb{E}$, be a
$C^{1}$-differential system on an $n$-dimensional Euclidean $w$-space
$\mathbb{E}$, which naturally gives rise to a flow $\phi\colon(t,w)\mapsto
t_{\cdot}w$ on $\mathbb{E}$, and let $\Lambda$ be a $\phi$-invariant closed
subset containing no any singularities of $S$. If $\Lambda$ is compact and
hyperbolic, then Anosov’s theorem asserts that $S$ is structurally stable on
$\Lambda$ in the sense of topological equivalence; that is, for any
$C^{1}$-perturbation $V$ close to $S$, there is an $\varepsilon$-homeomorphism
$H\colon\Lambda\rightarrow\Lambda_{V}$ sending orbits $\phi(\mathbb{R},w)$ of
$S$ into orbits $\phi_{V}(\mathbb{R},H(w))$ of $V$ for all $w$ in $\Lambda$.
In this paper, using Liao theory Anosov’s result is generalized as follows:
Let $\psi_{V}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma\rightarrow\Sigma$ be the cross-
section flow of $V$ relative to $S$ locally defined on the Poincaré cross-
section bundle $\Sigma=\bigcup_{w\in\Lambda}\Sigma_{w}$ of $S$, where
$\Sigma_{w}=\left\\{w^{\prime}\in\mathbb{E}\,|\,\langle
S(w),w^{\prime}-w\rangle=0\right\\}$. If $S$ is hyperbolic on $\Lambda$ and
$V$ is $C^{1}$-close to $S$, then there is an $\varepsilon$-homeomorphism
$w\mapsto H(w)\in\Sigma_{w}$ from $\Lambda$ onto a closed set $\Lambda_{V}$
such that $\psi_{V}(t,H(w))=H(t_{\cdot}w)$ for all $w\in\Lambda$, where
$\Lambda$ need not be compact. Finally, an example is provided to illustrate
our theoretical outcome.
###### Key words and phrases:
Structural stability, hyperbolic differential system, Liao standard system
###### 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 37C10, 34D30; Secondary 37C20, 37D20
This project was supported by NSFC (No. 10671088) and 973 project (No.
2006CB805903)
## 1\. Introduction
In [6, 7], professor S.-T. Liao established the theory of standard systems of
differential equations for $C^{1}$-differential dynamical systems on compact
Riemannian manifolds. Then he systematically applied methods in the
qualitative theory of ODE to study stability problems of differentiable
dynamical systems via his theory [8]. We in [2, 3] generalized in part Liao’s
theory to differential systems on Euclidean spaces. Via the generalized, in
turn we can apply the approaches of ergodic theory and differentiable
dynamical systems to the study of the qualitative theory of ODE [3, 4]. In the
present paper, we continue to perfect Liao theory and give a further
application.
Assume, throughout this paper, that
$S\colon\mathbb{E}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a $C^{1}$-vector field on an
$n$-dimensional Euclidean $w$-space $\mathbb{E}$, where $n\geq 2$ and
$T_{w}\mathbb{E}=\mathbb{R}^{n}$ for all $w$, and the equation $\dot{w}=S(w)$
naturally induces a continuous-time dynamical system
$\phi\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{E}\rightarrow\mathbb{E};\ (t,w)\mapsto
t_{\cdot}w$ on the phase-space $\mathbb{E}$. Let
$\Sigma={\bigcup}_{w\in\mathbb{E}}\Sigma_{w}\quad\textrm{ where
}\Sigma_{w}=\left\\{w^{\prime}\in\mathbb{E}\,|\,\langle
S(w),w^{\prime}-w\rangle=0\right\\},$
be the cross-section bundle of $S$. Then, $S$ gives naturally rise to a formal
(local) Poincaré cross-section flow
$\psi\colon\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma\rightarrow\Sigma;\ (t,w+x)\mapsto
t_{\cdot}w+\psi_{t,w}x,$
where $w^{\prime}=w+x$ means $w^{\prime}\in\Sigma_{w}$ and where
$\psi_{t,w}\colon\Sigma_{w}-w\rightarrow\Sigma_{t_{\cdot}w}-t_{\cdot}w$ is
locally well defined for any $(t,w)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{E}$ by
$\psi_{t,w}x=\phi(t_{0},w+x)-t_{\cdot}w$, where $t_{0}$ is the first
$t^{\prime}>0$ when $t>0$ or the first $t^{\prime}<0$ when $t<0$ with
$\phi(t^{\prime},w+x)\in\Sigma_{t_{\cdot}w}$. Clearly, $\psi$ is a local skew-
product flow based on $\phi$ satisfying $\psi_{t,w}\textbf{0}=\textbf{0}$.
Let $\mathfrak{X}^{1}(\mathbb{E})$ be the space of all $C^{1}$-vector fields
on $\mathbb{E}$ endowed with the $C^{1}$-topology induced by the usual
$C^{1}$-norm $\|\cdot\|_{1}$. Then, for any
$V\in\mathfrak{X}^{1}(\mathbb{E})$, on $\Sigma$ we may also naturally define a
formal local skew-product flow
$\psi_{V}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\Sigma\rightarrow\Sigma;\ (t,w+x)\mapsto
t_{\cdot}w+\psi_{V;t,w}x.$
Note here that $\psi_{V;t,w}\textbf{0}$ need not equal 0 when $V\not=S$.
Let $\mathbb{T}_{w}=T_{\textbf{0}}\Sigma_{w}$ be the $(n-1)$-dimensional
tangent space to the hyperplane $\Sigma_{w}$ at $w+\textbf{0}$ for all
$w\in\mathbb{E}$ and $\mathbb{T}=\bigcup_{w\in\mathbb{E}}\mathbb{T}_{w}$
called the _transversal tangent bundle to $S$_ over $\mathbb{E}$. Clearly,
$\mathbb{T}_{w}=\Sigma_{w}-w=\\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}\,|\,\langle
S(w),x\rangle=0\\}$. Then, we can define naturally the linear skew-product
flow transversal to $S$
$\Psi\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{T};\
(t,(w,x))\mapsto(t_{\cdot}w,\Psi_{t,w}x),$
where $\Psi_{t,w}\colon\mathbb{T}_{w}\rightarrow\mathbb{T}_{t_{\cdot}w}$ is
defined as $\Psi_{t,w}=D_{\textbf{0}}\psi_{t,w}$ for any
$(t,w)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{E}$, associated with $S$.
Recall that a $\phi$-invariant closed subset $\Lambda$ is said to be
_hyperbolic_ , provided that there exist constants $C\geq 1,\lambda<0$ and a
continuous $\Psi$-invariant splitting
$\mathbb{T}_{w}=T_{w}^{s}\oplus T_{w}^{u}\quad w\in\Lambda$
such that
$\displaystyle\|\Psi_{t_{0}+t,w}x\|$ $\displaystyle\leq C^{-1}\exp(\lambda
t)\|\Psi_{t_{0},w}x\|\quad\forall\,x\in T_{w}^{s}$ and
$\displaystyle\|\Psi_{t_{0}+t,w}x\|$ $\displaystyle\geq C\exp(-\lambda
t)\|\Psi_{t_{0},w}x\|\quad\forall\,x\in T_{w}^{u}$
for any $t_{0}\in\mathbb{R}$ and for all $t>0$.
Then, Anosov’s structural stability theorem [1, 9] asserts that: If $\Lambda$
is a compact hyperbolic set for $S$, then for any $\varepsilon>0$ there is a
$C^{1}$-neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $S$ in $\mathfrak{X}^{1}(\mathbb{E})$
such that, if $V\in\mathcal{U}$ then there exists a $\varepsilon$-topological
mapping $h$ from $\Lambda$ onto some subset $\Lambda_{V}$ of $\mathbb{E}$
which sends orbits of $S$ in $\Lambda$ into orbits of $V$ in $\Lambda_{V}$.
This important theorem was extended to axiom A differential systems [11, 13],
and to $C^{0}$-perturbations by considering the so-called semi-structural
stability independently by [5, 7]; for discrete versions, see [12, 14, 9, 15,
10]. On another direction, in this paper, we study the structural stability of
_noncompact_ hyperbolic set under _time-preserving_ conjugacy between the
induced cross-section flows. More precisely, using Liao theory we prove the
following.
###### Main Theorem.
Let $\Lambda$ be a hyperbolic set for $S$, not necessarily compact, satisfying
the following conditions:
1. (U1)
The first derivative $S^{\prime}(w)$ is uniformly bounded on $\Lambda$;
2. (U2)
$0<\inf_{w\in\Lambda}\|S(w)\|\leq\sup_{w\in\Lambda}\|S(w)\|<\infty$;
3. (U3)
$S^{\prime}(w)$ is uniformly continuous at $\Lambda$; that is, to any
$\epsilon>0$ there is some $\delta>0$ so that for any
$\mathfrak{w}\in\Lambda$,
$\|S^{\prime}(w)-S^{\prime}(\mathfrak{w})\|<\epsilon$ whenever
$\|w-\mathfrak{w}\|<\delta$.
Then, for any $\varepsilon>0$ there is a $C^{1}$-neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of
$S$ in $\mathfrak{X}^{1}(\mathbb{E})$ such that for any $V\in\mathcal{U}$
there exists a $\varepsilon$-topological mapping $H$ from $\Lambda$ onto some
closed subset $\Lambda_{V}$ which sends orbits of $S$ in $\Lambda$ into orbits
of $V$ in $\Lambda_{V}$, such that $H(w)\in\Sigma_{w}$ and
$\psi_{V}(t,H(w))=H(t_{\cdot}w)$ for all $w\in\Lambda$ and for any
$t\in\mathbb{R}$.
Notice here that if $\Lambda$ is compact, then conditions (U1), (U2) and (U3)
hold automatically. So our result is an extension of the classical one. Even
for the compact case, the time-preserving property is still a new ingredient
in our main theorem.
To prove this result, we will introduce the reduced standard systems of
differential equations for perturbations of $S$ in $\S\ref{sec2}$ and recall
Liao’s exponential dichotomy in $\S\ref{sec3}$. Finally, we prove the Main
Theorem in $\S\ref{sec4}$, using simplified and extended Liao approach that is
completely different from Anosov’s geometrical approach [1] and Moser’s
functional approach [9] to differentiable dynamical systems on compact
Riemannian manifolds. And in $\S\ref{sec4}$, we will construct a differential
system which has a noncompact, structurally stable, hyperbolic subset.
## 2\. Liao standard system of differential equations
Let $S$ be any given $C^{1}$-differential system on $\mathbb{E}$ and $\Lambda$
a $\phi$-invariant closed subset in $\mathbb{E}$ satisfying conditions (U1),
(U2) and (U3) as in the Main Theorem stated in $\S\ref{sec1}$. Around a
regular orbit $\phi(\mathbb{R},w)$ we defined in [3] the reduced standard
systems for $S$ itself. However, we will introduce below the standard systems
for perturbations $V$ of $S$.
### 2.1.
As usual in Liao theory [3, 4], let
$\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)={\bigsqcup}_{w\in\Lambda}\mathscr{F}_{n-1,w}^{*\sharp}$
be the bundle of transversal orthonormal $(n-1)$-frames, where the fiber over
$w$ is defined as
$\mathscr{F}_{n-1,w}^{*\sharp}=\left\\{{\gamma}=(\vec{u}_{1},\ldots,\vec{u}_{n-1})\in\mathbb{T}_{w}\times\cdots\times\mathbb{T}_{w}\,|\langle\vec{u}_{i},\vec{u}_{j}\rangle=\delta^{ij}\textrm{
for }1\leq i,j\leq n-1\right\\},$
endowed with the naturally induced topology. Then, $S$ naturally generates a
skew-product flow over $\phi$
(2.1)
$\chi^{*\sharp}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)\rightarrow\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda);\
(t,(w,{\gamma}))\mapsto(t_{\cdot}w,\chi_{t,w}^{*\sharp}{\gamma}),$
where
$\chi_{t,w}^{*\sharp}\colon\mathscr{F}_{n-1,w}^{*\sharp}\rightarrow\mathscr{F}_{n-1,t_{\cdot}w}^{*\sharp}$
is defined by the standard Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization process; cf. [2, 3]
for the details.
Let $\textbf{e}=\\{\vec{e}_{1},\ldots,\vec{e}_{n-1}\\}$ where
$\vec{e}_{j}=(\stackrel{{\scriptstyle
j^{\textrm{th}}}}{{0,\ldots,0,1,0,\ldots,0}})^{\textrm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$,
be the standard basis of $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and we view $y\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$
with components $y^{1},\ldots,y^{n-1}$ as a column vector
$(y^{1},\ldots,y^{n-1})^{\textrm{T}}$ and
$\gamma\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1,w}^{*\sharp}$ as an $n$-by-$(n-1)$ matrix with
columns $\textrm{col}_{1}{\gamma},\ldots,\textrm{col}_{n-1}{\gamma}$
successively.
Given any orthonormal $(n-1)$-frame
$(w,{\gamma})\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$, sometimes written
simply as $\gamma_{w}$, we define by linear extension the linear
transformation
(2.2)
$\mathcal{T}_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}\colon\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\rightarrow\mathbb{T}_{w}$
in the way
$\vec{e}_{j}\mapsto{\mathrm{col}}_{j}{\gamma}\quad(1\leq j\leq n-1).$
Since ${\gamma}$ is an orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{T}_{w}$,
$\mathcal{T}_{\gamma_{w}}^{*}$ is an isomorphism such that
$\mathcal{T}_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(y)={\gamma}y=\sum_{j=1}^{n-1}y^{j}\textrm{col}_{j}\gamma\textrm{
and
}\|y\|_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}}=\|{\gamma}y\|_{\mathbb{T}_{w}}\quad\forall\,y\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}.$
Moreover, we now define
(2.3)
$C_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(t)=\mathcal{T}_{\chi^{*\sharp}(t,{\gamma}_{w})}^{*-1}\circ\Psi_{t,w}\circ\mathcal{T}_{\gamma_{w}}^{*}\quad\forall\,t\in\mathbb{R},$
where
$\chi^{*\sharp}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)\rightarrow\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$
as in (2.1). Then the commutativity holds:
(2.4)
$\begin{CD}\mathbb{R}^{n-1}@>{C_{\gamma_{w}}^{*}(t)}>{}>\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\\\
@V{\mathcal{T}_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}}V{}V@V{}V{\mathcal{T}_{\chi^{*\sharp}(t,{\gamma}_{w})}^{*}}V\\\
\mathbb{T}_{w}@>{\Psi_{t,w}}>{}>\mathbb{T}_{t_{\cdot}w}.\end{CD}$
We now think of $C_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(t)$ as an $(n-1)\times(n-1)$-matrix
under the base e of $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$. Clearly,
$t\mapsto\frac{d}{dt}C_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(t)$ makes sense since ${S}$ is of
class $C^{1}$ and by (2.4) we have
(2.5)
$C_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(t_{1}+t_{2})=C_{\chi^{*\sharp}(t_{1},{\gamma}_{w})}^{*}(t_{2})\circ
C_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(t_{1})\quad\forall\,t_{1},t_{2}\in\mathbb{R}.$
Put
(2.6)
$R_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(t)=\left\\{\frac{d}{dt}C_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(t)\right\\}{C_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(t)}^{-1}\quad\forall\,(w,{\gamma})\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda).$
###### Definition 2.1.
The linear differential equation
$None$
$\dot{y}=R_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(t)y\quad(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$
for any $(w,{\gamma})\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$, is called the
_reduced linearized system_ of ${S}$ under the moving frame
$\chi^{*\sharp}(t,{\gamma}_{w})$. See [2, 3].
These reduced linearized systems of ${S}$ possess the following properties.
###### Lemma 2.2 ([2, 3]).
The following statements hold:
1. (1)
Uniform boundedness: $R_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(t)$ is continuous in
$(t,(w,\gamma))$ in $\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$
with
$\eta_{\Lambda}:=\sup\left\\{\sum_{i,j}|R_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*ij}(t)|;\,t\in\mathbb{R},(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)\right\\}<\infty.$
2. (2)
Upper triangularity: ${R}_{\gamma_{w}}^{*}(t)$ is upper-triangular with
${R}_{\gamma_{w}}^{*}(t)=\left[\begin{matrix}{\omega}_{1}^{*}(\chi^{*\sharp}(t,\gamma_{w}))&\cdots&*\\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\\
0&\cdots&{\omega}_{n-1}^{*}(\chi^{*\sharp}(t,\gamma_{w}))\end{matrix}\right]\quad\forall\,t\in\mathbb{R}$
where ${\omega}_{k}^{*}(w,\gamma),1\leq k\leq n-1$, called the “Liao
qualitative functions” of $S$, are uniformly continuous in
$(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$.
3. (3)
Geometrical interpretation: Let $\vec{v}={\gamma}{y}\in\mathbb{T}_{w}$ for
${y}\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$. If $y(t)=y(t,{y})$ is the solution of
$(R_{\gamma_{w}}^{*})$ with $y(0)={y}$, then
$\Psi_{t,w}\vec{v}=\mathcal{T}_{\chi^{*\sharp}(t,\gamma_{w})}^{*}y(t)=(\chi_{t,w}^{*\sharp}\gamma)y(t).$
Conversely, letting
$x(t)=(x^{1}(t),\ldots,x^{n-1}(t))^{\mathrm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ be defined
by
$x^{i}(t)=\left\langle\Psi_{t,w}\vec{v},\mathrm{col}_{i}{\chi_{t,w}^{*\sharp}}\gamma\right\rangle_{t_{\cdot}w}\quad
i=1,\ldots,{n-1},$
we have $\dot{x}(t)={R}_{\gamma_{w}}^{*}(t)x(t)\textrm{ and }x(0)={y}$.
Particularly, $C_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*}(t)$ is the fundamental matrix solution of
$(R_{{\gamma}_{w}}^{*})$.
As a consequence of the above lemma, we have
###### Corollary 2.3.
Let $\Lambda$ be hyperbolic for $S$ associated to $\Psi$-invariant splitting
$\mathbb{T}_{\Lambda}=T_{\Lambda}^{s}\oplus T_{\Lambda}^{u}$. Then, there are
two constants $\boldsymbol{\eta}>0$ and $\textbf{d}>0$ such that: for any
$(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$, if
$\mathrm{col}_{i}\gamma\in T_{w}^{s}$ for $i=1,\ldots,\dim T_{w}^{s}$ then
$\displaystyle\int_{0}^{T}\omega_{k}^{*}(\chi^{*\sharp}(t_{0}+t,(w,\gamma)))\,dt\leq-\boldsymbol{\eta}T,\quad
1\leq k\leq\dim T_{w}^{s}$ and
$\displaystyle\int_{0}^{T}\omega_{k}^{*}(\chi^{*\sharp}(t_{0}+t,(w,\gamma)))\,dt\geq\boldsymbol{\eta}T,\quad\dim
T_{w}^{s}+1\leq k\leq n-1$
for any $t_{0}\in\mathbb{R}$ and for all $T\geq\textbf{d}$.
###### Proof.
The statement comes immediately from Lemma 2.2 and [7, Lemma 3.7]. ∎
### 2.2.
For a constant $c>0$, let
$\mathbb{R}_{c}^{n-1}=\\{y\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1};\,\|y\|<c\\}$. Fix any
$w\in\Lambda$. For any $\gamma\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1,w}^{*\sharp}$, we need the
$C^{1}$-mapping
$\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\rightarrow\mathbb{E}$
defined by
$\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)=t_{\cdot}w+({\chi_{t,w}^{*\sharp}}\gamma)y\in\Sigma_{t_{\cdot}w}\quad\forall\,(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}.$
It is known [3, Lemma 5.1] that there is a constant $\mathfrak{c}>0$, which is
independent of $(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$, such that
$\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}$ is locally diffeomorphic on
$\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$. In fact, according to [3]
there is some $\epsilon>0$ so that for any $w\in\Lambda$,
$\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}$ is diffeomorphic from
$(-\epsilon,\epsilon)\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$ into $\mathbb{E}$.
Given any $(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$. Define a
$C^{0}$-vector field on $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$
$\widehat{S}_{w,{\gamma}}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$
with
$\widehat{S}_{w,{\gamma}}(t,\textbf{0})=(1,\textbf{0})^{\textrm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$
in the following way:
$\left(D_{(t,y)}\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}\right)\widehat{S}_{w,{\gamma}}(t,y)=S(\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y))\quad\forall\,(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}.$
Since $\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}$ is locally $C^{1}$-diffeomorphic,
$\widehat{S}_{w,{\gamma}}(t,y)$ is well defined. We now consider the
autonomous system
(2.7a) $\displaystyle\frac{d}{d\mathbbm{t}}\left(\begin{matrix}t\\\
y\end{matrix}\right)$
$\displaystyle=\widehat{S}_{w,{\gamma}}(t,y)\quad(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$
and write (2.7b) $\displaystyle\widehat{S}_{w,{\gamma}}(t,y)$
$\displaystyle=\left(\widehat{S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{0}(t,y),\ldots,\widehat{S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{n-1}(t,y)\right)^{\textrm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}.$
Next, put
(2.8)
${S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{*}(t,y)=\left(\frac{\widehat{S}_{\mathfrak{w},{\gamma}}^{1}(t,y)}{\widehat{S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{0}(t,y)},\ldots,\frac{\widehat{S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{n-1}(t,y)}{\widehat{S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{0}(t,y)}\right)^{\textrm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\quad\forall\,(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}.$
###### Definition 2.4 ([3]).
The non-autonomous differential equation
$None$
$\dot{y}={S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{*}(t,y)\quad(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$
is called the _reduced standard system of $S$ under the base
$(w,{\gamma})\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$_.
Is is easy to see that
(2.9)
${S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{*}(t+t_{1},y)={S}_{\chi^{*\sharp}(t,(w,{\gamma}))}^{*}(t_{1},y)\quad\forall\,(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}.$
For convenience of our later discussion, we write
(2.10)
$\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)=t_{\cdot}w+\widehat{\mathcal{P}}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y),\textrm{
where }\widehat{\mathcal{P}}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)\in\mathbb{T}_{t_{\cdot}w}.$
The following is important for our later arguments.
###### Lemma 2.5 ([3]).
Under the conditions (U1), (U2) and (U3), the following statements hold: for
any $(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$
1. (1)
${S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{*}(t,\mathbf{0})=\mathbf{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ for all
$t\in\mathbb{R}$, and ${S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{*}(t,y)$ is continuous with respect
to $(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$.
2. (2)
For any $(\bar{t},\bar{y})\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$,
let
$\bar{w}=\bar{t}_{\cdot}w+\bar{x}={\mathcal{P}}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(\bar{t},\bar{y})\in\Sigma_{\bar{t}_{\cdot}w}$
and
$y^{*}(t)=y_{w,{\gamma}}^{*}(t;\bar{t},\bar{y})\quad
t\in(r^{\prime},r^{\prime\prime})\textrm{ where
}\bar{t}\in(r^{\prime},r^{\prime\prime}),$
be the solution of $({S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{*})$ with $y^{*}(\bar{t})=\bar{y}$.
Then
$\psi(t-\bar{t},\bar{w})={\mathcal{P}}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y^{*}(t))\in\Sigma_{t_{\cdot}w}\quad(r^{\prime}<t<r^{\prime\prime}).$
3. (3)
${S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{*}(t,y)$ is of class $C^{1}$ with respect to
$y\in\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$ such that
${\partial{S}_{w,{\gamma}}^{*}(t,y)}/{\partial
y}\to{R}_{w,{\gamma}}^{*}(t)\textrm{ as }y\to\mathbf{0}$
uniformly for
$(t,(w,\gamma))\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$.
From here on, for any $w\in\Lambda$ we will rewrite ($S_{w,\gamma}^{*}$) as
(2.11a)
$\displaystyle\dot{y}=R_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)y+S_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)\quad(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$
where (2.11b) $\displaystyle
S_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)=S_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)-R_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)y.$
Then, we have the following result.
###### Lemma 2.6 ([3]).
Under the conditions (U1), (U2) and (U3), to any $\kappa>0$, there is some
$\xi\in(0,\mathfrak{c}]$ so that
$\|S_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)-S_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y^{\prime})\|\leq\kappa\|y-y^{\prime}\|\quad\textrm{whenever
}y,y^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}_{\xi}^{n-1}$
holds uniformly for
$(t,(w,\gamma))\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$.
### 2.3.
In what follows, we let $V\colon\mathbb{E}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$ be an
arbitrarily given another $C^{1}$ vector field on $\mathbb{E}$. Note here that
$(\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda),\chi^{*\sharp})$ still corresponds to
$S$.
In order to introduce the standard systems of $V$ associated with $S$, let us
consider firstly a simple lemma.
###### Lemma 2.7.
Let $h\colon\widehat{N}\rightarrow N$ be a map of class $C^{1}$ from a $C^{1}$
manifold $\widehat{N}$ into another $C^{1}$ manifold $N$. Let $\widehat{X}$
and $X$ be $C^{0}$ vector fields on $\widehat{N}$ and $N$, respectively. If
$(Dh)\widehat{X}=X$ then for any $\hat{p}\in\widehat{N}$, $h$ maps the
integral curve $\phi_{\hat{\textsl{x}}}(t,\hat{p})$ of $\widehat{X}$ into an
integral curve $\phi_{\textsl{x}}(t,h(\hat{p}))$ of $X$ such that
$\phi_{\textsl{x}}(t,h(\hat{p}))=h(\phi_{\hat{\textsl{x}}}(t,\hat{p}))$.
###### Proof.
Let $h(\hat{p})=p$. Define a $C^{1}$ curve in $N$ by $C\colon t\mapsto
h(\phi_{\hat{\textsl{x}}}(t,\hat{p}))$. Since
$\frac{d}{dt}\phi_{\hat{\textsl{x}}}(t,\hat{p})=\widehat{X}(\phi_{\hat{\textsl{x}}}(t,\hat{p}))\textrm{
and
}(Dh)\widehat{X}(\phi_{\hat{\textsl{x}}}(t,\hat{p}))=X(C(t))=\frac{d}{dt}C(t),$
we get that $C(t)$ is an integral curve of $X$ satisfying the initial
condition $C(0)=p$. Now put $\phi_{\textsl{x}}(t,p)=C(t)$, which satisfies the
requirement of Lemma 2.7. ∎
Particularly, we will be interesting to the case where
$\widehat{N}=\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1},N=\mathbb{E}$ and
$h=\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}$ and $X=V$ for any given
$(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$. Correspondingly, there
$\widehat{X}$ is right the so-called lifting system that we are going to
define.
###### Definition 2.8.
Given any $(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$. Define a
$C^{0}$-vector field
$\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$
in the following way:
$\left(D_{(t,y)}\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}\right)\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}(t,y)=V(\mathcal{P}_{w,{\gamma}}^{*}(t,y))\quad\forall\,(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}.$
Then, the autonomous differential equation
(2.12a) $\displaystyle\frac{d}{d\mathbbm{t}}\left(\begin{matrix}t\\\
y\end{matrix}\right)$
$\displaystyle=\widehat{V}_{w,{\gamma}}(t,y)\quad\mathbbm{t}\in\mathbb{R},(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$
is referred to as a _lifting_ of $V$ under the moving frames
$(\chi^{*\sharp}(t,(w,{\gamma})))_{t\in\mathbb{R}}$.
Write
$\widehat{V}_{w,{\gamma}}(t,y)=\left(\widehat{V}_{w,{\gamma}}^{0}(t,y),\ldots,\widehat{V}_{w,{\gamma}}^{n-1}(t,y)\right)^{\textrm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}.$
Clearly, it follows from
$\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)=\mathcal{P}_{\chi^{*\sharp}(t,(w,\gamma))}^{*}(0,y)$
that
(2.13)
$\widehat{V}_{w,{\gamma}}(t,y)=\widehat{V}_{\chi^{*\sharp}(t,(w,{\gamma}))}(0,y)\quad\forall\,(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}.$
Although $\mathcal{P}_{w,{\gamma}}^{*}$ is only $C^{1}$, we can obtain more
about the regularity of $\widehat{V}_{w,{\gamma}}(t,y)$ with respect to
$y\in\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$ as long as $V$ is $C^{1}$.
###### Lemma 2.9.
Given any $(w,{\gamma})\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$, the lifting
$\widehat{V}_{w,{\gamma}}(t,y)$ is of class $C^{1}$ in $y$; precisely, for
$1\leq i\leq{n-1}$, $\partial\widehat{V}_{w,{\gamma}}(t,y)/{\partial y^{i}}$
makes sense and is continuous with respect to $(t,y,(w,{\gamma}))$ in
$\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$.
###### Proof.
The statement comes immediately from the regularity of
$\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)$, as the argument of [3, Lemma 5.3]. ∎
Next, let
$\\{S,V\\}_{\Lambda}^{1}=\sup_{\begin{subarray}{c}(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}\\\
(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)\end{subarray}}\left\\{\|\widehat{S}_{w,\gamma}(t,y)-\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}(t,y)\|+\|\frac{\partial}{\partial
y}[\widehat{S}_{w,\gamma}(t,y)-\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}(t,y)]\|\right\\}.$
From (2.13) we get
$\\{S,V\\}_{\Lambda}^{1}=\sup_{\begin{subarray}{c}y\in\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}\\\
(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)\end{subarray}}\left\\{\|\widehat{S}_{w,\gamma}(0,y)-\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}(0,y)\|+\|\frac{\partial}{\partial
y}[\widehat{S}_{w,\gamma}(0,y)-\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}(0,y)]\|\right\\}.$
Then, we have
###### Lemma 2.10.
There exists some constant $\flat_{\Lambda}>0$ such that
$\|S-V\|_{1}\geq\flat_{\Lambda}\\{S,V\\}_{\Lambda}^{1}\quad\forall\,V\in\mathfrak{X}^{1}(\mathbb{E}).$
###### Proof.
For any $(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$ let
$J_{w,\gamma}(y)=\left.\frac{\partial\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)}{\partial(t,y)}\right|_{(0,y)}$
be the $n$-by-$n$ Jacobi matrix of $\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)$ at
$(0,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$. Then
$\displaystyle\mathcal{P}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(0,y)$ $\displaystyle=w+\gamma y$ and
$\displaystyle J_{w,\gamma}(y)$
$\displaystyle=\left[S(w)+\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}({\chi_{t,w}^{*\sharp}}\gamma)y,\,\gamma\right]_{n\times
n}.$
Thus, for any $y\in\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$ we have
$\widehat{S}_{w,\gamma}(0,y)-\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}(0,y)={J_{w,\gamma}(y)}^{-1}(S-V)(w+\gamma
y)$
Moreover, from condition (U1) we can prove by the argument of [3, Lemma 5.3]
that $\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}{\chi_{t,w}^{*\sharp}}\gamma$, viewed as
an $n$-by-$(n-1)$ matrix, is uniformly continuous and bounded for any
$(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$. Therefore, there is some
constant $\flat_{\Lambda}>0$ which satisfies the requirement of Lemma 2.10. ∎
From Lemma 2.10, condition (U1) and
$\widehat{S}_{w,\gamma}^{0}(t,\textbf{0})=1$, we may assume, without any loss
of generality replacing $\mathfrak{c}$ by a more small positive constant if
necessary, that
* •
$\exists\,\mathcal{N}_{\textsl{s}}$, a $C^{1}$-neighborhood of $S$ in
$\mathfrak{X}^{1}(\mathbb{E})$ such that: for any
$V\in\mathcal{N}_{\textsl{s}}$
* •
$\frac{1}{2}\leq\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}^{0}(t,y)\leq\frac{4}{2}$ for any
$(t,y,{(w,\gamma)})\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$.
Thus, the following definition makes sense.
###### Definition 2.11.
Given any
$(V,(w,\gamma))\in\mathcal{N}_{\textsl{s}}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$,
set
$V_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)=\left(\frac{\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}^{1}(t,y)}{\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}^{0}(t,y)},\ldots,\frac{\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}^{n-1}(t,y)}{\widehat{V}_{w,\gamma}^{0}(t,x)}\right)^{\textrm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\quad\forall\,(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}.$
The non-autonomous differential equation
$None$
$\dot{y}=V_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)\quad(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$
is referred to as the _standard system of $V$ associated to $(S,(w,\gamma))$_.
From (2.13) we have
(2.14)
$V_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t+t^{\prime},y)=V_{\chi^{*\sharp}(t,(w,\gamma))}^{*}(t^{\prime},y)\quad\forall\,t,t^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}\textrm{
and }y\in\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}.$
In what follows, we write $(V_{w,\gamma}^{*})$ as
$None$
$\dot{y}=R_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)y+V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)\quad(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$
where
(2.15a) $\displaystyle V_{\textsl{rem}(w,{\gamma})}^{*}(t,y)$
$\displaystyle=V_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)-R_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)y$ such that (2.15b)
$\displaystyle V_{\textsl{rem}(w,{\gamma})}^{*}(t+t^{\prime},y)$
$\displaystyle=V_{\textsl{rem}(\chi^{*\sharp}(t,(w,\gamma)))}^{*}(t^{\prime},y)\quad\forall\,t,t^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}.$
Similar to Lemma 2.5, we obtain the following result.
###### Theorem 2.12.
Given any $V\in\mathcal{N}_{\textsl{s}}$, the following statements hold:
1. (1)
$V_{\textsl{rem}(w,{\gamma})}^{*}(t,y)$ and ${\partial
V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)}/{\partial y}$ are continuous in
$(t,y,{(w,\gamma)})\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$.
2. (2)
Given any ${(w,\gamma)}\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$. If
$y^{*}(t)=y_{V;w,\gamma}^{*}(t;t_{0},y))$ where
$t^{\prime}<t,t_{0}<t^{\prime\prime}$, is the solution of $(V_{w,\gamma}^{*})$
with $y^{*}(t_{0})=y$, then
$\psi_{V}(t-t_{0},{\mathcal{P}}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t_{0},y))={\mathcal{P}}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y^{*}(t))\in\Sigma_{t_{\cdot}w}.$
Moreover, similar to Lemma 2.6 we have the following important result.
###### Theorem 2.13.
The following three statements hold.
1. (1)
Given any
$(V,{(w,\gamma)})\in\mathcal{N}_{\textsl{s}}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$,
there is some $L>0$ such that
$\|V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)-V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y^{\prime})\|\leq
L\|y-y^{\prime}\|$
for any $t\in\mathbb{R}$ and for any
$y,y^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$.
2. (2)
To any $\eta>0$ there exists a $C^{1}$-neighborhood
$\mathcal{U}_{\textsl{s}}^{\prime}\subset\mathcal{N}_{\textsl{s}}$ of $S$ and
$\xi^{\prime}\in(0,\mathfrak{c}]$ such that:
$\forall\,V\in\mathcal{U}_{\textsl{s}}^{\prime}$
$\sup_{(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\xi^{\prime}}^{n-1}}\|V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)\|\leq\eta\xi^{\prime}\quad\forall\,(w,{\gamma})\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda).$
3. (3)
To any given $\kappa>0$ there corresponds a $C^{1}$-neighborhood
$\mathcal{U}_{\textsl{s}}^{\prime\prime}\subset\mathcal{N}_{\textsl{s}}$ of
$S$ and a constant $\xi^{\prime\prime}\in(0,\mathfrak{c}]$ such that:
$\forall\,V\in\mathcal{U}_{\textsl{s}}^{\prime\prime}$
$\|V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)-V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y^{\prime})\|\leq\kappa\|y-y^{\prime}\|\quad\forall\,y,y^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}_{\xi^{\prime\prime}}^{n-1}$
uniformly for
$(t,(w,\gamma))\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$.
###### Proof.
By (2.15a), Lemma 2.10 and Lemma 2.2 and condition (U1)
$L:=\sup_{(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}}\left\\{\|\partial
V_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)/\partial y\|+\|R_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)\|\right\\}<+\infty$
which satisfies the requirement of the statement (1).
Given any $\eta>0$. For any $V\in\mathcal{N}_{\textsl{s}}$ and for any
$(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$ one can write
$V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)=\left(V_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)-{S}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)\right)+\left({S}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)-{R}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)y\right)$
for any $(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$. Then, from
Lemma 2.10 and Lemma 2.6 there exists a $C^{1}$-neighborhood
$\mathcal{U}_{\textsl{s}}^{\prime}\subset\mathcal{N}_{\textsl{s}}$ of $S$ and
a constant $\xi^{\prime}\in(0,\mathfrak{c}]$ such that
$\sup_{(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\xi^{\prime}}^{n-1}}\|V_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)\|\leq\eta\xi^{\prime}\quad\forall\,(w,{\gamma})\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)\textrm{
and }V\in\mathcal{U}_{\textsl{s}}^{\prime}.$
This shows the statement (2).
Now given any $\kappa>0$. Next, for any $V\in\mathcal{N}_{\textsl{s}}$
consider
$\frac{\partial}{\partial
y}V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)=\frac{\partial}{\partial
y}\left(V_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)-{S}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)\right)+\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial
y}{S}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)-{R}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)\right).$
From Lemma 2.10 we obtain that
$\|\frac{\partial}{\partial
y}\left({V}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)-{S}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)\right)\|\to 0\textrm{
as }\|V-S\|_{1}\to 0$
uniformly for
$(t,y,(w,{\gamma}))\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$
and, from Lemma 2.2 there exists $\xi^{\prime\prime}\in(0,\mathfrak{c}]$ so
that
$\|\frac{\partial}{\partial
y}{S}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y)-{R}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)\|\leq\frac{\kappa}{2}\quad\forall\,(t,(w,\gamma))\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)\textrm{
and }y\in\mathbb{R}_{\xi^{\prime\prime}}^{n-1}.$
Hence, there is a $C^{1}$-neighborhood
$\mathcal{U}_{\textsl{s}}^{\prime\prime}\subset\mathcal{N}_{\textsl{s}}$ of
$S$ such that: $\forall\,V\in\mathcal{U}_{\textsl{s}}^{\prime\prime}$
$\|\frac{\partial}{\partial
y}V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)\|\leq\kappa\quad\forall\,(t,(w,\gamma))\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)\textrm{
and }y\in\mathbb{R}_{\xi^{\prime\prime}}^{n-1}.$
This implies the statement (3) by the mean value theorem.
Thus, Theorem 2.13 is proved. ∎
## 3\. Exponential dichotomy
In this section, we will introduce the exponential dichotomy due to Liao [7],
by which we consider in part the relationship between the phase portraits of
linear differential equations and their small perturbations on Euclidean
spaces. Here we shall deal with families of ordinary differential equations,
nor only a single equations.
Given a positive integer $p$. For convenience of our later discussion, let
$M_{p\times p}^{\vartriangle}$ be the set of continuous matrix-valued
functions $A\colon\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\textrm{gl}(p,\mathbb{R})$ such that
1. (a)
$A(t)$ is triangular with $A_{ij}(t)=0$ for $1\leq j<i\leq p$;
2. (b)
$A$ is uniformly bounded on $\mathbb{R}$ with
$\eta_{A}:=\sup_{t\in\mathbb{R}}\|A(t)\|<\infty$;
3. (c)
$A$ is hyperbolic with index $p_{-}$ in the following sense:
$\xi_{A}:=\sup_{t\in\mathbb{R}}\left\\{\sum_{k=1}^{p_{-}}\int_{-\infty}^{t}e^{\int_{s}^{t}A_{kk}(\tau)\,d\tau}\,ds+\sum_{k=1+p_{-}}^{p}\int_{t}^{\infty}e^{\int_{s}^{t}A_{kk}(\tau)\,d\tau}\,ds\right\\}<\infty.$
In addition, let $M_{p\times 1}$ be the set of continuous functions
$f\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{p}$ such that
1. (d)
$f(t,z)$ is bounded on $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}$ with
$\eta_{f}:=\sup_{(t,z)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}}\|f(t,z)\|<\infty$;
2. (e)
$f(t,z)$ is Lipschitz in $z$ with a Lipschitz constant $L_{f}$:
$\|f(t,z)-f(t,z^{\prime})\|\leq L_{f}\|z-z^{\prime}\|$
for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$ and for any $z,z^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}^{p}$.
For any $(A,f)\in M_{p\times p}^{\vartriangle}\times M_{p\times 1}$, we will
study the equations
(3.1) $\dot{z}=A(t)z+f(t,z),\quad(t,z)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}$
and
(3.2) $\dot{z}=A(t)z,\quad(t,z)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}.$
For any $(s,u)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}$, let $z_{A,f}(t;s,u)$ and
$z_{A}(t;s,u)$ denote the solutions of (3.1) and (3.2) with
$z_{A,f}(s;s,u)=u=z_{A}(s;s,u)$, respectively.
The following result is important for the proof of our main theorem.
###### Theorem 3.1 ([7, Theorems 3.1 and 3.2]).
Let $(A,f)\in M_{p\times p}^{\vartriangle}\times M_{p\times 1}$ be any given.
Then, there is a unique surjective mapping
$\Delta_{A,f}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p};\
(s,u)\mapsto(s,\Delta_{s}(u))$
which possesses the following properties:
1. (i)
$\Delta_{A,f}$ maps the phase-portraits of (3.1) onto that of (3.2). In fact,
$\Delta_{A,f}(t,z_{A,f}(t;s,u))=(t,z_{A}(t;s,\Delta_{s}(u)));$
that is to say, the following commutativity holds:
$\begin{CD}\mathbb{R}^{p}@>{z_{A,f}(t;s,\cdot)}>{}>\mathbb{R}^{p}\\\
@V{\Delta_{s}}V{}V@V{}V{\Delta_{t}}V\\\
\mathbb{R}^{p}@>{z_{A}(t;s,\cdot)}>{}>\mathbb{R}^{p}.\end{CD}$
2. (ii)
$\Delta_{A,f}$ is a $\varepsilon_{A,f}$-mapping, i.e.,
$\|(s,u)-\Delta_{A,f}(s,u)\|\leq\varepsilon_{A,f}$ for all
$(s,u)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}$, where
$\varepsilon_{A,f}=\eta_{f}\xi_{A}(1+2\eta_{A}\xi_{A})^{p};$
3. (iii)
For any $(s,u),(s,u^{\prime})\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}$,
$z_{A,f}(t;s,u)-z_{A}(t;s,u^{\prime})$ is bounded on $\mathbb{R}$ if and only
if $\Delta_{s}(u)=u^{\prime}$.
4. (iv)
If
$L_{f}\leq\frac{1}{\xi_{A}(1+\eta_{A}\xi_{A})^{p}},$
then $\Delta_{A,f}$ is a self-homeomorphism of
$\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}$.
Next, we endow $M_{p\times p}^{\vartriangle}\times M_{p\times 1}$ with the
compact-open topology. Let $(\mathbb{P},d)$ be a metric space with metric $d$
and $\eta_{\mathbb{P}}>0,\xi_{\mathbb{P}}>0,L_{\mathbb{P}}>0$ constants with
$L_{\mathbb{P}}\leq\frac{1}{\xi_{\mathbb{P}}(1+\eta_{\mathbb{P}}\xi_{\mathbb{P}})^{p}}$.
Let
$\mathfrak{S}\colon\mathbb{P}\rightarrow M_{p\times p}^{\vartriangle}\times
M_{p\times 1};\ \lambda\mapsto(A_{\lambda},f_{\lambda})$
be a continuous mapping such that
$\eta_{A_{\lambda}}\leq\eta_{\mathbb{P}},\xi_{A_{\lambda}}\leq\xi_{\mathbb{P}},L_{f_{\lambda}}\leq
L_{\mathbb{P}}$, and
$None$ $\dot{z}=A_{\lambda}(t)z,\quad(t,z)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}$
has no any nontrivial bounded solutions. We consider the bounded solutions of
the equations with parameter $\lambda$
$None$
$\dot{z}=A_{\lambda}(t)z+f_{\lambda}(t,z),\quad(t,z)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}.$
Define
$\Delta^{*}\colon\mathbb{P}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{p}$
in the way: for any $\lambda\in\mathbb{P}$
$\Delta_{\lambda}(0,\Delta^{*}(\lambda))=(0,\textbf{0})\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}$
where
$\Delta_{\lambda}=\Delta_{A_{\lambda},f_{\lambda}}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{p}$
is determined by Theorem 3.1 for $(\ref{eq3.1})_{\lambda}$ and
$(\ref{eq3.2})_{\lambda}$.
We will need the following result, which will play a useful role in the later
proof of our main theorem in $\S\ref{sec4}$.
###### Theorem 3.2.
The mapping $\Delta^{*}\colon\mathbb{P}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{p}$ is
continuous.
###### Proof.
Let $\lambda_{0}\in\mathbb{P}$ and $\varepsilon>0$. Letting
$\textbf{x}_{0}=\Delta^{*}(\lambda_{0})\in\mathbb{R}^{p}$, we assert that
there exists some $\delta>0$ such that
$\|\Delta^{*}(\lambda)-\textbf{x}_{0}\|<\varepsilon$ whenever
$\lambda\in\mathbb{P}$ with $d(\lambda,\lambda_{0})<\delta$. If the assertion
were not true, there would be a sequence $\lambda_{j}\to\lambda_{0}$ in
$\mathbb{P}$ satisfying
$\|\Delta^{*}(\lambda_{j})-\textbf{x}_{0}\|\geq\varepsilon$ for all $j$. Since
for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$ we have
$\|z_{A_{\lambda_{j}},f_{\lambda_{j}}}(t;0,\Delta^{*}(\lambda_{j}))\|\leq\eta_{\mathbb{P}}\xi_{\mathbb{P}}(1+2\eta_{\mathbb{P}}\xi_{\mathbb{P}})^{p}\quad
j=1,2,\ldots$
by Theorem 3.1, we can assume $\Delta^{*}(\lambda_{j})\to\textbf{x}$ for some
$\textbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{p}$ and
$\|\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}_{0}\|\geq\varepsilon$. As $\mathfrak{S}$ is
continuous, it follows from a basic theorem of ODE that
$\lim_{j\to\infty}z_{A_{\lambda_{j}},f_{\lambda_{j}}}(t;0,\Delta^{*}(\lambda_{j}))=z_{A_{\lambda_{0}},f_{\lambda_{0}}}(t;0,\textbf{x})\quad\forall\,t\in\mathbb{R}$
which implies that $z_{A_{\lambda_{0}},f_{\lambda_{0}}}(t;0,\textbf{x})$ is a
bounded solution of $(\ref{eq3.1})_{\lambda_{0}}$. So,
$\textbf{x}=\textbf{x}_{0}$, it is a contradiction. ∎
## 4\. Structural stability of hyperbolic sets
In this section, we will prove our main theorem stated in the Introduction and
construct an explicit example.
We assume that $S\colon\mathbb{E}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a
$C^{1}$-vector field on the $n$-dimensional Euclidean $w$-space
$\mathbb{E},n\geq 2$, which gives rise to a flow $\phi\colon(t,w)\mapsto
t_{\cdot}w$. Let $\Lambda$ be a $\phi$-invariant closed subset, not
necessarily compact, of $\mathbb{E}$ such that
1. (U1)
$S^{\prime}(w)$ is uniformly bounded on $\Lambda$;
2. (U2)
$0<\inf_{w\in\Lambda}\|S(w)\|\leq\sup_{w\in\Lambda}\|S(w)\|<\infty$;
3. (U3)
$S^{\prime}(w)$ is uniformly continuous at $\Lambda$; that is to say, to any
$\epsilon>0$ there is some $\delta>0$ so that for any
$\mathfrak{w}\in\Lambda$,
$\|S^{\prime}(w)-S^{\prime}(\mathfrak{w})\|<\epsilon$ whenever
$\|w-\mathfrak{w}\|<\delta$.
Now we prove the following structural stability theorem by using Liao methods.
###### Theorem 4.1.
Let $\Lambda$ be a hyperbolic set for $S$; that is to say, there exist
constants $C\geq 1,\lambda<0$ and a continuous $\Psi$-invariant splitting
$\mathbb{T}_{w}=T_{w}^{s}\oplus T_{w}^{u},\ \dim T_{w}^{s}=p_{-}(w)\quad
w\in\Lambda$
such that
$\displaystyle\|\Psi_{t_{0}+t,w}x\|$ $\displaystyle\leq C^{-1}\exp(\lambda
t)\|\Psi_{t_{0},w}x\|\quad\forall\,x\in T_{w}^{s}$ and
$\displaystyle\|\Psi_{t_{0}+t,w}x\|$ $\displaystyle\geq C\exp(-\lambda
t)\|\Psi_{t_{0},w}x\|\quad\forall\,x\in T_{w}^{u}$
for any $t_{0}\in\mathbb{R}$ and for all $t>0$. Then for any $\varepsilon>0$
there is a $C^{1}$-neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $S$ in
$\mathfrak{X}^{1}(\mathbb{E})$ such that, if $V\in\mathcal{U}$ then there
exists a $\varepsilon$-topological mapping $H$ from $\Lambda$ onto some closed
subset $\Lambda_{V}$ which sends orbits of $S$ in $\Lambda$ into orbits of $V$
in $\Lambda_{V}$, such that $H(w)\in\Sigma_{w}$ and
$\psi_{V}(t,H(w))=H(t_{\cdot}w)\in\Sigma_{t_{\cdot}w}$ for all $w\in\Lambda$
and for any $t\in\mathbb{R}$.
###### Proof.
Let
$\mathcal{A}=\left\\{(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)\,|\,\textrm{col}_{k}\gamma\in
T_{w}^{s}\textrm{ for }1\leq k\leq p_{-}(w)\right\\}.$
Clearly, $\mathcal{A}$ is a $\chi^{*\sharp}$-invariant closed subset of
$\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$ with compact fibers $\mathcal{A}_{w}$.
For any $(w,\gamma)\in\mathcal{A}$, we consider the reduced linearized
equations
(4.1)
$\dot{y}=R_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)y,\quad(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1},$
which is defined as Definition 2.1, and consider the reduced standard system
(4.2)
$\dot{y}=R_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)y+V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y),\quad(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$
for any $V\in\mathfrak{X}^{1}(\mathbb{E})$ defined as in Definition 2.11,
associated with $S$. Then, we can take from Lemma 2.2 a constant
$\eta_{\Lambda}>0$ such that
$\sup_{t\in\mathbb{R},(w,\gamma)\in\mathcal{A}}\|R_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)\|\leq\eta_{\Lambda}<\infty.$
Thus, it follows from Corollary 2.3 that there is another constant
$\xi_{\Lambda}>0$ such that
$\displaystyle\xi_{\Lambda}$
$\displaystyle=\sup_{\begin{subarray}{c}t\in\mathbb{R}\\\
(w,\gamma)\in\mathcal{A}\end{subarray}}\left\\{\sum_{k=1}^{p_{-}(w)}\int_{-\infty}^{t}e^{\int_{s}^{t}\omega_{k}^{*}(\chi^{*\sharp}(\tau,(w,\gamma)))\,d\tau}\,ds\right.$
$\displaystyle{\qquad\qquad}\qquad\left.+\sum_{k=1+p_{-}(w)}^{n-1}\int_{t}^{\infty}e^{\int_{s}^{t}\omega_{k}^{*}(\chi^{*\sharp}(\tau,(w,\gamma)))\,d\tau}\,ds\right\\}$
$\displaystyle<\infty.$
By Lemma 2.5(1), Theorem 2.13 and Theorem 3.1, there is no loss of generality
in assuming that for any $(w,\gamma)\in\mathcal{A}$ the reduced standard
systems of $S$
(4.3)
$\dot{y}=R_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)y+S_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y),\quad(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\mathfrak{c}}^{n-1}$
has no any nontrivial bounded global solutions on $\mathbb{R}$.
Let
$\mathfrak{N}_{\mathfrak{c}}(w)=\\{w+x\in\Sigma_{w};\,\|x\|\leq\mathfrak{c}\\}$.
Given any $\varepsilon>0$ small enough to satisfy that for any $w\in\Lambda$
and any $w^{\prime}\in\Lambda$ with $\|w-w^{\prime}\|<\varepsilon$, we have
$t_{\cdot}w^{\prime}\in\mathfrak{N}_{\mathfrak{c}}(w)$ for some
$|t|<2\varepsilon\diamondsuit_{\Lambda}^{-1}$, where
$\diamondsuit_{\Lambda}=\inf_{w\in\Lambda}\|S(w)\|>0$. On the other hand,
according to [3] we may assume that for any $w\in\Lambda$,
$\mathfrak{N}_{\mathfrak{c}}(w)\cap\mathfrak{N}_{\mathfrak{c}}(t_{\cdot}w)=\varnothing$
for all $|t|<2\varepsilon\diamondsuit_{\Lambda}^{-1}$.
Denote
$\rho_{\xi}=\frac{\xi}{4\xi_{\Lambda}(1+2\eta_{\Lambda}\xi_{\Lambda})^{n-1}}\quad\textrm{and}\quad\kappa=\frac{1}{4\xi_{\Lambda}(1+2\eta_{\Lambda}\xi_{\Lambda})^{n-1}}$
for any $\xi\in(0,\mathfrak{c}]$. Then, by Theorem 2.13 there exists a
$C^{1}$-neighborhood $\mathcal{U}$ of $S$ in $\mathfrak{X}^{1}(\mathbb{E})$
and a constant $\xi\in(0,\mathfrak{c}]$ with $\xi<1$ such that for any
$V\in\mathcal{U}$ we have
(4.4a) $\displaystyle\sup_{\begin{subarray}{c}(w,\gamma)\in\mathcal{A}\\\
(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}_{\xi}^{n-1}\end{subarray}}\|V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)\|$
$\displaystyle\leq\varepsilon\rho_{\xi}$ and (4.4b)
$\displaystyle\|V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)-V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y^{\prime})\|$
$\displaystyle\leq\kappa\|y-y^{\prime}\|\quad\forall\,y,y^{\prime}\in\mathbb{R}_{\xi}^{n-1}$
uniformly for $(t,(w,\gamma))\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathcal{A}$.
Fix some $C^{\infty}$ bump function $b\colon[0,\infty)\rightarrow[0,1]$ with
$b|[0,1/2]\equiv 1$ and $b|[1,\infty)\equiv 0$. For any $V\in\mathcal{U}$ and
any $(w,\gamma)\in\mathcal{A}$, let
$\widetilde{V}_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma),\xi}(t,y)=\begin{cases}b(\|y\|/\xi)V_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma)}^{*}(t,y)&\textrm{
for }\|y\|\leq\mathfrak{c},\\\ \textbf{0}&\textrm{ for
}\|y\|\geq\mathfrak{c}.\end{cases}$
Next, we consider the adapted differential equations
(4.5)
$\dot{y}=R_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)y+\widetilde{V}_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma),\xi}(t,y),\quad(t,y)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}.$
It is easily seen that $R_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t)\in
M_{(n-1)\times(n-1)}^{\vartriangle}$ and
$\widetilde{V}_{\textsl{rem}(w,\gamma),\xi}(t,y)\in M_{(n-1)\times 1}$ as in
$\S 3$ in the case $p=n-1$ and $p_{-}=p_{-}(w)$ for any
$(w,\gamma)\in\mathcal{A}$. Let $y_{V,(w,\gamma),\xi}(t;s,u)$ be the solution
of (4.5) such that $y_{V,(w,\gamma),\xi}(s;s,u)=u$ for any
$(s,u)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.
Given any $V\in\mathcal{U}$.
For any $(w,\gamma)\in\mathcal{A}$, it follows from Theorem 3.1 that there
_uniquely_ corresponds an $\textbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$, writing
$h_{V,\xi}(w)=\gamma\textbf{x}\in\Sigma_{w}-w=\mathbb{T}_{w}$, such that
$y_{V,(w,\gamma),\xi}(t;0,\textbf{x})$ is bounded on $\mathbb{R}$ with
(4.6)
${\sup}_{t\in\mathbb{R}}\|y_{V,(w,\gamma),\xi}(t;0,\textbf{x})\|\leq\varepsilon\xi/4.$
So, $y_{V,(w,\gamma),\xi}(t;0,\textbf{x})$ is also the solution of (4.2).
According to Theorem 2.12(2) we easily see that such $h_{V,\xi}(w)$ is
independent of the choice of $\gamma$ in $\mathcal{A}_{w}$ and is such that
$\|h_{V,\xi}(w)\|\leq\min\\{\varepsilon,\xi\\}/4$ for $w\in\Lambda$. By
Theorem 3.1 and Theorem 2.12(2) again we have easily
(4.7)
$h_{V,\xi}(t_{\cdot}w)=\psi_{V;t,w}(h_{V,\xi}(w))\in\mathbb{T}_{t_{\cdot}w}\quad\forall\,t\in\mathbb{R},$
since
$\psi_{V;t,w}(h_{V,\xi}(w))=\widehat{\mathcal{P}}_{w,\gamma}^{*}(t,y_{V,(w,\gamma),\xi}(t;0,\textbf{x}))$
for any $w\in\Lambda$. Moreover, we can assert that the mapping $w\mapsto
w+h_{V,\xi}(w)$ is injective. In fact, if
$w+h_{V,\xi}(w)=w^{\prime}+h_{V,\xi}(w^{\prime})$ for some
$w,w^{\prime}\in\Lambda$, then
$\|t_{\cdot}w-t_{\cdot}w^{\prime}\|\leq\varepsilon/2$ for all
$t\in\mathbb{R}$. Since (4.3) has only one global bounded solution on
$\mathbb{R}$, there is some $t^{\prime}$ with
$|t^{\prime}|<2\varepsilon\diamondsuit_{\Lambda}^{-1}$ such that
$t^{\prime}_{\cdot}w^{\prime}=w$. Thus, $t^{\prime}=0$. Otherwise
$\mathfrak{N}_{\mathfrak{c}}(w)\cap\mathfrak{N}_{\mathfrak{c}}(w^{\prime})\not=\varnothing$,
it is a contradiction.
Let $\Lambda_{V}=\\{w+h_{V,\xi}(w)\,|\,w\in\Lambda\\}$ and
$H_{V}\colon\Lambda\rightarrow\Lambda_{V};\,w\mapsto
w+h_{V,\xi}(w)\in\Sigma_{w}$. Clearly, $\|w-H_{V}(w)\|<\varepsilon$. It
remains to prove that $\Lambda_{V}$ is closed in $\mathbb{E}$ and $H_{V}$ is a
homeomorphism.
At first, we show that $\Lambda_{V}$ is closed in $\mathbb{E}$ and
$H_{V}^{-1}\colon\Lambda_{V}\rightarrow\Lambda$ continuous as well. Let
$w_{j}^{\prime}\to w^{\prime}$ with $w_{j}^{\prime}\in\Lambda_{V}$ and
$w_{j}=H_{V}^{-1}(w_{j}^{\prime})$ for $j=1,2,\ldots$. We have to prove
$w_{j}\to w$ for some $w\in\Lambda$ and $w^{\prime}=H_{V}(w)$. By the
definition of $H_{V}$, there is a sequence $(w_{j},\gamma_{j})$ in
$\mathcal{A}$ and a sequence $(\textbf{x}_{j})$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ such
that
$w_{j}^{\prime}=w_{j}+h_{V,\xi}(w_{j})=w_{j}+\gamma_{j}\textbf{x}_{j}\quad\textrm{for
}j=1,2,\ldots.$
Since
$\gamma_{j}\in\mathcal{A}_{w_{j}}\subset\mathscr{F}_{n-1,w_{j}}^{*\sharp}\subset\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{\sharp},\|\textbf{x}_{j}\|\leq\varepsilon\xi/4$
and $\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{\sharp}$ is compact, without loss of generality we may
assume that $\gamma_{j}\to\gamma$ in $\mathscr{F}_{n-1}^{\sharp}$ and
$\textbf{x}_{j}\to\textbf{x}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$. Let
$w=w^{\prime}-\gamma\textbf{x}$. Then $w_{j}\to w$ in $\Lambda$ and
$w^{\prime}=w+\gamma\textbf{x}$ and $(w,\gamma)\in\mathcal{A}$. In order to
prove $w^{\prime}=H_{V}(w)$, it is sufficient to prove that
$h_{V,\xi}(w)=\gamma\textbf{x}$. In fact, from Theorem 2.12(1) and a basic
theorem of ODE, we have
$\lim_{j\to\infty}\sup_{|t|<T,\|u\|\leq\mathfrak{c}}\|y_{V,(w_{j},\gamma_{j}),\xi}(t;0,u)-y_{V,(w,\gamma),\xi}(t;0,u)\|=0\quad\forall\,T>0.$
Thus, for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$ we have
$\lim_{j\to\infty}y_{V,(w_{j},\gamma_{j}),\xi}(t;0,\textbf{x}_{j})=y_{V,(w,\gamma),\xi}(t;0,\textbf{x}),$
which means $\|y_{V,(w,\gamma),\xi}(t;0,\textbf{x})\|\leq\varepsilon\xi/4$ for
all $t\in\mathbb{R}$. So, $h_{V,\xi}(w)=\gamma\textbf{x}$, as desired.
We can show that $H_{V}$ is continuous by Theorem 3.2.
Thus, the theorem is proved. ∎
###### Remark 4.2.
If $\Lambda=\mathbb{E}$, then $\Lambda_{V}=\mathbb{E}$ by a standard topology
argument. Indeed, letting $S^{n+1}=\mathbb{E}\cup\\{\infty\\}$, $H_{V}$ has a
continuous extension from the topological sphere $S^{n+1}$ to itself which
maps $\infty$ to $\infty$ and is homotopic to the identity. Thus, from
differential topology we know that $H_{V}(\mathbb{E})=\mathbb{E}$.
We conclude our arguments with an example.
###### Example 4.3.
Let $S(x,y,z)=(1,y,-z)^{\mathrm{T}}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$ for any
$(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{E}^{3}$, which is a differential system on the
3-dimensional Euclidean $(x,y,z)$-space $\mathbb{E}^{3}$. Let
$\Lambda=\mathbb{R}\times\\{0\\}\times\\{0\\}$. Then, $S$ gives rise to the
$C^{1}$-flow $\phi\colon(t,(x,y,z))\mapsto(x+t,ye^{t},ze^{-t})$, and $S$ is
hyperbolic with $\mathbb{T}_{(x,0,0)}=T_{(x,0,0)}^{s}\oplus T_{(x,0,0)}^{u}$,
where
$T_{(x,0,0)}^{s}=\\{0\\}\times\\{0\\}\times\mathbb{R},T_{(x,0,0)}^{u}=\\{0\\}\times\mathbb{R}\times\\{0\\}$
for any $(x,0,0)\in\Lambda$, and $S$ satisfies conditions (U1), (U2) and (U3)
on $\Lambda$. Thus, $S$ is structurally stable on $\Lambda$ from the Main
Theorem. Particularly, for any $\varepsilon>0$, if
$V\in\mathfrak{X}^{1}(\mathbb{E}^{3})$ is $C^{1}$-close to $S$, then $V$ has
an integral curve which lies in the $\varepsilon$-tubular neighborhood of
$\mathbb{R}\times\\{(0,0)\\}$.
## References
* [1] D. V. Anosov, Geodesic flows on closed Riemannian manifolds of negative curvature. Proc. Steklov Math. Inst., 90 (1967), 1–235.
* [2] X. Dai, Integral expressions of Lyapunov exponents for autonomous ordinary differential systems, Science in China Series A: Mathematics, 51 (2008), 000–000.
* [3] X. Dai, Existence of contracting periodic orbit of autonomous differential systems. Preprint 2007.
* [4] X. Dai, Transversal stable manifolds of $C^{1}$-differential systems having transversal dominated splitting. Preprint 2008.
* [5] K. Kato and A. Morimoto, Topological stability of Anosov flows and their centralizers. Topology, 12 (1973), 255–273.
* [6] S.-T. Liao, Applications to phase-space structure of ergodic properties of the one-parameter transformation group induced on the tangent bundle by a differential systems on a manifold I. Acta Sci. Natur. Univ. Pekinensis, 12 (1966), 1–43.
* [7] S.-T. Liao, Standard systems of differential equations. Acta Math. Sinica, 17 (1974), 100–109; 175–196; 270–295.
* [8] S.-T. Liao, Qualitative Theory of Differentiable Dynamical Systems, Science Press, Beijing, 1996.
* [9] J. Moser, On a theorem of Anosov. J. Differential Equations, 5 (1969), 411–440.
* [10] Z. Nitecki, On semistability for diffeomorphisms. Invent. Math., 14 (1971), 83–123.
* [11] C. Pugh and M. Shub, The $\Omega$-stability theorem for flows. Invent. Math., 11 (1970), 150–158.
* [12] J. W. Robbin, A structural stability theorem. Ann. of Math., 94 (1971), 447–493.
* [13] C. Robbinson, Structural stability of vector fields. Ann. of Math., 99 (1974), 154–175.
* [14] C. Robbinson, Structural stability of $C^{1}$ diffeomorphisms. J. Differential Equations, 22 (1976), 28–73.
* [15] P. Walters, Anosov diffeomorphisms are topologically stable. Topology, 9 (1970), 71–78.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-17T15:20:52 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.823800 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Xiongping Dai",
"submitter": "Xiongping Dai",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2679"
} |
0805.2688 | Gravitation equations,
and space-time relativity
L. V. Verozub***email: leonid.v.verozub@univer.kharkov.ua
Kharkov National University
Kharkov, 61103
Ukraine
Abstract
In contrast to electrodynamics, Einstein’s gravitation equations are not
invariant with respect to a wide class of the mapping of field variables which
leave equations of motion of test particles in a given coordinate system
invariant. It seems obvious enough that just these mappings should play a role
of gauge transformations of the variables in differential equations of
gravitational field. We consider here in short a gauge-invariant bimetric
generalisation of the Einstein equations which does not contradict availabel
observation data. Physical interpretation of the bimetricity based on
relativity of space-time with respect to used reference frame, following
conceptually from old Poincaré fundamental ideas, is proposed..
The relativistic differential equations of motion of charges in
electromagnetic field are invariant with respect to some transformations of
the field four-potential. For this reason it is naturally that Maxwell
equations are also invariant with respect to these transformations. Similarly,
the differential equations of motion of test particles in gravitational field
in Einstein’s theory in a given coordinate system are invariant with respect
to the following transformations of the Christoffel symbols
$\Gamma_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}$ ***Greek indexes run from $0$ to $3$ [1]-[3]
of a Riemannian space-time $V$ :
$\overline{\Gamma}_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}(x)=\Gamma_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}(x)+\delta_{\beta}^{\alpha}\
\phi_{\gamma}(x)+\delta_{\gamma}^{\alpha}\phi_{\beta}(x),$ (1)
where $\phi_{\beta}(x)$ are an arbitrary differentiable vector-function. It is
the most easier for seeing, if the geodesic equations are written in the form
$\ddot{x}^{\alpha}+(\Gamma_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}-c^{-1}\Gamma_{\beta\gamma}^{0}\dot{x}^{\alpha})\dot{x}^{\beta}\dot{x}^{\gamma}=0.$
(2)
where the dot denotes differentiation with respect to $t=x^{0}/c$.
The Ricci and metric tensors also are not invariant under above self-mapping
of Riemannian space-time which leave geodesic lines invariant. (They named
geodesic mappings).
In contrast to Maxwell theory, Einstein’s equations are not invariant under
these transformations [4], although it seems reasonable to suppose that just
they are the transformations that have to play a role of gauge transformations
of field variables in differential equations of gravitation. It is a very
strange fact, especially taking into account that physical consequences
resulting from Einstein’s equations agree very closely with all observations.
data.
The most natural explanation of such situation is that if there are more
correct gravitation equations than the Einstein ones, they may differ markedly
from the last equations only at very strong field, close the Schwarzschild
radius, where we have not yet firm evidences of validity of physical
consequences of the Einstein equations. ††† It follows from (1) that the
components $\overline{\Gamma}^{i}_{00}=\Gamma^{i}_{00}$. Therefore, in
Newtonian limit geodesic-invariance is not an essential fact. Therefore, now
we deal with a relativistic effect.
The simplest object being geodesic invariant is the Thomas symbols [2]:
$\Pi_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}=\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}-(n+1)^{-1}\left[\delta_{\alpha}^{\gamma}\
\Gamma_{\beta}+\delta_{\beta}^{\gamma}\ \Gamma_{\alpha}\right]\;.$ (3)
where $\Gamma_{\alpha}=\Gamma_{\beta\alpha}^{\beta}$.
The simpest geodesic-invariant generalisation of the vacuum Einstein equations
are
${\mathcal{R}}_{\alpha\beta}=0,$ (4)
where ${\mathcal{R}}_{\beta\gamma}$ is an object which is formed by the gauge-
invariant Thomas symbols the same way as the Ricci tensor is formed out of the
Christoffel symbols.
However, the problem is that $\Pi_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}$, as well as
${\mathcal{R}}_{\beta\gamma}$, is not a tensor.
This problem can be solved, if we will be consider all geometrical objects in
$V$ as some objects in the Minkowski space-time by analogy with Rosen’s
bimetric theory [8]. It means that we must replace all derivatives in
geometrical objects o the f Riemannian space-time by the covariant ones
defined in the Minkowski space-time. After that, in an arbitrary coordinate
system we obtain instead $\Gamma_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}$ a tensor object
$D_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}=\Gamma_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}-\overset{\circ}{\Gamma}_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}$
, where $\overset{\circ}{\Gamma}_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}$ is Christoffel
symbols of Minkowski space-time $E$ in used coordinate system. In like manner
we obtain instead Thomas symbols a geodesic-invariant (i.e. gauge-invariant)
tensor
$B_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}=\Pi_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}-\overset{\circ}{\Pi}_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha},$
(5)
where $\overset{\circ}{\Pi}_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}$ are the Thomas symbols in
the Minkowski space-time. This tensor must play a role of a strength tensor of
gravitational field. Now, using the identity $B_{\alpha\beta}^{\beta}=0$, we
obtain instead ( 4) a geodesic-invariant bimetric equation which can be
written in the form
$\nabla_{\alpha}B_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}-B_{\beta\delta}^{\epsilon}B_{\epsilon\gamma}^{\delta}=0,$
(6)
where $\nabla_{\alpha}$ denotes a covariant derivative in $E$. Some
generalisation of the Einstein’s equations can be obtained and for the case of
matter presence.
Evidently, these bimetric equations may be true if both the space-times, $V$
and $E$, have some physical meaning. But how these two physical space-time can
coexist?
An attempt to answer this question leads us to discussion of a fundamental
problem of relativity of space-time with respect to properties of used
measuring instruments. A fresh look at Poincaré old well known results allows
to obtain conclusions which revise our understanding of geometrical properties
of space-time .
At beginning of 20th century Poincaré showed [5] that only an aggregate ”
geometry + measuring instruments” has a physical meaning, verifiable by
experiment, and it makes no sense to assert that one or other geometry of
physical space in itself is true. In fact, the equations of Einstein, is the
first attempt to fulfil ideas of Berkeley - of Leibnitz - Mach about space -
time relativity. Einstein’s equations clearly show that there is a
relationship between properties of space - time and matter distribution .
However Poincare’s ideas testify that space and time relativity is not
restricted only to dependency of space-time geometry on matter distribution.
The space-time geometry also depends on properties of measuring instruments.
However, a choice of certain properties of the measuring instruments is
nothing more than the choice of certain frame of reference, which just is such
a physical device by means of which we test properties of space-time.
Consequently, one can expect that there is a relationship between the metric
of space- time and a used reference frame.
A step towards the implementation of such idea is considered in [6]. By a non-
inertial frame of reference (NIFR) we mean the frame, the body of reference of
which is formed by point masses moving in an inertial frame of reference (IFR)
under the effect of a force field. By proper frame of reference of a given
force field we mean the NIFR, the reference body of which is formed by point
masses moving under the effect of the force field. We postulate that space-
time in IFRs is the Minkowski one, in accordance with special relativity.
Then, above definition of NIFRs allows to find line element of space-time in
PFRs.
Let $\mathcal{L}(x,\dot{x})$ be Lagrangian describing in an IFR the motion of
point particles with masses $m$ forming the reference body of a NIFR . In this
case can be sufficiently clearly argued [6] that the line element $ds$ of
space-time is given by
$ds=-(mc)^{-1}\,dS(x,dx),$ (7)
where $S=\int{\mathcal{L}(x,\dot{x})dt}$ is the action describing the motion
of particles of the reference body in the Minkowski space-time. Therefore,
properties of space-time in PFRs are entirely determined by properties of used
frames in accordance with the Berkeley-Leibnitz-Mach-Poincaré ideas of
relativity of space and time.
We can illustrate the above result by some examples.
1\. The reference body consists of noninteracting electric charges in a
constant homogeneous electromagnetic field. The Lagrangian describing the
motion of charges with masses $m$ is of the form:
$L=-mc^{2}(1-v^{2}/c^{2})^{1/2}-\phi_{\alpha}(x)dx^{\alpha}),.$ (8)
where $\phi$ is a vector function, $c$ is the speed of light, and $v$ is the
spatial velocity. Then, according to (7), the line element of space-time in
the PFR is given by
$ds=d\sigma+f_{\alpha}(x)dx^{\alpha}$ (9)
where $f_{\alpha}=\phi/m$ is a vector field, and $d\sigma$ is the line element
of the Minkowski space-time. Consequently, space-time in PFRs of
electromagnetic field is Finslerian. In principle, we can use both traditional
and geometrical description, although the last in this case is rather too
complicate.
2\. Motion of an ideal isentropic fluid can be considered as the motion of
macroscopic small elements (“particles”) of an arbitrary mass $m$, which is
described by the Lagrangian [7]
$L=-mc\left(G_{\alpha\beta}\dot{x}^{\alpha}\dot{x}^{\beta}\right)^{1/2},$ (10)
where $w$ is enthalpy per unit volume,
$G_{\alpha\beta}=\varkappa^{2}\eta_{\alpha\beta}$ , $\varkappa=w/\rho c^{2}$,
$\rho=mn$, $m$ is the mass of the particles, $n$ is the particles number
density, and $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$ is the metric tensor in the Minkowski space-
time. According to (7) the line element of space-time in the NIFR is given by
$ds^{2}=G_{\alpha\beta}dx^{\alpha}dx^{\beta}.$ (11)
Therefore, the motion of the particles can be considered as occurring under
the effect of a force field. (In non-relativistic case it is a pressure
gradient). Space-time in the PFR of this force field is Riemannian, and
conformal to Minkowski space-time. The motion of the above particles does not
depend on theirs masses. We can use both traditional and geometrical
description. In some cases such geometrical description is preferable.
3\. Suppose that in the Minkowski space-time the Lagrangian describing the
motion of test particles of mass $m$ in a tensor field $g_{\alpha\beta}$ is of
the form
$L=-mc[g_{\alpha\beta}\;\dot{x}^{\alpha}\;\dot{x}^{\beta}]^{1/2},$ (12)
where $\dot{x}^{\alpha}=dx^{\alpha}/dt$. According to (7 ), the line element
of space-time in the PFR is given by
$ds^{2}=g_{\alpha\beta}\;dx^{\alpha}\;dx^{\beta}.$ (13)
Space-time in PFRs of this field is Riemannian, and motion of test particles
do not depend of their masses. It is natural to assume that in this case we
deal with a gravitational field.
The bimetricity in this case has a simple physical meaning. Disregarding the
rotation of the Earth, a reference frame, rigidly connected with the Earth
surface, can be considered as an IFR. An observer, located in this frame, can
describe the motion of freely falling identical point masses as taking place
in Minkowski space-time under the effect of a force field. However, for
another observer which is located in the PFR the reference body of which is
formed by these freely falling particles, the situation is another. Let us
assume that the observer is deprived of the possibility of seeing the Earth
and stars. Then, from his point of view, the the point masses formed the
reference body of the PFR are points of his physical space, and all events
occur in his space-time. Consequently, accelerations of these point masses
must be equal to zero both in nonrelativistic and relativistic meaning .
However, instead of this, he observes a change in distances between these
point masses in time. Evidently, the only reasonable explanation for him is
the interpretation of this observed phenomenon as a manifestation of the
deviation of geodesic lines in some Riemannian space-time of a nonzero
curvature. Thus, if the first observer, located in the IFR, can postulate that
space-time is flat, the second observer, located in a PFR of the force field,
who proceeds from relativity of space and time, already in the Newtonian
approximation is forced to consider space-time as Riemannian with curvature
other than zero.
To obtain physical consequences from (6) it is convenient to select the gauge
condition
$Q_{\alpha}=\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{\beta}-\overset{\circ}{\Gamma^{\beta}}_{\alpha\beta}=0.$
(14)
At such gauge condition (which does not depend on coordinate system) eqs. (6)
conside with the vacuum Einstein’s equations . Therefore, for solving many
problems it is sufficiently to find solution of thvacuumum Einstein equations
in the Minkowski space-time (in which $g_{\alpha\beta}(x)$ is simply a tensor
field) at the condition $Q_{\alpha}=0$ .
From the point of view of the observer located in an IFR and studying the
gravitational field of a remote compact object of mass $M$, the space - time
is flat. The spherically-symmetric solution of the equations (6 ) for the
point central object very little differs from the solution in general
relativity, if the distance from the center $r$ is much more that
thSchwarzschildld radius $r_{g}$. However these solutions in essence differ as
$r$ is of the order of $r_{g}$ or less than that. The solution in flat space
has no singularity at centre and the event horizon at $r=r_{g}$.
Figure 1: The gravitational force (arbitrary units) affecting freely particles
(curve 1) and rest-particles (curve 2) near an attractive point mass.
Fig. 1 shows the plots of the gravitational force $F=m\ddot{x}^{\alpha}$
acting on rest-particle of mass $m$ and on a freely falling test particle as a
functions of $r$. It follows from the figure , that in the first case $F$
tends to zero when $r\rightarrow 0$. In the second case, as particle approach
to the Schwarzschild radius, the force changes the sign and becomes repulsive.
These unexpected peculiarities of the gravitational force can be tested by
observations. The peculiarity of of the static force leads to the possibility
of the existence of supermassive compact objects without event horizon. Such
objects can be identified with supermassive compact objects at centres of
galaxies. [9].
The unusual properties of the force acting on freely moving particles near the
Schwarzschild radius give rise to some observable effects in cosmology because
it is well-known that the radius of an observable part of the Universe is of
the order of the Schwarzschild radius of all observed mass. It yields a
natural explanation of a deceleration of the Universe expansion [6].
## References
* [1] H. Weyl, Göttinger Nachr., 90 (1921).
* [2] T. Thomas, The differential invariants of generalized spaces, (Cambridge, Univ. Press) (1934).
* [3] L. Eisenhart, Riemannian geometry, (Princeton, Univ. Press) (1950).
* [4] A. Petrov, Einstein Spaces , (New-York-London, Pergamon Press. (1969).
* [5] H. Poincaré, Dernières pensées, (Paris, Flammarion) (1913)
* [6] L.V̇erozub, Ann. Phys. (Berlin), 17, 28 (2008)
* [7] L. Verozub, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 17, 337 (2008)
* [8] N. Rosen, Gen. Relat. Grav., 4, 435 (1973).
* [9] L. Verozub, Astr. Nachr., 327, 355 (2006)
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-17T17:01:07 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.829369 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Leonid Verozub",
"submitter": "Leonid Verozub V",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2688"
} |
0805.2799 | # A QCD motivated model for soft interactions at high energies
E. Gotsman , E. Levin , U. Maor and J.S. Miller
Department of Particle Physics, School of Physics and Astronomy
Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of Exact Science
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel Email:
gotsman@post.tau.ac.il.Email: leving@post.tau.ac.il,
levin@mail.desy.de.Email:maor@post.tau.ac.il.Email:jeremymi@post.tau.ac.il.
###### Abstract:
In this paper we develop an approach to soft scattering processes at high
energies, which is based on two mechanisms: Good-Walker mechanism for low mass
diffraction and multi-Pomeron interactions for high mass diffraction. The
pricipal idea, that allows us to specify the theory for Pomeron interactions,
is that the so called soft processes occur at rather short distances
($r^{2}\propto 1/<p_{t}>^{2}\propto\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\approx
0.01\,GeV^{-2}$), where perturbative QCD is valid. The value of the Pomeron
slope $\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}$ was obtained from the fit to experimental
data. Using this theoretical approach we suggest a model that fits all soft
data in the ISR-Tevatron energy range, the total, elastic, single and double
diffractive cross sections, including $t$ dependence of the differential
elastic cross section, and the mass dependence of single diffraction. In this
model we calculate the survival probability of diffractive Higgs production,
and obtained a value for this observable, which is smaller than 1% at the LHC
energy range.
Soft Pomeron, BFKL Pomeron, Diffractive Cross Sections, Survival Probability
††dedicated: PACS: 13.85.-t, 13.85.Hd, 11.55.-m, 11.55.Bq††preprint: TAUP
-2878-08
0805.2799 [hep-ph]
## 1 Introduction
The goal of this paper is to construct a QCD motivated model for the strong
interactions at high energy, and to elucidate the model’s predictions and
implications at LHC and Cosmic Rays energies.
The difficulties and challenges of a theoretical approach to the strong
interaction are well known: a qualitative understanding of the confinement of
quarks and gluons in QCD. For high energy scattering the situation is even
more difficult than for the hadron structure, since approximate methods such
as QCD sum rules and/or effective theories, as well as the lattice QCD
approach, cannot be used to calculate the high energy amplitudes. Today, and
for the past four decades, the accepted method of describing soft interactions
at high energy, is the phenomenology based on the soft Pomeron and secondary
Reggeons (see Refs. [1, 2, 3] for details). All parameters related to the
Pomeron and Reggeons, which are assumed to be simple poles in the J-plane,
such as the intercepts and slopes of the trajectories, the vertices and their
dependence on the impact parameter, have to be deduced from the experimental
data. However, the key problem of all approaches based on the soft Pomeron
hypothesis, is that there is no theory which can specify what kind of
interactions between Pomerons have to be taken into account, as well as the
values of the multi-Pomeron vertices. Due to this problem we are doomed to
build basically unreliable models, since the only criteria is that they
describe the experimental data (see Refs. [4, 5, 6, 7]).
In this paper we attempt to overcome this difficulty by using high energy
perturbative QCD approach. At first sight, this appears unrealistic, since the
pQCD approach is based on the smallness of the running QCD coupling at short
distances, while the high energy interaction is a typical example of long
distance non-perturbative QCD. We wish to question this widely held prejudice.
Indeed, the only microscopic explanation for the Pomeron structure is given in
the partonic approach [8], in which the slope of the Pomeron trajectory is
related to the mean transverse momentum of the exchanged partons
($\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\,\propto 1/<p_{t}>$, where $<p_{t}>$ is the mean
parton momentum). The commonly held view in high energy phenomenology, is that
$\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\,=\,0.25\,GeV^{-2}$[9], which implies that in the
Pomeron the typical momenta of partons are high (especially if you compare
this value with the value of $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!R}}\,=\,1\,GeV^{-2}$
for the secondary Reggeons). In the next section, we extend our output up to
the Planck mass, and will show that the fit to the experimental data based on
our model with power-like dependence of the Pomeron-proton vertices on energy,
validates the consistency of our calculations with unitarity. The momentum
transferred $t$ behaviour leads to $\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}<0.02$
$GeV^{-2}$ . This result, together with the fit of Ref. [7], where the data
were fitted with $\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}=0$, lends support to our
assumption that, the typical parton momentum is large (approximately
$<p_{t}>=1/\sqrt{\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}}\geq 7\,GeV$). Therefore, the
running QCD coupling
$\alpha_{S}=\pi/b\ln\left(<p^{2}_{t}>/\Lambda^{2}_{QCD}\right)\,\ll\,1$
(approximately 0.18), and we can consider it as our small parameter, when
applying perturbative QCD estimates to the Pomeron-Pomeron interaction
vertices.
The theoretical scheme that emerges from such an approach will be discussed in
section 3. Using perturbative QCD we select the essential Pomeron-Pomeron
vertices, and develop the method for summation of all these diagrams. We also
give the partonic interpretation of our approach, and develop an approximate
method for the solution of the long standing problem of the high energy
asymptotic behaviour of the scattering amplitude. Based on this analysis we
derive formulae for all cross sections taking into account the Pomeron
interactions.
In section 4 we fit the available experimental data using our formalism. This
fit is based on an updated data base which includes the published $p$-$p$ and
$\bar{p}$-$p$ data points of $\sigma_{tot}$, the integrated values of
$\sigma_{el}$, $\sigma_{sd}$, $\sigma_{dd}$ and the forward elastic slope
$B_{el}$, in the ISR-Tevatron energy range.
$\rho=\frac{Re\,a_{el}(t=0,s)}{Im\,a_{el}(t=0,s)}$ and the forward slope of
the SD and DD final states are predictions of the model. The additional data
that we have used to validate our present model, are the $t$-dependence of the
differential elastic cross section, and the mass dependence of the single
diffractive production. We successfully describe this data. Based on this fit
we give reliable predictions of the quantities to be measured at the LHC c.m.
energy of $14\,TeV$. Our output also covers the broad Cosmic Rays energy range
up to the GZK limit.
The fifth section is devoted entirely to a calculation of the survival
probability ($\langle\mid S^{2}\mid\rangle$) for exclusive central diffractive
Higgs production at the LHC, and a discussion on the reliability of these
calculations. We confirm the tendency in which $\langle\mid S^{2}\mid\rangle$
becomes small (less that 1%), noticed in our previous paper [6]. From a
practical point of view, this is the most salient feature of this paper.
In the conclusions, we compare critically our results with other approaches,
and summarize our findings. We list a few experimental signatures, which
should enable us to differentiate between alternative theoretical options and
phenomenological models.
## 2 The two channel model and the value of $\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}$
### 2.1 GLM two channel model
The GLM two channel model has been described in our previous publications (see
Refs.[4, 10, 11, 6, 12], and references therein). In this formalism,
diffractively produced hadrons at a given vertex are considered as a single
hadronic state described by the wave function $\Psi_{D}$, which is orthonormal
to the wave function $\Psi_{h}$ of the incoming hadron (proton in the case of
interest), $<\Psi_{h}|\Psi_{D}>=0$. We introduce two wave functions $\psi_{1}$
and $\psi_{2}$ that diagonalize the 2x2 interaction matrix ${\bf T}$
$A_{i,k}=<\psi_{i}\,\psi_{k}|\mathbf{T}|\psi_{i^{\prime}}\,\psi_{k^{\prime}}>=A_{i,k}\,\delta_{i,i^{\prime}}\,\delta_{k,k^{\prime}}.$
(2.1)
In this representation the observed states are written in the form
$\psi_{h}=\alpha\,\psi_{1}+\beta\,\psi_{2}\,,$ (2.2)
$\psi_{D}=-\beta\,\psi_{1}+\alpha\,\psi_{2}\,,$ (2.3)
where, $\alpha^{2}+\beta^{2}=1$. Using Eq. (2.1), we can rewrite the unitarity
constraints in the form
$Im\,A_{i,k}\left(s,b\right)=|A_{i,k}\left(s,b\right)|^{2}+G^{in}_{i,k}(s,b),$
(2.4)
where $G^{in}_{i,k}$ is the contribution of all non diffractive inelastic
processes, i.e. it is the summed probability for these final states to be
produced in the scattering of particle $i$ off particle $k$.
A simple solution to Eq. (2.4) has the same structure as in a single channel
formalism,
$A_{i,k}(s,b)=i\left(1-\exp\left(-\frac{\Omega_{i,k}(s,b)}{2}\right)\right),$
(2.5) $G^{in}_{i,k}(s,b)=1-\exp\left(-\Omega_{i,k}(s,b)\right).$ (2.6)
From Eq. (2.6) we deduce, that the probability that the initial projectiles
$(i,k)$ reach the final state interaction unchanged, regardless of the initial
state rescatterings, is $P^{S}_{i,k}=\exp\left(-\Omega_{i,k}(s,b)\right)$.
For the opacities $\Omega_{i,k}$ we use the expression
$\Omega_{i,k}\left(s,b\right)\,=\,g_{i}\,g_{k}\left(\frac{s}{s_{0}}\right)^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}}\,S\left(b;m_{i},m_{k};\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})\right)$
(2.7)
which differs from the expression that we used in our previous models. The
profile function
$S\left(b,\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P};m_{i},m_{k};\ln(s/s_{0})\right)$ at
$s=s_{0}$, corresponds to the power-like behaviour of the Pomeron-hadron
vertices,
$\displaystyle
S\left(b;m_{i},m_{k};,\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})=0\right)\,\,=\,\,\int\,\frac{d^{2}q}{(2\pi)^{2}}\,g_{i}(q)\,g_{k}(q)\,e^{i\vec{q}_{\perp}\cdot\vec{b}},$
(2.8) $\displaystyle\mbox{with a
normalization}\,\int\,d^{2}b\,S\left(b;m_{i},m_{k};,\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})=0\right)\,\,=1\,.$
In this paper we choose
$g_{i}(q)\,\,=\,\,\frac{1}{(1\,\,+\,\,q^{2}/m^{2}_{i})^{2}}$ (2.9)
The arguments we list in favour of this choice are: (i) pQCD leads to
$g_{i}(q)\,\,\rightarrow\,\,\alpha_{S}^{2}(q)/q^{4}$ [13]; (ii) in some models
(for example in the constituent quark model) $g_{i}(q)$ is equal to the
electro-magnetic form factor of the proton, which has the form of Eq. (2.9);
and (iii) Eq. (2.9) reproduces the experimental elastic differential cross
section for p-p (p-${\bar{p}})$ data in the range of $t$, up to 1 to 1.5
$\,GeV^{2}$ [9], while a Gaussian parametrization fits the data only for very
small $t\leq 0.1\,GeV^{2}$.
Using Eq. (2.8) we obtain for
$S\left(b;m_{i},m_{k};,\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})=0\right)$,
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{(1\,\,+\,\,q^{2}/m^{2}_{i})^{2}}\times\frac{1}{(1\,\,+\,\,q^{2}/m^{2}_{k})^{2}}\,\,\,\Longrightarrow\,\,\,S\left(b;m_{i},m_{k};,\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})=0\right)\,\,=\,\,\,$
(2.10)
$\displaystyle=\,\,\frac{m^{3}_{i}\,m^{3}_{k}}{4\pi\,(m^{2}_{i}-m^{2}_{k})^{3}}\,\,\left\\{4m_{i}\,m_{k}\left(K_{0}\left(m_{i}b\right)\,-\,K_{0}\left(m_{k}b\right)\right)\,\,+\,\,(m^{2}_{i}-m^{2}_{k})b\,\left(m_{k}K_{1}\left(m_{i}b\right)\,+\,m_{i}K_{1}\left(m_{k}b\right)\right)\right\\}.$
For energies $s>s_{0}$, we need to take into account the observed shrinkage of
the diffraction peak. To this end we replace $g_{i}(q)\,g_{k}(q)$ by
$g_{i}(q)\,g_{k}(q)\,\exp\left(-\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})q^{2}\right)$
in Eq. (2.8). To simplify our calculations we replace
$m^{2}_{i}\,\,\,\Longrightarrow\,\,\,m^{2}_{i}(s)\,\,\equiv\,\,\,\frac{m^{2}_{i}}{1\,\,+\,\,\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})/4m^{2}_{i}}.$
(2.11)
It is easy to check that
$g_{i}(q;m_{i})\,g_{k}(q;m_{k})\,\exp\left(-\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})q^{2}\right)$
and $g_{i}(q;m_{i}(s))\,g_{k}(q;m_{k}(s))$ have the same behaviour for
$\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})q^{2}\,\ll\,1$. When
$\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})q^{2}\,\gg\,1$ these two expressions
are different. Note that the Regge factor
$\exp\left(-\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})q^{2}\right)$ cannot be
justified in this kinematic region. In the region of
$\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})q^{2}\,\sim\,1$ it is preferable to use
the Regge factor. We assume that $\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}$ is small enough,
so that this region gives a negligible contribution to all experimental
observables.
In general, we have to consider four possible re-scattering processes in Eq.
(2.1). However, in the case of $p$-$p$ ( $\bar{p}$-$p$) the two non-diagonal
amplitudes are equal $A_{1,2}=A_{2,1}$, and we end up with three rescattering
amplitudes. These amplitudes are presented in our two channel formalism in the
following form[4, 12, 11]
$a_{el}(s,b)=i\\{\alpha^{4}A_{1,1}+2\alpha^{2}\beta^{2}A_{1,2}+\beta^{4}{\cal
A}_{2,2}\\},$ (2.12)
$a_{sd}(s,b)=i\alpha\beta\\{-\alpha^{2}A_{1,1}+(\alpha^{2}-\beta^{2})A_{1,2}+\beta^{2}A_{2,2}\\},$
(2.13) $a_{dd}=i\alpha^{2}\beta^{2}\\{A_{1,1}-2A_{1,2}+A_{2,2}\\}.$ (2.14)
It should be stressed that in this approach diffraction dissociation, appears
as an outcome of the Good and Walker mechanism[14] (G-W) or, in other words,
the elastic, single diffraction and double diffraction processes occur due to
elastic scatterings of $\psi_{1}$ and $\psi_{2}$, the correct degrees of
freedom.
The corresponding cross sections are given by
$\sigma_{tot}(s)=2\int d^{2}b\,a_{el}\left(s,b\right),$ (2.15)
$\sigma_{el}(s)=\int d^{2}b\,|a_{el}\left(s,b\right)|^{2},$ (2.16)
$\sigma_{sd}(s)=\int d^{2}b\,|a_{sd}\left(s,b\right)|^{2},$ (2.17)
$\sigma_{dd}(s)=\int d^{2}b\,|a_{dd}\left(s,b\right)|^{2}.$ (2.18)
### 2.2 $\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\,\,\longrightarrow\,\,0$
Using Eq. (2.1) - Eq. (2.7) we fit the experimental data, so as to find the
value of $\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}$. However, most of the data are available
at rather low energies $W=\sqrt{s}=20$ to $600\,GeV$, where the contributions
of the secondary Reggeon have to be included. For this we replace
$\Omega_{i,k}\left(s,b\right)$ given by Eq. (2.7) by the sum of Pomeron and
Reggeon contributions,
$\Omega_{i,k}\left(s,b\right)\,\,\,\,=\,\,\,\Omega^{I\\!\\!P}_{i,k}\left(s,b\right)\,\mbox{(
see
{Eq.~{}(\ref{OMEGA})})}\,\,\,+\,\,\,\Omega^{{I\\!\\!R}}_{i,k}\left(s,b\right),$
(2.19)
with
$\Omega^{{I\\!\\!R}}_{i,k}\left(s,b\right)\,\,=\,\,\frac{g^{{I\\!\\!R}}_{i}\,g^{{I\\!\\!R}}_{k}\,\eta\,\left(\frac{s}{s_{0}}\,\right)^{\Delta_{{I\\!\\!R}}}}{\pi
R^{2}_{i,k}\left(s\right)}\exp\left(-\frac{b^{2}}{R^{2}_{i,k}\left(s\right)}\right).$
(2.20)
The signature factor is
$\eta\,\,\,=\,\,\,\frac{1\pm
e^{i\pi\alpha_{{I\\!\\!R}}(q)}}{\sin\left(\pi\alpha_{{I\\!\\!R}}(q)\right)}$
(2.21)
corresponding to a Reggeon trajectory
$\alpha_{{I\\!\\!R}}(q)\,=\,1+\,\Delta_{{I\\!\\!R}}\,+\,\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!R}}\,q^{2}$
, and
$R^{2}_{i,k}\left(s\right)=R^{2}_{0,i}+R^{2}_{0,k}+4\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!R}}\ln(s/s_{0}),=R^{2}_{0;i,k}+4\alpha^{{}^{\prime}}_{{I\\!\\!R}}\ln(\frac{s}{s_{0}}).$
(2.22)
$g^{R}_{i}$,$R^{2}_{0,i}$ , $\Delta_{{I\\!\\!R}}$ and
$\alpha^{{}^{\prime}}_{{I\\!\\!R}}$ are fitted parameters. For the Regge
sector we know the natural values for $\Delta_{{I\\!\\!R}}$ and
$\alpha^{{}^{\prime}}_{{I\\!\\!R}}$ from the behaviour of the Regge trajectory
at $q^{2}<0$ ($t>0$) , since all hadrons lie on these trajectories,
$\Delta_{{I\\!\\!R}}\approx-0.5$ and $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!R}}\approx
1\,GeV^{-2}$.
Eq. (2.19) - Eq. (2.22) specify our model. In this model we neglect the
interactions between Pomerons, but include eikonal type rescatterings. This
means that we assume only a G-W origin for all quasi-elastic processes. The
fitted parameters are shown in Table 1. The quality of the fit is illustrated
in Fig. 2 and Fig. 2, where our fit is shown by dashed lines. The fit is very
good with $\chi^{2}/d.o.f.=0.87$. However, this parametrization fails to fully
describe the cross sections for single and double diffractive production,
yielding values for these cross sections which are approximately two times
smaller than the experimental values.
From this fit we have two conclusions: i) we cannot describe the diffractive
production in the framework of the G-W mechanism if we assume an exponential
parameterization for the proton profile function; and (ii) the value of
$\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$ turns out to be very small
$\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}=0.012\,GeV^{-2}$. As we have discussed in the
introduction, we conclude from the smallness of
$\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$, that the hard processes which occur at short
distances are responsible for the Pomeron structure.
$\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}$ | $\beta$ | $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$ | $g_{1}$ | $g_{2}$ | $m_{1}$ | $m_{2}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
0.120 | 0.46 | 0.012 $GeV^{-2}$ | 1.27 $GeV^{-1}$ | 3.33 $GeV^{-1}$ | 0.913 $GeV$ | 0.98 $GeV$
$\Delta_{I\\!\\!R}$ | $\beta$ | $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!R}}$ | $g^{{I\\!\\!R}}_{1}$ | $g^{{I\\!\\!R}}_{2}$ | $R^{2}_{0,1}$ | $\chi^{2}/d.o.f.$
-0.438 | 0.46 | 0.60 $GeV^{-2}$ | 4.0 $GeV^{-1}$ | 118.4 $GeV^{-1}$ | 4.0 $GeV^{-2}$ | 0.87
Table 1: Fitted parameters for two channel (eikonal) model
Figure 1: Energy dependence of $\sigma_{tot}$. The solid line shows the fit
with taking into account all Pomeron interactions while the dashed line
corresponds to two channel (eikonal) model.
Figure 2: Energy dependence of the slope for the differential elastic cross
section. All notation are the same as in Fig. 2
## 3 Pomerons Interactions
### 3.1 QCD input
Our main hypothesis is that the typical distances for a Pomeron exchange are
short, and we can use pQCD as a guide for building a theory for Pomeron
interactions, based on the small value of $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$, the
Pomeron slope that we obtained in the previous section. We recall that the
value of $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$ in the parton model [8] can be written
as
$R^{2}(s)\,\,=\,\,\langle b^{2}\rangle_{n}\,\,\,=\,\,\,\langle\Delta
b^{2}\rangle\,n\,\,\,=\,\,\frac{4}{<p^{2}_{t}>}\,\rho\,\ln(s/s_{0})\,\,=\,\,\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}\ln(s/s_{0})$
(3.23)
where $n$ is the number of partons at rapidity $Y=\ln(s/s_{0})$ and $\rho$ is
theb density of partons in a unit of rapidity. In Eq. (3.23) the radius of
interaction, is determined as the average distance in impact parameter space
that a ‘wee’ parton can reach at given enegy.
In Eq. (3.23) $R^{2}(s)$ is the radius of interaction at energy $W=\sqrt{s}$,
which is the distance in impact parameter $b$ space, that is reached by
partons in a two dimensional diffusion, after $n$ steps. $\langle\Delta
b^{2}\rangle$ is the mean displacement during one diffusion step, which can be
estimated using the uncertainty principle as $\langle\Delta
b^{2}\rangle\,=\,4/<p^{2}_{t}>$. $<p_{t}>$ is the average parton transverse
momentum which we wish to evaluate. The number of diffusion steps is equal to
the number of partons, since at each step one parton is emitted. At a given
energy the average number of emitted partons is equal to $\rho\ln(s/s_{0})$,
where $\rho$ is the parton density in units of rapidity. Comparing $n$ with
the hadron multiplicities, we conclude that $\rho\approx 1$ or larger.
Therefore, Eq. (3.23) leads to $<p^{2}_{t}\,\geq\,20\,GeV$ for
$\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}=0.01\,GeV^{-2}$ . The typical value of the
running QCD coupling, which corresponds to this value of the parton momentum,
is $\alpha_{S}\approx 0.15$, which is small enough to be used in pQCD
estimates.
In our procedure we only use general results of the perturbative QCD approach
to high energy scattering [15]. Consequently:
1.) In the leading order approximation of pQCD, only a Pomeron splitting into
two Pomerons and two Pomeron merging into one Pomeron, should be taken into
account [16, 17], while all other vertices are small. Therefore, using this
input from pQCD, we restrict ourselves by summing Pomeron diagrams with triple
Pomeron vertices only.
2) Since $4\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}ln(s)\,\,\ll\;1$ over the entire
kninematical range, we have investigated, we can neglect the value of
$\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$, and consider the theory with
$\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}\,\,=\,\,0$.
3) We obtain the anticipated values for all ingredients of the Pomeron
interaction approach: the intercept of the Pomeron $\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}$ above
unity $\,\propto\,\alpha_{S}$, and the triple Pomeron vertex coupling
$g_{3{I\\!\\!P}}\,\propto\,\alpha_{S}^{2}$.
The theory that includes all the above ingredients can be formulated in
functional integral form[17],
$Z[\Phi,\Phi^{+}]\,\,=\,\,\int\,\,D\Phi\,D\Phi^{+}\,e^{S}\,\,\,\mbox{with}\,S\,=\,S_{0}\,+\,S_{I}\,+\,S_{E}\,,$
(3.24)
where $S_{0}$ describes free Pomerons, $S_{I}$ corresponds to their mutual
interaction and $S_{E}$ relates to the interaction with the external sources
(target and projectile). Since $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}\,=\,0$, $S_{0}$
has the form
$S_{0}\,=\,\int
dY\Phi^{+}(Y)\,\left\\{-\,\frac{d}{dY}\,\,+\,\,\Delta\,\right\\}\Phi(Y).$
(3.25)
$S_{I}$ includes only triple Pomeron interactions and has the form
$S_{I}\,=\,g_{3{I\\!\\!P}}\int
dY\,\left\\{\Phi(Y)\,\Phi^{+}(Y)\,\Phi^{+}(Y)\,\,+\,\,h.c.\right\\}.$ (3.26)
For $S_{E}$ we have local interactions both in rapidity and in impact
parameter space,
$S_{E}\,=\,-\,\int
dY\sum_{i=1}^{2}\,\left\\{\Phi(Y)\,g_{i}(b)\,\,+\,\,\Phi^{+}(Y)\,g_{i}(b)\right\\},$
(3.27)
where $g_{i}(b)$ stands for the interaction vertex with the hadrons at fixed
$b$.
In the next sections, after specifying this theory, we solve it. Indeed, this
theory as any theory of Pomeron interactions, is written in such a way that an
high energy amplitude satisfies $t$-channel unitarity. However, $s$-channel
unitarity remains a problem. In the next subsection we will change the
interaction term ($S_{I}$), in such a way, that the theory will have a clear
partonic interpretation, and will, also, satisfy $s$-channel unitarity.
### 3.2 Generating function and a partonic interpretation
To find a reformulation given by the functional of Eq. (3.24), we consider a
system of partons***The partons for high energy QCD are the colourless
dipoles, as was shown in Ref. [18]. that can decay and merge: one parton to
two partons, and two partons into one parton, with probabilities $\Gamma(1\to
2)$ and $\Gamma(2\to 1)$, respectively. For such a system of partons, we can
write a simple equation. Indeed, let $P_{n}(y)$ be the probability to find
$n$-parton (dipoles) with rapidity $y$ in the wave function of the fastest
(parent) parton (dipole), moving with rapidity $Y\,>\,y$. For $P_{n}(y)$, we
can easily write down a recurrence equation (see Refs. [20, 21])
$-\,\frac{\partial\,P_{n}(y)}{\partial\,y}\,\,=\,\,\Gamma(1\to
2)\,\left\\{-\,n\,P_{n}\,+\,\,(n-1)\,P_{n-1}\right\\}\,\,\,+\,\,\,\Gamma(2\to
1)\,\left\\{-\,n\,(n-1)\,P_{n}\,+\,\,(n+1)\,n\,P_{n+1}\right\\}.$ (3.28)
In each bracket the first term on the r.h.s., can be viewed as a probability
of a dipole annihilation in the rapidity range $(y$ to $y-dy)$ (death term).
The second is a probability to create one extra dipole (birth term). Note the
negative sign in front of $\partial P_{n}(y)/\partial y$. It appears due to
our choice of the rapidity evolution which starts at the largest rapidity
$y=Y$, of the fastest dipole and then decreases. The first two terms are
responsible for the process of parton decay, while the last two terms describe
the contribution of partons merging.
It is useful to introduce the generating function [18, 19, 21]
$Z(y,\,u)\,\,=\,\,\sum_{n}\,\,P_{n}(y)\,\,u^{n}\,$ (3.29)
At rapidity $y\,=\,Y$ there is only one fastest parton (dipole), which is
$P_{1}(y\,=\,Y)\,=\,1$, while $P_{n>1}(y\,=\,Y)\,=\,0$. This is the initial
condition for the generating function
$Z(y\,=\,Y)\,=\,u\,.$ (3.30)
At $u=1$
$Z(y,\,u\,=\,1)\,\,=\,\,1,$ (3.31)
which follows from the physical meaning of $P_{n}$ as a probability.
Eq. (3.28) can be rewritten as an equation in partial derivatives for the
generating function $Z(y,u)$,
$\,\,-\frac{\partial\,Z(y,\,u)}{\partial\,y}\,\,=\,\,-\,\Gamma(1\to
2)\,u\,(1\,-\,u)\,\,\frac{\partial\,Z(y,\,u)}{\partial\,u}\,\,\,+\,\,\,\Gamma(2\to
1)\,u\,(1\,-\,u)\,\,\frac{\partial^{2}\,Z(y,\,u)}{\partial^{2}\,u}.$ (3.32)
The description of the parton system given by Eq. (3.32), is equivalent to the
path integral of Eq. (3.24). Indeed, the general solution of Eq. (3.32) has a
form
$Z(Y;u)\,\,=\,\,e^{H(u)\,(Y-Y_{0})}Z(Y_{0};u),$ (3.33)
with the operator $H$ defined as
$H(u)\,\,=\,\,-\,\Gamma(1\to 2)\,u(1-u)\,\frac{\partial}{\partial
u}+\,\Gamma(2\to 1)\,u(1-u)\,\frac{\partial^{2}}{(\partial u)^{2}},$ (3.34)
and
$Z(Y_{0};u)\,\,=\,\,e^{g(b)(u-1)}.$ (3.35)
We introduce operators of creation ($a^{+}$) and annihilation ($a$) that
satisfy $[\hat{a},\hat{a}^{+}]=1$, at fixed Y.
$\hat{a}\,=\,\frac{\partial}{\partial u}\,,\,\hat{a}^{+}\,=\,u\,.$ (3.36)
In this formalism
$H\,\,=\,\,-\,\Gamma(1\to
2)\,\hat{a}^{+}\,(1-\hat{a}^{+})\,\hat{a}\,\,+\,\,\Gamma(2\to
1)\,\hat{a}^{+}\,(1-\hat{a}^{+})\,\hat{a}^{2},$ (3.37)
and the initial state at $Y=Y_{0}$ is defined as
$|Y_{0}>\,\,=\,\,e^{g(b)(\hat{a}^{+}\,-\,1)}|0>,$ (3.38)
with the vacuum defined as $\hat{a}|0>=0$.
The theory with the Hamiltonian of Eq. (3.37), has an equivalent description
using the path integral of Eq. (3.24) (see the detailed derivation in Ref.
[24]) with
$\displaystyle S\,$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\int\left(\Phi^{+}\frac{d}{dY}\Phi+H(\Phi^{+}+1,-\Phi)\,\right)dY\,\,=\,\,\int
dY\,\,\left(\Phi^{+}\frac{d}{dY}\Phi\,\,\right.$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\left.\Gamma(1\rightarrow 2)\Phi^{+}\Phi+\Gamma(1\rightarrow
2)\Phi^{+}(\Phi)^{2}+\Gamma(2\rightarrow
1)(\Phi^{+})^{2}\Phi-\Gamma(2\rightarrow
1)(\Phi^{+})^{2}\,(\Phi)^{2}\,\right).$
Comparing Eq. (3.2) with Eq. (3.25) - Eq. (3.27), one can see that they are
similar if we put $\Gamma(1\to 2)=\Delta$ and $\Gamma(2\to
1)\,=\,g^{2}_{3{I\\!\\!P}}/\Delta$. However, Eq. (3.2) has an additional term
($-\Gamma(2\rightarrow 1)(\Phi^{+})^{2}\,(\Phi)^{2}$ ) which describes the two
Pomeron to two Pomeron transition (four Pomeron interaction). This term
ensures that our approach satisfies $s$-channel unitarity (see Ref.[25]),
where it is shown that without this term there is no probabilistic
interpretation of the Pomeron interaction theory, and $s$-channel unitarity is
violated. We also need to renormalize
$\Phi^{+}\,\to\,(g_{3{I\\!\\!P}}/\Delta)\,\Phi^{+}$ and
$\Phi\,\to\,(\Delta/g_{3{I\\!\\!P}})\,\Phi$.
Using the functional $Z$, we find the scattering amplitude [22], using the
following formula:
$N\left(Y\right)\,\,\,\equiv\,\,\,\mbox{Im}A_{el}\left(Y\right)\,\,\,=\,\,\,\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n!}\,\,\,\frac{\partial^{n}\,Z(y,\,u)}{\partial^{n}\,u}|_{u=1}\,\gamma_{n}(Y=Y_{0},b),$
(3.40)
where $\gamma_{n}(Y=Y_{0},b)$ is the scattering amplitude of $n$-partons
(dipoles) at low energy. These amplitudes depend on the impact parameters
which are the same for all $n$ partons, since
$\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\,\,=\,\,0$, and we neglect the diffusion of
partons in impact parameter space. Eq. (3.40) corresponds to the partonic
approach [8, 23], in which a high energy scattering can be viewed as a two
stage process. The first stage is a development of the partonic wave function,
which we consider by introducing the generating function $Z$. In Eq. (3.40),
the second stage is the interaction of the lowest energy partons (‘wee’
partons) with the target, which is described by the amplitudes
$\gamma_{n}(Y=Y_{0},b)$. Assuming that there are no correlations between the
interacting partons (dipoles) at low energy, we can consider
$\gamma_{n}(Y=Y_{0},b)\,\,=\,\,\gamma^{n}_{1}(Y=Y_{0},b)$ [22], which we
include, choosing $S_{E}$ in the form of Eq. (3.27) and of Eq. (3.38).
The generating function approach given by Eq. (3.29), Eq. (3.32) and Eq.
(3.40), has the advantage that it can be solved analytically (see Ref. [26]).
This solution leads to a constant cross section at high energy, while the
interaction without the four Pomeron term, decreases at high energy [27]. This
fact emphasizes the importance of $s$-channel unitarity, in finding the
asymptotic behaviour of the scattering amplitude at high energy. Having an
exact solution we are able to develop approximate methods, which we can check
against the exact solution.
### 3.3 Improved Mueller-Patel-Salam-Iancu approximation
Calculating the high energy amplitude in the generating function approach, we
use the approximation which allows us to write a simple analytical formulae
for the physical observable. The main idea of this approximation, which we
call the improved Mueller-Patel-Salam-Iancu approximation, is the following:
we claim that at high energy, in the kinematical region
$Y\,\,\leq\,\,\frac{\Delta^{2}_{I\\!\\!P}}{g^{2}_{3{I\\!\\!P}}}\,\,\equiv\,\,\,\,\frac{1}{\gamma},$
(3.41)
only large Pomeron loops, with a rapidity size of the order of $Y$, contribute
to the high energy asymptotic behaviour of the scattering amplitudes. This
approximation has been discussed in detail in Refs. [28, 29, 30], and here we
illustrate this idea using the example of the first Pomeron loop diagram given
in Fig. 3. Using Eq. (3.24) or the generating function approach, we obtain the
contribution of this diagram in the form†††In Eq. (3.42) we redefine the
hadron-Pomeron vertices denoting them by $g(b)\,\sqrt{\gamma}$. We will
clarify our reason for doing so below. For simplicity we use $g(b)$ for this
vertex, neglecting the different hadronic states in our two channel model.
Figure 3: The different contribution to the first enhanced diagram and its
renormalization procedure .
$\displaystyle A\left({Fig.~{}\ref{denre}}\right)\,=$ (3.42)
$\displaystyle=\,g^{2}(b)\,\gamma\,G(Y-0)\,\,-\,g^{2}(b)\,\Gamma(1\to
2)\,\Gamma(2\to
1)\,\gamma\,\int^{Y}_{0}\,d\,y_{1}\,\int^{y_{1}}_{0}\,d\,y_{2}\,G(Y-y_{1})\,G^{2}(y_{1}-y_{2})\,G(y_{2}-0)$
(3.43) $\displaystyle=\,\,\,g^{2}(b)\,\gamma\,G(Y-0)\,-\,g^{2}(b)\,\Gamma(1\to
2)\,\Gamma(2\to
1)\,\gamma\,\int^{Y}_{0}\,d\,y_{1}\,\int^{y_{1}}_{0}\,d\,y_{2}\,\,e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,(Y+y_{1}-y_{2})}$
$\displaystyle=\,\,g^{2}(b)\,\gamma\,e^{\,\Delta\\_{I\\!\\!P}\,Y}\,-\,g^{2}(b)\,\Gamma\left(\,1\to\,2\right)\,\Gamma(2\to
1)\,\gamma\left(\frac{1}{\Delta^{2}_{I\\!\\!P}}\,e^{2\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,Y}\,\,-\,\,\frac{1}{\Delta^{2}_{I\\!\\!P}}\,e^{\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,Y}\,\,-\,\,\frac{Y}{\Delta_{p}om}\,e^{\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,Y}\right)$
$\displaystyle=\,\,g^{2}(b)\,\left\\{\gamma\,e^{\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,Y}\,\,-\,\,\gamma^{2}\,e^{2\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,Y}\,\,+\,\,\gamma^{2}\,e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,Y}\,\,+\,\,\gamma\left(\Gamma(2\to
1)\,Y\right)\,e^{\Delta_{p}om\,Y}\right\\}$
$\displaystyle\longrightarrow\,\,\,\,g^{2}(b)\,\left\\{\gamma_{R}\,\,e^{\Delta_{R}\,Y}\,\,-\,\,\gamma^{2}_{R}\,\,e^{2\,\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,Y}\right\\},$
with $\gamma_{R}\,=\,\gamma+\gamma^{2}$, and the renormalized intercept of the
Pomeron $\Delta_{RE}\,=\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}+\,\Gamma(2\to
1)\,=\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,+\,\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,\gamma$. In the kinematic
region of Eq. (3.41) we can neglect the renormalization of the intercept,
since in this region $\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,\gamma\,Y\,\ll\,1$.
The general procedure for summing large Pomeron loops was suggested by
Mueller, Patel, Salam and Iancu (MPSI) in Ref. [28]. In this approach, the
scattering amplitude is calculated using the unitarity constraints in the
$t$-channel (assuming that the amplitudes at high energy are purely imaginary,
namely $N\,=\,Im\,A$),
$N([\dots]|Y)\,\,=\,\,N([\dots]|Y-Y^{\prime};P\to
nP)\,\bigotimes\,N([\dots]|Y^{\prime};P\to nP).$ (3.44)
$\bigotimes$ stands for all necessary integrations, while $[\dots]$ describes
all quantum numbers. The amplitude on the LHS of Eq. (3.44), describes all the
enhanced diagrams, while the amplitude on the RHS of this equation,
corresponds to the splitting of one Pomeron to $n$ Pomerons. The precise
meaning of this equation, will become clear in the next equation. The
convenient form of Eq. (3.44), has been written [20, 28, 26] in terms of the
generating functional of Eq. (3.29), and it takes the form
$N\left(Y\right)\,\,\,=\,\,\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\,\,\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n!}\,\,\,\gamma^{n}\,\,\frac{\partial^{n}\,Z^{p}(Y-Y^{\prime},\,u_{p})}{\partial^{n}\,u_{p}}|_{u_{p}=1}\,\,\frac{\partial^{n}Z^{t}(Y^{\prime},\,u_{t})}{\partial^{n}\,u_{t}}|_{u_{t}=1}.$
(3.45)
In Eq. (3.45) we denote by $Z^{p}$ and $Z^{t}$ the generating functions that
describe projectile and target respectively.
Eq. (3.45) shows that each dipole with rapidity $Y^{\prime}$ from the target,
can interact with any dipole from the projectile, (see Fig. 4) with the
scattering amplitude $\gamma$. The factor $1/n!$ in Eq. (3.45) appears due to
the identity of Pomerons. Eq. (3.45) is defined in the kinematic region of Eq.
(3.41), and has a clear physical meaning, being the scattering amplitude of
two partons (two dipoles) at low energy $Y_{0}\,\leq\,1/\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}$.
Eq. (3.45) gives a natural generalization of Eq. (3.40), with an obvious
physical interpretation, that it is the sum of terms, and each of these terms
is the product of probabilities to find $n$-dipoles in the projectile and
target, multiplied by the scattering amplitude. Since we are discussing the
generating functional that satisfies Eq. (3.30) as the initial condition, Eq.
(3.45) gives the sum of enhanced diagrams or, in other words, at high energy
it leads to a new resulting Green’s function of the Pomeron.
Figure 4: An example of enhanced diagrams, that contribute to the unitarity
constraint in the $t$-channel. Wave lines denote the Pomerons. $\gamma$ is the
amplitude of the dipole-dipole interaction at low energies (at rapidity
$Y_{0}\approx 1/\bar{\alpha}_{S}$ ). The particular set of diagrams shown in
this figure, corresponds to the MPSI approach [28, 26].
The generating functions for the projectile $Z^{p}\left(Y-Y^{\prime}\right)$
and for the target $Z^{t}\left(Y^{\prime}\right)$ in Eq. (3.45), satisfy a
very simple equation that describes the parton cascades, in which a parton can
only decay into two partons. This equation has the form
$\,\,-\frac{\partial\,Z(y,\,u)}{\partial\,y}\,\,=\,\,-\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,u\,(1\,-\,u)\,\,\frac{\partial\,Z(y,\,u)}{\partial\,u}.$
(3.46)
The above equation has the solution
$Z\left(y,u\right)\,\,=\,\,\frac{u}{u\,\,+\,\,(1-u)\,e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}y}}\,\,=\,\,\frac{1}{1\,\,+\,\,\gamma_{R}\,e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}y}},$
(3.47)
where $u=1/(1+\gamma_{R})$. Eq. (3.47) satisfies the initial and boundary
conditions of Eq. (3.30) and Eq. (3.31). Using Eq. (3.47) and Eq. (3.40) it is
easy to show that the amplitude is equal to
$N(Y)\,\,=\,\,1-Z\left(u=1/\gamma_{R}\right)\,\,=\,\,\sum_{n=1}\,(-1)^{n}\,\,\gamma^{n}_{R}\,e^{n\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y}.$
(3.48)
Eq. (3.48) sums the ‘fan’ Pomeron diagrams and corresponds to the mean field
approximation (MFA) of our problem.
### 3.4 High energy amplitude
Using MFA and Eq. (3.48), we can rewrite Eq. (3.45) as
$\displaystyle N^{MPSI}_{el}\left(Y\right)\,\,\,$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\,\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\,\,(-1)^{n+1}\frac{1}{n!}\,\,\,\gamma^{n}\,\,\frac{\partial^{n}\,N^{MFA}(Y-Y^{\prime},\,\gamma^{p}_{R})}{\partial^{n}\,\gamma^{p}_{R}}|_{\gamma^{p}_{R}=0}\,\,\frac{\partial^{n}\,N^{MFA}(Y^{\prime},\,\gamma^{t}_{R})}{\partial^{n}\,\gamma^{t}_{R}}|_{\gamma^{t}_{R}=0}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\,1\,\,\,-\,\,\,\left\\{\exp\left(-\,\gamma\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\,\gamma^{p}_{R}}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\,\gamma^{t}_{R}}\right)\,\,\,N^{MFA}\left(Y-Y^{\prime},\,\gamma^{p}_{R}\right)\,\,N^{MFA}_{0}\left(Y^{\prime},\gamma^{t}_{R}\right)\,\right\\}\mid_{\gamma^{p}_{R}=0;\,\gamma^{t}_{R}=0}.$
Substituting Eq. (3.47) into Eq. (3.4), we obtain that [33, 34]
$N^{MPSI}_{el}\left(Y\right)\,\,\,=\,\,\,1\,\,-\,\,\exp\left(\frac{1}{T(Y)}\right)\,\frac{1}{T(Y)}\,\,\Gamma\left(0,\frac{1}{T(Y)}\right),$
(3.50)
where $\Gamma\left(0,x\right)$ is the incomplete gamma function (see
formsph1.epsulae 8.350 - 8.359 in Ref. [36]) and
$T\left(Y\right)\,\,\,=\,\,\gamma\,e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,Y}.$ (3.51)
In Ref. [34], the solution given by Eq. (3.50), is compared with the exact
solution (see Fig.13 of Ref. [34]). It turns out to within a 5% accuracy, that
the MPSI approximation describes the high energy behaviour of the amplitude.
At high energy Eq. (3.50) gives $N^{MPSI}_{el}\left(Y\right)\,\,\to\,\,1$.
As has been mentioned, since Eq. (3.45) satisfies the initial condition of Eq.
(3.30), it describes, as well, Eq. (3.50), the set of enhanced diagrams, and
gives the resulting Pomeron Green’s function
$G^{MPSI}_{I\\!\\!P}\left(Y-Y^{\prime}\right)\,\,\,=\,\,\,N^{MPSI}_{el}\left(Y-Y^{\prime}\right).$
(3.52)
Replacing the bare Pomeron Green’s function by Eq. (3.52), we can use Eq.
(2.12), Eq. (2.15) and Eq. (2.16), to calculate elastic and total cross
sections.
### 3.5 Diffractive production processes
The conclusion derived from the previous discussion, is that we cannot use the
formulae of Eq. (2.13) and Eq. (2.14), for calculating the single and double
diffraction cross sections. Indeed, these two equations describe the
diffraction production due to the G-W mechanism, while the sum of all enhanced
diagrams leads to a new source of diffractive production (see Fig. 5 for
examples of such processes).
Figure 5: Several examples of the Pomeron diagrams that lead to a different
source of the diffractive dissociation that cannot be described in the
framework of the G-W mechanism. Fig. 5-a is the simplest diagram that
describes the process of diffraction in the region of large mass
$Y-Y_{1}=\ln(M^{2}/s_{0})$. Fig. 5-b and Fig. 5-c give examples of more
complicated diagrams in the region ofsph1.eps large mass. The dashed line
shows the cut Pomeron, which describes the production of hadrons (see Fig. 5
-a which illustrates this point).
We use the MPSI approximation to obtain the expression for the additional
contribution to G-W mechanism. The main idea is shown in Fig. 6. As was
discussed in Ref. [29] , in order to apply the MPSI approach to diffractive
production, we need to consider the generating function of three variables:
$w$,$\bar{w}$ and $v_{in}$,
$Z\left(w,\bar{w};v_{in};Y\right)\\\
,\,\,=\,\,\sum^{\infty}_{n=0;m=0;k=0}\,P\left(n,n,k|Y\right)\,\,w^{n}\,\bar{w}^{m}\,v^{k}_{in}.$
(3.53)
$P\left(n,n,k|Y\right)$ is the probability to find $n$ and $m$ Pomerons in the
amplitude and conjugated amplitude respectively, while $k$ is the number of
cut Pomerons (see Ref. [37]). $Z\left(w,\bar{w};v_{in};Y\right)$ has been
found in Ref. [29] for the parton cascade, with a decay of one parton to two
partons,
$\displaystyle sph1.eps$ $\displaystyle
Z\left(w,\bar{w},v_{in}|Y-Y_{M}=\ln(M^{2}/s_{0})\equiv Y_{m}\right)\,\,=\,\,$
$\displaystyle\frac{w\,e^{-\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y}}{1+w(e^{-\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y_{m}}-1)}\,\,+\,\,\frac{\bar{w}\,e^{-\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y}_{m}}{1+\bar{w}(e^{-\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y_{m}}-1)}\,\,-\,\,\frac{(w+\bar{w}-v_{in})e^{-\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y_{m}}}{1+(w+\bar{w}\,-v_{in})(e^{-\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,\,Y_{m}}-1)}.$
To find the cross section for single diffractive production, we need to
calculate the term which is proportional to $v_{in}$, and to replace $v_{in}$
by $2\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}w\bar{w}$. Indeed, this term means that at $Y=Y_{m}$ we
have only one cut Pomeron, while all other cut Pomerons at this rapidity have
decayed to Pomerons without cuts. For simplicity we choose
$Y^{\prime}=Y-Y_{M}=Y_{m}$ (see Fig. 6). Replacing
$v_{in}\,\to\,2\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}w\bar{w}$, means that at $Y=Y_{M}$, the last
cut Pomeron splits into two Pomerons (see Fig. 6). Therefore,
$N^{MFA}_{sd}\left(w,\bar{w};Y-Y_{M}=\ln(M^{2}/s_{0})\equiv
Y_{m}\right)\,\,=\,\,2\,\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}w\,\bar{w}\,\frac{e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y_{m}}}{\left(1\,\,+\,\,(w\,+\,\bar{w})\,(e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y_{m}}\,-\,1)^{2}\right)^{2}}.$
(3.55)
Figure 6: The MPSI approximation for the cross section of single diffractive
production of mass ($M^{2}$,$Y-Y_{M}=\ln(M^{2}/s_{0})$). The dashed lines
shows the cut Pomerons. All other notations, are as in Fig. 4.
The general Eq. (3.45) can be rewritten in this case in the form
$\displaystyle N^{MPSI}_{sd}(Y,Y_{m}=\ln(M^{2}/s_{0}))\,\,=$ (3.56)
$\displaystyle\,\,\sum^{\infty}_{n=1;m=1}\,\frac{(-1)^{n+m}}{\,n!\,m!}\,\gamma^{n+m}\frac{\partial^{n}\,}{\partial^{n}\,w^{p}}\frac{\partial^{m}\,}{\partial^{n}\,\bar{w}^{p}}\,\,N^{MFA}_{sd}\left(w^{p},\bar{w}^{p};Y-Y_{M}=\ln(M^{2}/s_{0})\equiv
Y_{m}\right)|_{w=1;\bar{w}=1}\,$
$\displaystyle\times\,\,\frac{\partial^{n}\,N^{MFA}\left(w^{t},Y-Y_{m}\right)}{\partial^{n}\,w^{t}}|_{w^{t}=1}\frac{\partial^{m}\,N^{MFA}\left(\bar{w}^{t},Y-Y_{m}\right)}{\partial^{n}\,\bar{w}^{t}}|_{\bar{w}=1}$
$\displaystyle=\,1\,-\,\left\\{\exp\left(-\gamma\left(\frac{\partial\,}{\partial\,w^{p}}\,\frac{\partial\,}{\partial\,w^{t}}\,\,+\,\,\frac{\partial\,}{\partial\,\bar{w}^{p}}\,\frac{\partial\,}{\partial\,\bar{w}^{t}}\right)\right)\,N^{MFA}_{sd}\left(w,\bar{w};Y_{m}\right)\,\right.$
$\displaystyle\left.\times\,\,N^{MFA}\left(\bar{w}^{t},Y-Y_{m}=Y_{M}\right)\,N^{MFA}\left(\bar{w}^{t},Y-Y_{m}=Y_{M}\right)\right\\}|_{w^{p}=w^{t}=\bar{w}^{p}=\bar{w}^{t}=1}$
$\displaystyle=\frac{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\gamma^{2}}{6}\,\frac{e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}(2\,Y-Y_{m})}}{L^{2}\left(Y,Y_{m}\right)}\,G\left(L\left(Y,Y_{m}\right)\right),$
(3.57)
where
$G\left(L\right)\,\,=\,\,L\,((L-1)^{2}-2)+e^{1/L}(1+3L)\,\Gamma_{0}(1/L)$
(3.58)
and
$L\left(Y,Y_{m}\right)\,\,=\,\,\gamma\,\exp\left(\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}(Y-Y_{m})\right)\,\left\\{\exp\left(\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y_{m}\right)-1\right\\}.$
(3.59)
$N^{MPSI}_{sd}(Y,Y_{m}=\ln(M^{2}/s_{0}))$ describes the differential single
diffraction cross section for the production of mass $M$. We can calculate the
integrated diffraction cross section
$\displaystyle N^{MPSI}_{diff}\left(Y;M_{max},M_{min}\right)\,\,$
$\displaystyle\equiv$
$\displaystyle\,\,\int^{y_{m}(max)}_{y_{m}(min)}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!d\,y_{m}\,N^{MPSI}_{sd}(Y,Y_{m}=\ln(M^{2}/s_{0}))\,\,$
(3.60) $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\,\frac{\gamma}{6}\,e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y}\,\left(B\left(L\left(Y,Y_{m}(max)\right)\right)\,\,-\,\,B\left(L\left(Y,Y_{m}(min)\right)\right)\right),$
where $Y_{m}(max)=\ln(M^{2}_{max}/s_{0})$ ,
$Y_{m}(min)=\ln(M^{2}_{min}/s_{0})$ and
$B\left(L\right)\,\,=\,\,2\,+\,\frac{1}{L^{2}}\,-\,\frac{1}{L}\,\,-\,\,\frac{e^{\frac{1}{L}}\Gamma_{0}\left(1/L\right)}{L^{3}}.$
(3.61)
$M_{max}$ and $M_{min}$ denote the largest and the smallest masses which are
produced in the diffractive process.
The expression for the integrated cross section for double diffraction can be
obtained directly from the unitarity constraint of Eq. (2.4), as the diagrams
that describe the elastic and single diffraction cross sections, do not
contribute to the set of Pomeron diagrams, that describe the exact Pomeron
Green’s function (see Fig. 7 which contains examples of the diagrams that
contribute to double diffractive production).
Figure 7: Several examples of the Pomeron diagrams that lead to the double
diffractive production. Fig. 7-a is the simplest diagram that describes the
process of double diffraction in the regions of large mass
$Y-Y_{1}=\ln(M^{2}_{1}/s_{0})$ and $Y_{2}=\ln(M^{2}_{2}/s_{0})$. Fig. 5-b
contains examples of more complicated diagrams in the region of large masses.
The dashed line indicates the cut Pomeron which describes the production of
hadrons (see Fig. 7-a).
The unitarity constraint is given by
$2\,N^{MPSI}\,\,=\,\,N^{MPSI}_{dd}\,\,+\,\,N^{MPSI}_{in},$ (3.62)
where $N^{MPSI}_{in}$ stands for the inelastic cross section. It was shown
that $N^{MPSI}_{in}$ is equal to $N^{MPSI}\left(2T(y)\right)$ (see Refs. [38,
39, 29]). Therefore, the integrated double diffraction cross section can be
written in the form
$N^{MPSI}_{dd}\left(Y\right)\,\,\,=\,\,\,2\,N^{MPSI}\left(T(Y)\right)\,\,\,-\,\,\,N^{MPSI}\left(2\,T(Y)\right).$
(3.63)
### 3.6 Our approach
In our approach we combine the G-W mechanism with the exact Pomeron Green’s
function of Eq. (3.52). First, we replace the bare Pomeron Green’s function
$G(Y-Y^{\prime})\,=\,\,\exp\left(-\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\,(Y-Y^{\prime})\right)$ in
Eq. (2.7) by $G^{MPSI}_{I\\!\\!P}\left(Y-Y^{\prime}\right)$ of Eq. (3.52),
and, obtain
$\Omega_{i,k}\left(s,b\right)\,=\,g_{i}\,g_{k}\,\,G^{MPSI}_{I\\!\\!P}\left(Y-Y^{\prime}\right)\,\,\,S\left(b;m_{i},m_{k};\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})=0\right),$
(3.64)
with a profile function
$\,S\left(b;m_{i},m_{k};\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})\right)$
determined by Eq. (2.10).
Using Eq. (2.12), Eq. (2.15) and Eq. (2.16) with
$\Omega_{i,k}\left(s,b\right)$ from Eq. (3.64), we can calculate elastic and
total cross sections. These formulae provide a correct description of low mass
diffractive production due to the G-W mechanism. However, to include the
Pomeron interactions in processes of diffractive production, we need to change
Eq. (2.13) and Eq. (2.14). We first introduce (see Fig. 5-a)
$\Omega^{sd}_{i,k}\left(s,M;b\right)\,\,\,=\,\,g_{i}\,g^{2}_{k}\,N^{MPS}_{sd}\left(Y\,=\,\ln(s/s_{0}),Y_{m}=\ln(M^{2}/s_{0})\right)\,S^{sd}\left(b;m_{i},m_{k}\right),$
(3.65)
where the new profile function $S^{sd}\left(b;m_{i},m_{k}\right)$ is the
Fourier transform of
$\frac{1}{1+q^{2}/m^{2}_{i})^{2}}\,\int\frac{d^{2}k}{(2\pi)^{2}}\frac{1}{1+(\vec{q}+\vec{k})^{2}/m^{2}_{i})^{2}}\,\frac{1}{1+(\vec{q}-\vec{k})^{2}/m^{2}_{i})^{2}}\,\,\Longrightarrow\,\,\,S^{sd}\left(b;m_{i},m_{k}\right).$
(3.66)
We found to within an accuracy of around 5%,that the profile function
$S^{sd}\left(b;m_{i},m_{k}\right)$ can be approximated by
$S^{sd}\left(b;m_{i},m_{k}\right)\,\,\,=\,\,\,\frac{m^{2}_{k}}{12\,\pi}\,S\left(b;m_{i},\bar{m}_{k};\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})=0\right)\,\,\,\,\,,$
(3.67)
where $\bar{m}^{2}_{k}\,\,=\,\,2\,\sqrt{3}\,m^{2}_{k}$ .
For the calculation of the integrated cross section of single diffractive
production we define
$\displaystyle\Omega^{sd}_{i,k}\left(s,M_{max},M_{min};b\right)\,\,\,=$ (3.68)
$\displaystyle\,\,g_{i}\,g^{2}_{k}\,N^{MPS}_{diff}\left(Y\,=\,\ln(s/s_{0}),Y_{m}(max)=\ln(M^{2}_{max}/s_{0}),Y_{m}(min)=\ln(M^{2}_{min}/s_{0})\right)\,S^{sd}\left(b;m_{i},m_{k}\right).$
For the integrated cross section of the single diffraction channel, we obtain
the following expression which takes into account both the G-W mechanism, and
the enhanced Pomeron diagrams:
$\displaystyle\sigma_{diff}=\int^{M^{2}_{max}}_{M^{2}_{min}}\\!\\!\\!\frac{dM^{2}}{M^{2}}\,\frac{d\sigma^{sd}(s,M)}{dM^{2}}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\int
d^{2}b\left\\{\,\,\alpha^{2}\,\beta^{2}\left(\alpha^{2}\,e^{-\frac{\Omega_{1,1}}{2}}\,-\,(\alpha^{2}-\beta^{2})\,e^{-\frac{\Omega_{1,2}}{2}}\,-\,\beta^{2}\,e^{-\frac{\Omega_{2,2}}{2}}\right)^{2}\right.$
(3.69) $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\left.\left\\{\alpha^{2}\,\Omega^{diff}_{1,1}e^{-\Omega_{1,1}}\,+\,\beta^{2}\,\Omega^{diff}_{2,2}\,e^{-\Omega_{2,2}}\,\,+\,2\,\alpha^{2}\,\beta^{2}\,\Omega^{diff}_{1,2}e^{-\Omega_{1,2}}\right\\}\right\\},$
(3.70)
where $\Omega^{diff}_{i,k}$ are given by Eq. (3.68). The differential cross
section for single diffraction in the region $M\;\;>\;\;M_{min}$ is
$M^{2}\,\frac{d\sigma^{sd}(s,M)}{dM^{2}}\,=\,\int
d^{2}b\left\\{\alpha^{2}\,\Omega^{sd}_{1,1}e^{-\Omega_{1,1}}\,+\,\beta^{2}\,\Omega^{sd}_{2,2}\,e^{-\Omega_{2,2}}\,\,+\,2\,\alpha^{2}\,\beta^{2}\,\Omega^{sd}_{1,2}e^{-\Omega_{1,2}}\right\\},$
(3.71)
where $\Omega^{sd}_{i,k}$ are given by Eq. (3.65). In Eq. (3.69) and Eq.
(3.71) we use $\Omega_{i,k}$ of Eq. (3.64).
For the double diffractive cross section we introduce
$\Omega^{dd}_{i,k}\left(s,b\right)\,=\,g_{i}\,g_{k}\,\,N^{MPSI}_{dd}\left(Y\right)\,\,\,S\left(b;m_{i},m_{k};\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\ln(s/s_{0})=0\right).$
(3.72)
Using this $\Omega^{dd}_{i,k}$ we obtain for the integrated DD cross section
$\displaystyle\sigma_{dd}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int^{\infty}_{0}\\!\\!\\!\frac{dM^{2}_{1}}{M^{2}_{1}}\,\int^{\infty}_{0}\\!\\!\\!\frac{dM^{2}_{2}}{M^{2}_{2}}\frac{d\sigma^{sd}(s,M_{1},M_{2})}{dM^{2}_{1}\,dM^{2}_{2}}=\int
d^{2}b\left\\{\,\,\alpha^{4}\,\beta^{4}\left(e^{-\frac{\Omega_{1,1}}{2}}\,-\,2\,\,e^{-\frac{\Omega_{1,2}}{2}}\,+\,\,e^{-\frac{\Omega_{2,2}}{2}}\right)^{2}\right.$
(3.73) $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\left.\,\left\\{\alpha^{4}\,\Omega^{dd}_{1,1}e^{-\Omega_{1,1}}\,+\,\beta^{4}\,\Omega^{dd}_{2,2}\,e^{-\Omega_{2,2}}\,\,+\,2\,\alpha^{2}\,\beta^{2}\,\Omega^{dd}_{1,2}e^{-\Omega_{1,2}}\right\\}\right\\}.$
(3.74)
For the integrated single and double diffractive production, the expressions
each contains two terms: the first is responsible for G-W mechanism for these
processes, while the second originates from the large mass diffraction of the
enhanced Pomeron diagrams.
Eq. (2.12), Eq. (2.15) and Eq. (2.16) with $\Omega_{i,k}\left(s,b\right)$ from
Eq. (3.64) and Eq. (3.65) - Eq. (3.74) give the full list of formulae in our
approach. We wish to emphasize that our approach is based on the pQCD input
for calculating the enhanced Pomeron diagrams, and on the G-W mechanism for
low mass diffractive production.
## 4 Results of the fit
### 4.1 Cross sections and elastic slope
We have adjusted the parameters of our model which are listed in Table 2,
using the formulae of section 3.6. The fit is based on 55 experimental data
points, which includes the $p$-$p$ and $\bar{p}$-$p$ total cross sections,
integrated elastic cross sections, integrated single and double diffraction
cross sections, and the forward slope of the elastic cross section in the ISR-
Tevatron energy range. The model gives a good reproduction of the data, with a
$\chi^{2}/d.o.f.\,\approx 1.25$. The quality of description of the
experimental data is shown in Fig. 2, Fig. 2, Fig. 9, Fig. 9 and Fig. 11. A
significant contribution to $\chi^{2}/d.o.f.$ stems from the uncertainty for
the value of two single diffraction cross sections, and of the total cross
section at the Tevatron. The $\chi^{2}/d.o.f.$ in Table 2 is calculated
neglecting the contribution of the CDF measurement [41] ($\sigma_{tot}$ = 80
mb. at the Tevatron energy). The important advantage of our approach, is that
the model provides a very good reproduction of the DD data points. In our
previous attempt to describe the DD data [6] within a G-W approach, it was
necessary to assume a non-factorizable contribution for the Pomeron exchange,
resulting in marginally acceptable results.
Figure 8: Energy dependence of $\sigma_{el}$.
Figure 9: Energy dependence of the cross section $\sigma_{sd}$.
Figure 10: Energy dependence of $\sigma_{dd}$.
Figure 11: $t$ dependence of $d\sigma_{el}/dt$ at the Tevatron
($W=1800\,GeV$).
$\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}$ | $\beta$ | $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$ | $g_{1}$ | $g_{2}$ | $m_{1}$ | $m_{2}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
0.335 | 0.339 | 0.012 $GeV^{-2}$ | 5.82(0.90) $GeV^{-1}$ | 239.6(37.27) $GeV^{-1}$ | 1.54 $GeV$ | 3.06 $GeV$
$\Delta_{{I\\!\\!R}}$ | $\gamma$ | $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!R}}$ | $g^{{I\\!\\!R}}_{1}$ | $g^{{I\\!\\!R}}_{2}$ | $R^{2}_{0,1}$ | $\chi^{2}/d.o.f.$
\- 0.60 | 0.0242 | 0.6 $GeV^{-2}$ | 13.22 $GeV^{-1}$ | 367.8 $GeV^{-1}$ | 4.0 $GeV^{-2}$ | 1.0
Table 2: Fitted parameters for our model which includes G-W mechanism for
diffractive production, as well as the diffractive processes that stem from
enhanced Pomeron diagrams (Pomeron loops). In our approach we have extracted a
factor of $\gamma$ from the product $g_{i}g_{k}$. Therefore, the value of the
Pomeron-hadron vertex is equal to $g_{i}=g_{i}(\mbox{from the
table)}\times\sqrt{\gamma}$, and this value is shown in parentheses.
### 4.2 $t$ \- dependence of the differential elastic cross section
The behaviour of the elastic cross section in the region of small $t$, is
characterized by $B_{el}$ and $\sigma_{tot}$, which are included in the set of
experimental data that we use for our fit. However, we wish to know the
scattering amplitude at a relatively high value of $t\geq 0.1\,GeV^{2}$, where
the simple exponential $t$ behaviour of the input elastic amplitude does not
describe the data [6]. In Fig. 11 we plot our prediction with the parameters
of Table 2 for the $t$-behaviour of the elastic cross section at the Tevatron
energy $W=1800\,GeV$. We reproduce the data quite well, and it is a
considerable improvement over the results obtained in [6]. ‡‡‡We thank M.
Ryskin who pointed out that the model of Ref. [6], gives a minimum at
$|t|\approx 0.1\,GeV^{2}$ which contradicts the experimental data.
### 4.3 Mass dependence of the diffractive cross section
In Fig. 12, we plot the cross section of single diffraction as a function of
$1-x_{l}=M^{2}/s$ at the Tevatron energy. For this cross section, in the
region of high mass, we use Eq. (3.71), while for diffraction in the region of
low mass, we need to make some assumptions regarding the dependence of this
cross section on $M$. Following Refs. [42, 7] we assume that the main
contribution for the G-W part of single diffractive production stems, from the
${I\\!\\!R}{I\\!\\!P}{I\\!\\!R}$ term, which does not depend on $x_{L}$.
Therefore, the resulting contribution has the following form:
$\displaystyle M^{2}\frac{d\sigma_{sd}\left(s,M\right)}{dM^{2}\,dt}=$ (4.75)
$\displaystyle\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\,M^{2}\frac{d\sigma^{\mbox{Low
M}}_{sd}\left(s,M\right)}{dM^{2}\,dt}\left({I\\!\\!R}{I\\!\\!P}{I\\!\\!R}\,\mbox{term
; G-W contribution}\right)+M^{2}\frac{d\sigma^{\mbox{High
M}}_{sd}\left(s,M\right)}{dM^{2}\,dt}\left({Eq.~{}(\ref{DXSSD})}\right)\,$
$\displaystyle\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\,\,B_{sd}e^{-B_{sd}\,|t|}\left\\{\sigma^{\mbox{High
M}}_{sd}\,\frac{N^{MPSI}_{sd}\left(Y,Y_{m};{Eq.~{}(\ref{SD1})}\right)}{N^{MPSI}_{diff}\left({Eq.~{}(\ref{TSD})}\right)}\,+\,\sigma^{\mbox{Low
M}}_{sd}\right\\}.$
In our parametrization, the scale of the second term is determined by the G-W
mechanism. The fact that the ${I\\!\\!R}{I\\!\\!P}{I\\!\\!R}$ term is
responsible for $x_{L}$ behaviour, is an additional independent input.
However, an argument for the ${I\\!\\!R}{I\\!\\!P}{I\\!\\!R}$ term , is that
if $\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}=0$, then both ${I\\!\\!P}{I\\!\\!P}{I\\!\\!P}$ and
${I\\!\\!R}{I\\!\\!P}{I\\!\\!R}$ lead to a diffractive cross section, which is
constant as a function of energy.
Figure 12: Dependence of single inclusive cross section on $1-x_{L}=M^{2}/s$,
where $M$ is the mass of the diffractively produced system. Data are taken
from Refs. [41, 42].
## 5 Predictions for LHC and Cosmic Rays Energies: $b$-dependence of the
amplitudes
Fig. 13 shows our prediction for high energy behaviour of the total, elastic
and diffractive cross sections as well as of the elastic slope.
|
---|---
Fig. 13-a | Fig. 13-b
Figure 13: The energy dependence of cross sections (Fig. 13 -a) and elastic
slope $B_{el}$(Fig. 13-b) for elastic scattering and diffractive production.
We have plotted $0.25\,\sigma_{tot}$, so as to show all the predictions on the
same figure.
At W=14 $TeV$ (LHC energy): $\sigma_{tot}=92.1\,mb$, $\sigma_{el}=20.9\,mb$,
$\sigma_{sd}=11.8\,mb$, $\sigma_{dd}=6.08\,mb$ and $B_{el}=20.6\,GeV^{-2}$.
Comparing these results with the prediction of our previous model
($\sigma_{tot}=110.5\,mb$, $\sigma_{el}=25.3\,mb$, $\sigma_{sd}=11.6\,mb$,
$\sigma_{dd}=4.9\,mb$ and $B_{el}=20.5\,GeV^{-2}$ at the LHC energy) we see
that the above comparison
|
---|---
Fig. 14-a | Fig. 14-b
Figure 14: Impact parameter dependence of $A_{i,k}$ and $a_{el}$ at different
energies.
leads to a few general observations, on which we will elaborate in the
Discussion section.
1) The predictions of our Ref. [6] for $\sigma_{tot}$ and $\sigma_{el}$ at the
LHC are considerably higher than the corresponding predictions obtained in the
present analysis. The difference between the two sets of predictions grow
monotonically with energy. Note, that the moderate growth of $\sigma_{tot}$
and $\sigma_{el}$ obtained in the present study continues up to energies as
high as $10^{5}$ GeV, and probably higher. See Fig.13 and Table 3. We
attribute this behaviour to the fact, that in our fit,
$\alpha^{{}^{\prime}}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$ is small but not zero.
2) These features reflect the fact that whereas our previous model has an
output compatible with $\Delta_{eff}\approx 0.08$ up to exceedingly high
energies, the present model (in which Pomeron enhanced diagrams play a
significant role), has an output $\Delta_{eff}$ which decreases monotonically
with energy.
3) The qualitative features of $\sigma_{tot}$ and $\sigma_{el}$ in our two
models are also seen in $\sigma_{sd}$. However, $\sigma_{dd}$ behaves
differently, slowly approaching a constant value above LHC energies.
4) Our $B_{sd}$ slope is approximately two times less $B_{el}$. At high energy
we have only the results of fit to the diffraction experimental data given in
Ref. [41]. The values of $B_{sd}$ from this fit are $B_{sd}=7.7\pm
0.6\,(4.2\pm 0.5)\,GeV^{-2}$ for W = 546 (1800) GeV. Our values (see Fig.
13-b) are $B_{sd}=8.5(9.9)\,GeV^{-2}$ at these energies. The large difference
in the experimental slopes have been discussed in Ref. [41].
To investigate the quantitative features of our present model further, we plot
in Fig.14 the $b$ dependence of $A_{i,k}(s,b)$ and $a_{el}(s,b)$ output
amplitudes, at Tevatron and LHC energies. As seen, $A_{2,2}$ and $A_{1,2}$
reach the black bound at relatively low energies, whereas $A_{1,1}$ is below
the black bound, approaching it very slowly.
As noted in Ref.[6], the output cross sections reach the unitarity bound when,
and only when, $A_{1,1}\;=\;A_{1,2}\;=\;A_{2,2}\;=\;1$. Since, $A_{1,1}$ grows
very slowly with energy, we conclude that the very slow approach to the
unitarity bound observed in Ref.[6], also occurs in the present model. Despite
the fact that the two models have very different $t$ dependences, we hope that
such structure of the amplitude does not depend on the model assumptions, but
reflects the principle features of the hadron scattering at high energy. We
shall expand on this issue in the Discussion section.
## 6 Survival probability of diffractive Higgs production
In the following we limit our discussion to the survival probability of Higgs
production, in an exclusive central diffractive process. Most estimates of the
values of survival probability have been made in the framework of G-W
mechanism, in two channel eikonal models. A general review of such survival
probability calculations can be found in Ref.[11]. The general formulae for
the calculation of the survival probability for diffractive Higgs boson
production, have been discussed in Refs.[10, 11, 12]. The structure of the
survival probability expression is shown in Fig. 15.-a. Accordingly,
$\langle\mid S^{2}_{2ch}\mid\rangle=\frac{N(s)}{D(s)},$ (6.76)
where,
$\displaystyle N(s)=\int
d^{2}\,b_{1}\,d^{2}\,b_{2}\left[\sum_{i,k}\,<p|i>^{2}<p|k>^{2}\,A^{i}_{H}(s,b_{1})\,A^{k}_{H}(s,b_{2})(1-A^{i,k}_{S}\left((s,(\mathbf{b}_{1}+\mathbf{b}_{2})\right))\right]^{2},$
(6.77) $\displaystyle
D(s)=\int\,d^{2}\,b_{1}\,d^{2}\,b_{2}\left[\sum_{i,k}<p|i>^{2}<p|k>^{2}\,A^{i}_{H}(s,b_{1})\,A^{k}_{H}(s,b_{2})\right]^{2}.$
(6.78)
$<p|i>$ is equal to $\langle\Psi_{proton}\mid\Psi_{i}\rangle$ and , therefore,
$<p|1>=\alpha$ and $<p|2>=\beta$.
$A_{s}$ denotes the soft strong interaction amplitude given by Eq. (2.7),Eq.
(2.12),Eq. (2.13) and Eq. (2.14). The form of $A_{H}(s,b)$ has been discussed
in Refs.[10, 11]. In our model we assume an input Gaussian $b$-dependence for
the hard amplitudes.
${A_{i,k}^{H}}=A_{H}(s)\,\Gamma_{i,k}^{H}(b),$ (6.79)
where $A_{H}(s)$ is an $s$\- dependent arbitrary function which does not
depend on $i,k$, and
$\Gamma_{i,k}^{H}(b)=\frac{1}{\pi(R^{H}_{i,k})^{2}}\,e^{-\frac{2\,b^{2}}{(R^{H}_{i,k})^{2}}}$.
The hard vertices and radii ${R_{i,k}^{H}}^{2}$, are constants derived from
HERA $J/\Psi$ elastic and inelastic photo and DIS production[40].
Following Refs.[12, 11] we have introduced in the above, two hard $b$-profiles
$\displaystyle A^{pp}_{H}(b)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{V_{p\to
p}}{2\pi B_{el}^{H}}\exp\left(-\frac{b^{2}}{2\,B_{el}^{H}}\right),$ (6.80)
$\displaystyle A^{pd}_{H}(b)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{V_{p\to
d}}{2\pi B_{in}^{H}}\exp\left(-\frac{b^{2}}{2B_{in}^{H}}\right).$ (6.81)
The values $B_{el}^{H}$=3.6 $GeV^{-2}$ and $B_{in}^{H}$=1 $GeV^{-2}$, have
been taken from the experimental ZEUS data on $J/\Psi$ production at HERA (see
Refs.[11, 43]).
Using Eq. (2.12)-Eq. (2.14), the integrands of Eq. (6.77) and Eq. (6.78) are
reduced by eliminating common $s$-dependent expressions,
$\displaystyle N(s)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int\,d^{2}b_{1}d^{2}b_{2}[A_{H}(s,b_{1})\,A_{H}(s,b_{2})(1-A_{S}\left(\mathbf{b}=\mathbf{b}_{1}+\mathbf{b}_{2}\right))]^{2}$
(6.82) $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\int
d^{2}b_{1}d^{2}b_{2}\,[(1-a_{el}(s,b))A^{pp}_{H}(b_{1})A^{pp}_{H}(b_{2})-a_{sd}(s,b)\left(A^{pd}_{H}(b_{1})A^{pp}_{H}(b_{2})\right.$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\left.A^{pp}_{H}(b_{1})A^{pd}_{H}(b_{2})\right)-a_{dd}(s,b)A^{pd}_{H}(b_{1})A^{pd}_{H}(b_{2})]^{2},$
$D=\int
d^{2}b_{1}d^{2}b_{2}\left[A^{pp}_{H}(b_{1})A^{pp}_{H}(b_{2})\right]^{2}.$
(6.83)
Figure 15: Survival probability for exclusive central diffractive production
of the Higgs boson. Fig. 15-a shows the contribution to the survival
probability in the G-W mechanism, while Fig. 15-b illustrates the origin to
the additional factor $\langle\mid S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle$.
Eq. (6.76) does not give a correct estimate for the survival probability, and
should be multiplied by a factor ($\langle\mid S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle$) that,
incorporates the possibility for the Higgs boson to be emitted from the
enhanced diagrams (see Fig. 15-b). Therefore, the resulting survival
probability can be written as
$\langle\mid S^{2}\mid\rangle\,\,\,=\,\,\langle\mid
S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle\left(\mbox{{Eq.~{}(\ref{SPE})}}\right)\,\times\,\langle\mid
S^{2}_{2ch}\mid\rangle\left(\mbox{{Eq.~{}(\ref{SP})}}\right).$ (6.84)
The first attempt to find $\langle\mid S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle$ was made in
Refs.[44, 34], where this factor was calculated neglecting the fact that the
Higgs boson could be produced from the two gluon scattering with a difference
in rapidity $\delta Y_{H}=\ln(M^{2}_{H}/s_{0})$ (see for example Refs. [45,
44]). The MPSI approach for this case is shown in Fig. 17, and it leads to the
result:
$\langle\mid
S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle\left(Y\right)\,\,=\,\,\frac{\partial}{\partial\,T}N^{MPSI}_{el}\left(T\right)\,=\,\frac{1}{T^{3}(Y)}\left\\{-T(Y)\,+\,e^{\frac{1}{T(Y)}}\,\left(1+T(Y)\right)\,\Gamma_{0}\left(\frac{1}{T(Y)}\right)\right\\},$
(6.85)
where $N^{MPSI}_{el}\left(T\right)$ is given Eq. (3.50). It was originally
suggested to divide this factor by $\langle\mid
S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle\left(Y=\delta Y_{H}\right)$,
$\langle\mid S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle\left(Y\right)\,\,=\,\,\frac{\langle\mid
S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle\left(Y;{Eq.~{}(\ref{SPE1})}\right)}{\langle\mid
S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle\left(Y=\delta Y_{H};{Eq.~{}(\ref{SPE1})}\right)}.$
(6.86)
In this paper we take into account $\delta Y_{H}$ in a consistent way, which
was outlined in Ref. [34], and presented in Fig. 17 [16]. At rapidity
$Y-Y^{\prime}-\frac{1}{2}\delta Y_{H}$, one of the partons (Pomerons) will
produce a Higgs boson, and it should be removed from the cascade evolution.
Therefore, those partons which will participate in the evolution will be
characterized by a new generating function,
$\displaystyle\tilde{Z}\left(Y-Y^{\prime}-\frac{1}{2}\delta
Y_{H},u\right)\,\,\,=$ (6.87) $\displaystyle
e^{-\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}(Y-y^{\prime}-\frac{1}{2}\delta Y_{H})}\,\frac{\partial
Z^{MFA}\left(Y-Y^{\prime}-\frac{1}{2}\delta
Y_{H},u\right)}{\partial\,u}\,\,=\,\,\frac{1}{\left(u\,+\,(1-u)\,e^{-\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}(Y-Y^{\prime}-\frac{1}{2}\delta
Y_{H})}\right)^{2}}.$
$\tilde{Z}\left(Y-Y^{\prime}-\frac{1}{2}\delta Y_{H};u\right)$ should be
evolved to rapidity $Y-Y^{\prime}$ using Eq. (3.46). This evolution results in
an improved generating function
$\widetilde{\widetilde{Z}}\left(Y-Y^{\prime},u\right)\,\,=\,\,\frac{\left(u+(1-u)\,e^{\frac{1}{2}\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\delta
Y_{H}}\right)^{2}}{\left(u+(1-u)\,e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}(Y-Y)}\right)^{2}}.$
(6.88)
Note that for central Higgs boson production $\frac{1}{2}Y=Y^{\prime}$.
Symmetrically, using Eq. (6.87) we need to find
$\tilde{Z}\left(Y^{\prime}-\frac{1}{2}\delta Y_{H},u\right)$, and from Eq.
(6.88), $\tilde{Z}\left(Y^{\prime},u\right)$. The result for this function is
$\widetilde{\widetilde{Z}}\left(Y^{\prime},u\right)\,\,\,=\,\,\,\frac{\left(u+(1-u)\,e^{\frac{1}{2}\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}\delta
Y_{H}}\right)^{2}}{\left(u+(1-u)\,e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y^{\prime}}\right)^{2}}.$
(6.89)
Using these generating functions we obtain
$\displaystyle\langle\mid
S^{2}_{enh}\left(MPSI\right)\mid\rangle\left(Y\right)\,\,\,=$
$\displaystyle\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\,\,\frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n!}\,\,\,\gamma^{n}\,\,\frac{\partial^{n}\,\widetilde{\widetilde{Z}}(Y-Y^{\prime},u^{p})}{\partial^{n}\,u^{p}}|_{u^{p}=1}\,\,\frac{\partial^{n}\,\widetilde{\widetilde{Z}}(Y^{\prime},u)\,u^{t})}{\partial
u_{t}}|_{u^{t}=1}$ (6.90)
$\displaystyle\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\,\,S\left({\cal
T}(Y)\right)\,\,-\,\,2\,e^{-\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}(Y-\delta
Y_{H})/2}\,S1\left({\cal T}(Y)\right)\,\,+\,\,e^{-2\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}(Y-\delta
Y_{H})/2}\,S2\left({\cal T}(Y\right);$
$\displaystyle\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,S(T)=\frac{1}{T^{3}}\left\\{-T\,+\,e^{\frac{1}{T}}\,\left(1+T\right)\,e^{\frac{1}{T}}\,\Gamma_{0}\left(\frac{1}{T}\right)\right\\};$
(6.91)
$\displaystyle\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,S1(T)=\frac{1}{T^{3}}\left\\{-T(1+T)\,+\,(1+2T)\,e^{\frac{1}{T}}\,\Gamma_{0}\left(\frac{1}{T}\right)\right\\};$
(6.92)
$\displaystyle\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,S2(T)=\frac{1}{T^{3}}\left\\{T\left[\left(T-1\right)^{2}-2\right]\,+\,(1+3T)\,e^{\frac{1}{T}}\,\Gamma_{0}\left(\frac{1}{T}\right)\right\\}.$
(6.93)
where
${\cal
T}\left(Y\right)\,\,\,=\,\,\gamma\left(e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}(Y-Y^{\prime})}\,-\,1\right)\,\left(e^{\Delta_{I\\!\\!P}Y^{\prime}}\,-\,1\right).$
(6.94)
Figure 16: MPSI approach for $\langle\mid S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle$ in the case
when we neglect $\delta Y_{H}=\ln(M^{2}_{H}/s_{0})$.
Figure 17: MPSI approach for $\langle\mid S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle$ in the case
when we take into account $\delta Y_{H}=\ln(M^{2}_{H}/s_{0})$.
Figure 18: Energy dependence of centrally produced Higgs survival probability.
Using Eq. (6.84)-Eq. (6.93), we calculate the survival probability
$\langle\mid S^{2}\mid\rangle$ for exclusive Higgs production in central
diffraction. Our results are plotted in Fig. 18. In the following we focus on
a detailed discussion of our LHC predictions based on the above. Calculating
in the framework of a two amplitude eikonal model, $\langle\mid
S^{2}_{2ch}\mid\rangle$ for exclusive Higgs production in central diffraction
is equal to 2.35%, which is close to the value of this part of the survival
probability estimated by the Durham group [5, 7], and by our group [11].
However, the additional factor $\langle\mid S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle$ = 0.063 as
derived from Eq. (6.90), leads to a final $\langle\mid
S^{2}\mid\rangle=0.15\%$. This result reflects a tendency for the value of the
survival probability to be much smaller, than when evaluated in the two
channel models [44, 6]. Note, that the approximate expression for $\langle\mid
S^{2}_{enh}\mid\rangle$ derived from Eq. (6.85) with our parameters, turns out
to be three times smaller. In Ref. [7] the Pomeron diagrams were taken into
account, but nevertheless, their contribution in the calculation of
$\langle\mid S^{2}\mid\rangle$ was omitted, without any explanation.
| Tevatron | LHC | $W=10^{5}GeV$
---|---|---|---
| GLM KMR | GLM KMR | GLM KMR
$\sigma_{tot}$( mb ) | 73.29 74.0 | 92.1 88.0 | 108.0 98.0
$\sigma_{el}$(mb) | 16.3 16.3 | 20.9 20.1 | 24\. 22.9
$\sigma_{sd}$(mb) | 9.76 10.9 | 11.8 13.3 | 14.4 15.7
$\sigma^{\mbox{low M}}_{sd}$ | 8.56 4.4 | 10.52 5.1 | 12.2 5.7
$\sigma^{\mbox{high M}}_{sd}$ | 1.2 6.5 | 1.28 8.2 | 2.2 10.0
$\sigma_{dd}$(mb) | 5.36 7.2 | 6.08 13.4 | 6.29 17.3
$\left(\sigma_{el}+\sigma_{sd}+\sigma_{dd}\right)/\sigma_{tot}$ | 0.428 0.464 | 0.421 0.531 | 0.412 0.57
$S^{2}_{2ch}(\%)$ | 3.2 2.7 - 4.8 | 2.35 1.2-3.2 | 2.0 0.9 - 2.5
$S^{2}_{enh}(\%)$ | 28.5 100 | 6.3 100 | 3.3 100
$S^{2}(\%)$ | 1.2 2.7 - 4.8 | 0.21 1.2-3.2 | 0.05 0.9 - 2.5
Table 3: Comparison of the GLM ( this paper) and KMR[7] models.
## 7 Discussion
In this paper we have presented an approach for soft interactions at high
energies based on two ingredients:
1) The Good-Walker mechanism for elastic and low mass diffraction.
2) Pomeron enchanced contributions which leads to the exact Pomeron Green’s
function, which is significantly different from one Pomeron exchange. This
component provides the main contribution to high mass diffraction.
Our enhanced Pomeron formalism, is based on the observation that the soft
scattering cross sections and slopes, can be reproduced with
$\alpha^{{}^{\prime}}_{{I\\!\\!P}}\approx\;0.01\;GeV^{-2}$, rather than
$\alpha^{{}^{\prime}}_{P}=\;0.25\;GeV^{-2}$ typical of conventional Regge
phenomenology. Our result of a very small $\alpha^{{}^{\prime}}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$,
implies that the observed shrinkage of the forward differential cross
sections, traditionally associated with
$\alpha^{{}^{\prime}}_{{I\\!\\!P}}\;>\;0$, can be also reproduced with
$\alpha^{{}^{\prime}}_{{I\\!\\!P}}\;\approx\;0$ coupled to strong screening,
which produces the desired shrinkage.
In the following we discuss further the properties of our model, by comparing
it with the KMR model [7], which is conceptually similar to ours, having the
same two mechanisms: G-W and multi-Pomeron interactions. In the KMR model
$\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}\;\equiv\;0$ is an input assumption. In the
present GLM model $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$ is a fitted parameter, and
its value $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}\;=\;0.012$ is an output. As we have
discussed the small value of $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$, led us to our key
hypothesis that we advocate in this paper: the soft processes are not so soft,
but stem from short distances, where the QCD coupling is small
($\alpha_{S}\approx 0.12$ to $0.16$). Using this hypothesis we built our
theoretical approach. This approach is self consistent based on pQCD. This
enables us to restrict our summation only to triple Pomeron vertices. KMR
summation is based on an ad hoc assumption
$\Gamma\left(n\,\,\,Pomerons\to
m\,\,\,Pomerons\right)\,\,\propto\,\,n\,m\,\lambda^{m+n-2}.$ (7.95)
Further, KMR claim that Eq. (7.95) leads to their main equation (Eq.(26) of
Ref.[7]), which corresponds to the parton model. Both claims maybe correct,
but they have not been proven in the KMR paper. A formal difficulty also noted
by the KMR authors (at the beginning of their section 4.3) is that the
formulae for diffractive production are ad hoc, and are not actually
compatible with our Eq. (7.95) and Eq.(26) of Ref.[7].
In spite of the fact, that we do not think that KMR model is able to provide
reliable estimates, it is interesting to compare our results, since both are
based on the same physics.
1) The introduction of Pomeron induced interactions to the calculation,
results in the accumulation of Pomeron loops along the initial Pomeron
propogator, which lead to a monotonic reduction of the output $\Delta_{eff}$
with energy. In the KMR model, where additional diagrams, and not only
diagrams with triple Pomeron interactions have been included, this process
occurs more rapidly than in our model. Accordingly, they choose a very high
input value, $\Delta_{in}\;=\;0.55$. In our fit we have
$\Delta_{in}\;=\;0.335$. Both in the KMR model and in our model the effective
shrinkage of the diffraction peak, stems from the Pomeron interactions. The
difference is that $R^{2}(s)$ in the GLM model grows as $ln^{2}s$ with a
coefficient proportional to $\alpha^{\prime}_{P}$. Since in evaluating our
summations, we have made an approximation in which
$\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$ = 0, our calculations are only trustworthy up
to $W\approx 10^{5}\,GeV$. The high energy output of GLM and KMR models are
presented in Table 3. For $\sigma_{dd}$ the contribution to the diffractive
channels coming from the Pomeron enhanced diagrams, are larger in KMR than in
GLM. Note that $\sigma_{dd}$, as calculated by GLM, saturates just above LHC
energies, while in KMR it continues growing even at energies of W = $10^{5}$
GeV, where it is predicted to be much larger than the $\sigma_{sd}$.
2) In Table 3 we define $\sigma^{\mbox{Low M}}_{sd}$ as the contribution of
G-W mechanism, while in the KMR model low and high mass diffraction is
allocated to mass values $M<M_{0}=2.5\,GeV$ and $M>M_{0}=2.5\,GeV$.
3) The behaviour of the ratio
$R_{D}\;=\;\frac{(\sigma_{el}+\sigma_{sd}+\sigma_{dd})}{\sigma_{tot}}$ conveys
information regarding the onset of unitarity constraints at high enough
energy. In the G-W model the Pumplin bound $R_{D}\;\leq\;0.5$ is relevant. The
multi-Pomeron induced contributions are not included in this bound. In the GLM
model, $R_{D}\;\ <\;0.5$ and decreases very slowly with energy. It’s
corresponding $R^{G-W}_{D}\approx\;0.35$, is a constant similar to the output
of Ref.[6]. In KMR, $R_{D}\;\ >\;0.5$ and grows with energy. The difference
between GLM and KMR appears to be due to the different summations of the
Pomeron induced diagrams, incorporated in the models.
4) The difference in the values of the survival probabilities calculated in
the two channel models are significant. The KMR estimate should be reduced by
$S^{2}_{enh}$ which is ignored in their calculation. Including this factor
brings the GLM and KMR numbers closer.
5) The data analysis aimed at determining the three opacities $\Omega_{i,k}$,
is conceptually different in the GLM and KMR models. In principle this
information should be obtained utilizing Eq.(2.12)-Eq.(2.18). However, the
experimental information we have at the UA(4)-Tevatron energies is not
sufficient to constrain the Pomeron parameters. In the GLM model we, thus,
included both the Pomeron and Reggeon trajectories, covering also the
extensive ISR data. This enabled us to extract the Pomeron (fitted) parmeters.
KMR have adopted a different strategy, obtaining the Pomeron opacities from a
good fit to $\frac{d\sigma_{el}}{dt}$ in UA(4)-Tevatron energy range. This
implies a good reproduction of $\sigma_{tot}$, $\sigma_{el}$ and $B_{el}$.
From their paper [7], it is not clear whether KMR also fit the diffractive
channels. This is not the only ambiguity in the KMR presentation of their
results. Some of their parameters are explicitly presented and fitted, some
are presented and ”tuned”, some are assumed and some are implied, but not
explicitly presented.
6) As noted, we attribute our dynamical result to the output of our fit, in
which $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}$ is small but not zero! Both our model and
KMR, predict total and elastic cross sections which are significantly smaller
than in two channel eikonal estimates, which do not include the Pomeron
enhanced contributions (see Refs. [4, 5, 6]). The differences are sufficiently
large, so that measurements at LHC and Auger should be able to discrimenate
between the various approaches. See details below.
7) The most practical, and perhaps the most interesting result we have
obtained, is the small value (about 0.15%) for the survival probability of
central diffractive Higgs production at the LHC. The very small value of the
final $S^{2}_{H}$, is due to the smallnes of $S^{2}_{2ch}$, multiplied by the
small $S^{2}_{enh}$. Our calculation does not include further reductions of
$S^{2}_{H}$, due to additional short distance processes (see Refs.[46, 44]).
These may further reduce the result we obtained for the survival probability.
The region of applicability for our formulae is given by Eq. (3.41), in which,
$Y\ll 1/\gamma=41$, and by the fact that in our procedure for summing Pomeron
diagrams we considered $\alpha^{\prime}_{{I\\!\\!P}}=0$. The first restriction
leads to a very large kinematic range for rapidity. The seco
that $\alpha^{\prime}_{I\\!\\!P}\,\ln(s/s_{0})\,<\,0.25/m^{2}_{1}$ in our
parameterization, leads to $Y<25$ . This region, is marked as questionable in
Fig. 13-a. The set of formulae in section 3.6 do not include the contribution
of the ’fan’ diagram to the elastic amplitude. In our context, it is important
that the contribution of such diagrams which determines the high mass
diffraction, turns out to be small. In the following we list a few
experimental signatures, which should be measured at the LHC in the near
future. These will give us a clue regarding the veracity of the models
discussed in the paper:
i) Measurements of $\sigma_{tot}$ and $\sigma_{el}$ should serve as a critical
test for the relevance of Pomeron enhanced diagrams. The difference in
predictions for models including (excluding) Pomeron enhanced diagrams,
becomes even more significant at Cosmic Ray energies. The Auger experiment,
where we expect results for cross sections in the near future, at energies in
the $10^{5}$ GeV range, should allow us to discriminate between the
alternative approaches.
ii) The Pomeron enhanced contribution to the diffractive channels, as
calculated by KMR, is considerably larger than our predictions. This is
significant for $\sigma_{dd}$, which acquires a large value in the KMR
approach.
iii) An early estimate of the value of $S^{2}_{H}$ should be obtained by an
LHC measuremnt of the role of hard central LRG dijet production in a GJJG
configuration, when compared to the pQCD prediction.
To summarize, we developed an approach which is self consistent, and is based
on a perturbative QCD input. We hope that a more microscopic approach with
roots in QCD saturation, can be built and we believe that this paper will
contribute to such an effort.
## Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Omry Netzer and Andrey Kormilitzin for useful discussions
on the subject. We thank Michail Ryskin for an interesting correspondance and
criticism. This research was supported in part by the Israel Science
Foundation, founded by the Israeli Academy of Science and Humanities, by BSF
grant $\\#$ 20004019 and by a grant from Israel Ministry of Science, Culture
and Sport and the Foundation for Basic Research of the Russian Federation.
## References
* [1] P.D.B. Collins, “ An introduction to Regge theory and high energy physics”, Cambridge University Press 1977.
* [2] Luca Caneschi (editor),“ Regge Theory of Low -$p_{T}$ Hadronic Interaction”, North-Holland 1989.
* [3] E. Levin, “An introduction to pomerons,” arXiv:hep-ph/9808486; “Everything about Reggeons. I: Reggeons in *soft* interaction,” arXiv:hep-ph/9710546.
* [4] E. Gotsman, E. Levin and U. Maor, Phys. Lett. B452, (1999) 387; B309, 199 (1993); Phys. Rev. D49, (1994) R4321.
* [5] V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C18 (2000) 167; Phys. Lett. B643 (2006) 93.
A. B. Kaidalov, V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C31
(2003) 387; C33 (2004) 261.
* [6] E. Gotsman, E. Levin and U. Maor, “A Soft Interaction Model at Ultra High Energies: Amplitudes, Cross Sections and Survival ProEur. Phys. J. babilities,” arXiv:0708.1506 [hep-ph].
* [7] M. G. Ryskin, A. D. Martin and V. A. Khoze, Eur. Phys. J. C54 (2008) 199 [arXiv:0710.2494 [hep-ph]].
* [8] V. N. Gribov, “Space-time description of hadron interactions at high energies,” arXiv:hep-ph/0006158; Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 9 (1969) 369 [ Yad. Fiz. 9 (1969) 640].
* [9] A. Donnachie and P.V. Landshoff, Nucl. Phys. B231, (1984) 189; Phys. Lett. B296, (1992) 227; Zeit. Phys. C61, (1994) 139
* [10] E. Gotsman, E. Levin and U. Maor, Phys. Rev. D60 (1999) 094011.
* [11] E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U. Maor, E. Naftali and A. Prygarin, ”HERA and the LHC - A workshop on the implications of HERA for LHC physics: Proceedings Part A” (2005) 221.
* [12] E. Gotsman, A. Kormilitzin, E. Levin and U. Maor, Eur. Phys. J. C52 (2007) 295 [arXiv:hep-ph/0702053].
* [13] G. P. Lepage and S. J. Brodsky, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2157.
* [14] M. L. Good and W. D. Walker, Phys. Rev. 120 (1960) 1857.
* [15] F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 163; S. Nussinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 (1975) 1286; E. A. Kuraev, L. N. Lipatov, and F. S. Fadin, Sov. Phys. JETP 45, 199 (1977); Ya. Ya. Balitsky and L. N. Lipatov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 28, 22 (1978); A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B415, 373 (1994); B437, 107 (1995); L. V. Gribov, E. M. Levin and M. G. Ryskin, Phys. Rep. 100, 1 (1983); A. H. Mueller and J. Qiu, Nucl. Phys.,427 B 268 (1986) ; L. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D 49,2233, 3352 (1994); D 50,2225 (1994); D 53,458 (1996); D 59,09400 (1999); L. N. Lipatov, Phys. Rept. 286, 131 (1997) [arXiv:hep-ph/9610276]; Sov. Phys. JETP 63, 904 (1986) and references therein.
* [16] J. Bartels, M. Braun and G. P. Vacca, Eur. Phys. J. C40, 419 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0412218] ; J. Bartels and C. Ewerz, JHEP 9909, 026 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9908454] ; J. Bartels and M. Wusthoff, Z. Phys. C6Eur. Phys. J. 6, 157 (1995) ; A. H. Mueller and B. Patel, Nucl. Phys. B425, 471 (1994) [arXiv:hep-ph/9403256]; J. Bartels, Z. Phys. C60, 471 (1993).
* [17] M. A. Braun, Phys. Lett. B632 (2006) 297 [arXiv:hep-ph/0512057]; Eur. Phys. J. C16, 337 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0001268]; Phys. Lett. B 483 (2000) 115 [arXiv:hep-ph/0003004]; Eur. Phys. J. C 33 (2004) 113 [arXiv:hep-ph/0309293]; C6, 321 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9706373]; M. A. Braun and G. P. Vacca, Eur. Phys. J. C6, 147 (1999) [arXiv:hep-ph/9711486].
* [18] A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. B 415 (1994) 373; B 437 (1995) 107.
* [19] E. Laenen and E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. B 451 (1995) 207.
* [20] P. Grassberger and K. Sundermeyer, Phys. Lett. B77, 220 (1978); E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D49, 4469 (1994); K. G. Boreskov, “Probabilistic model of Reggeon field theory,” arXiv:hep-ph/0112325 and reference therein.
* [21] E. Levin and M. Lublinsky, Nucl. Phys. A730, 191 (2004) [arXiv:hep-ph/0308279], A763,172 (2005) , [arXiv:hep-ph/0501173]; Phys. Lett. B607, 131 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0411121];
* [22] Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D60, 034008 (1999), [arXiv:hep-ph/9901281].
* [23] R. P. Feynman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23 (1969) 1415; “Photon-Hadron Interactions,” Reading 1972, 282p.
* [24] M. Kozlov, E. Levin and A. Prygarin, Nucl. Phys. A 792 (2007) 122 [arXiv:0704.2124 [hep-ph]].
* [25] S. Bondarenko, L. Motyka, A. H. Mueller, A. I. Shoshi and B. W. Xiao, Eur. Phys. J. C 50 (2007) 593 [arXiv:hep-ph/0609213].
* [26] M. Kozlov and E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. A 779 (2006) 142 [ arXiv:hep-ph/0604039];
* [27] D. Amati, M. Le Bellac, G. Marchesini and M.Ciafaloni, Nucl. Phys. B112 (1976) 107;
D. Amati, G. Marchesini, M.Ciafaloni and G. Parisi, Nucl. Phys. B114 (1976)
483.
* [28] A. H. Mueller and B. Patel, Nucl. Phys. B425, 471 (1994); A. H. Mueller and G. P. Salam, Nucl. Phys. B475, 293 (1996), [arXiv:hep-ph/9605302]; G. P. Salam, Nucl. Phys. B461, 512 (1996); E. Iancu and A. H. Mueller, Nucl. Phys. A730 (2004) 460, 494, [arXiv:hep-ph/0308315],[arXiv:hep-ph/0309276].
* [29] E. Levin and A. Prygarin, Eur. Phys. J. C 53 (2008) 385 [arXiv:hep-ph/0701178].
* [30] E. Levin, J. Miller and A. Prygarin, “Summing Pomeron loops in the dipole approach,”, Nucl.Phys.A (in press) arXiv:0706.2944 [hep-ph].
* [31] M. Kozlov and E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. A739 (2004) 291 [arXiv:hep-ph/0401118].
* [32] E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. A763, 140 (2005), [arXiv:hep-ph/0502243].
* [33] Y. V. Kovchegov, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 094009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0508276].
* [34] M. Kozlov, E. Levin, V. Khachatryan and J. Miller, Nucl. Phys. A 791 (2007) 382 [arXiv:hep-ph/0610084].
* [35] F. Abe et al., CDF collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 5550.
* [36] I. Gradstein and I. Ryzhik, “ Tables of Series, Products, and Integrals”, Verlag MIR, Moskau,1981.
* [37] V. A. Abramovsky, V. N. Gribov and O. V. Kancheli, Yad. Fiz. 18, 595 (1973) [ Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 18, 308 (1974)].
* [38] Y. V. Kovchegov and E. Levin, Nucl. Phys. B 577 (2000) 221 [arXiv:hep-ph/9911523].
* [39] K. G. Boreskov, A. B. Kaidalov, V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin and M. G. Ryskin, Eur. Phys. J. C 44 (2005) 523 [arXiv:hep-ph/0506211].
* [40] ZEUS Collaboration, Nucl. Phys. B695 (2004) 3; Eur. Phys. J. C24 (2002) 345.
* [41] K. Goulianos and J. Montanha, Phys. Rev.D59 (1999) 114017.
* [42] F. Abe et al.(CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev.D50 (1994) 5535.
* [43] H.Kowalski and D. Teaney, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 114005.
* [44] J. S. Miller, “ Survival probability for Higgs diffractive production in high density QCD,”, Eur. Phys. J. (in press), arXiv:hep-ph/0610427.
* [45] V. A. Khoze, A. D. Martin and M. G. Ryskin, “New Physics with Tagged Forward Protons at the LHC,” arXiv:0705.2314 [hep-ph] and references therein.
* [46] J. Bartels, S. Bondarenko, K. Kutak and L. Motyka, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 093004 [arXiv:hep-ph/0601128].
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-19T07:13:30 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.835902 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "E. Gotsman, E. Levin, U.Maor and J.S.Miller (Tel Aviv Un.)",
"submitter": "Eugene Levin",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.2799"
} |
0805.3122 | # The cone of lower semicontinuous traces on a C*-algebra
George. A. Elliott and Leonel Robert and Luis Santiago George A. Elliott,
Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5S 2E4
elliott@math.toronto.edu Leonel Robert, The Fields Institute, Toronto, Canada
M5T 3J1 lrobert@math.toronto.edu Luis Santiago, Department of Mathematics,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5S 2E4 santiago@math.toronto.edu
###### Abstract.
The cone of lower semicontinuous traces is studied with a view to its use as
an invariant. Its properties include compactness, Hausdorffness, and
continuity with respect to inductive limits. A suitable notion of dual cone is
given. The cone of lower semicontinuous 2-quasitraces on a (non-exact)
C*-algebra is considered as well. These results are applied to the study of
the Cuntz semigroup. It is shown that if a C*-algebra absorbs the Jiang-Su
algebra, then the subsemigroup of its Cuntz semigroup consisting of the purely
non-compact elements is isomorphic to the dual cone of the cone of lower
semicontinuous 2-quasitraces. This yields a computation of the Cuntz semigroup
for the following two classes of C*-algebras: C*-algebras that absorb the
Jiang-Su algebra and have no non-zero simple subquotients, and simple
C*-algebras that absorb the Jiang-Su algebra.
## 1\. Introduction
The most standard invariants in the classification of nuclear, simple,
C*-algebras are their K-groups and their traces. The traces are assumed to be
bounded in the unital case, and lower semicontinuous and densely finite in the
non-unital case. If one has in mind the classification of non-simple
C*-algebras, it is clear that these two kinds of traces will not suffice and a
broader class should be considered. In this paper we study the properties of
the cone of all lower semicontinuous traces on a C*-algebra, with the purpose
of applying our results to questions in the classification of non-simple
C*-algebras. We also consider lower semicontinuous 2-quasitraces, since they
appear naturally as functionals on the Cuntz semigroup of the algebra. If the
algebra is exact (this is the case that we are mostly concerned with in the
classification program), then lower semicontinuous traces and 2-quasitraces
coincide. However, some of our considerations apply equally to traces and
2-quasitraces without assuming exactness of the C*-algebra. Thus, we treat
both classes for arbitrary C*-algebras.
Recall that a trace on a C*-algebra $A$ is a linear map $\tau$ on the positive
elements of $A$, with values in $[0,\infty]$, that vanishes at 0 and satisfies
the trace identity $\tau(xx^{*})=\tau(x^{*}x)$ (see [dixmier]). Every trace on
$A$ extends to a trace on $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$. A 2-quasitrace on $A$ is a
map on $(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$, with values in $[0,\infty]$, that vanishes
at 0, satisfies the trace identity, and is linear on pairs of positive
elements that commute (see [kirchberg-blanchard, Definition 2.22] and
[kirchberg-blanchard, Proposition 2.24]). If a trace or 2-quasitrace is lower
semicontinuous, then it is invariant under approximately inner automorphisms.
This makes the cones of lower semicontinuous traces and 2-quasitraces on a
C*-algebra $A$—let us denote these cones by $\mathrm{T}(A)$ and
$\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$—natural classification invariants associated to $A$.
In Section 2 of this paper we study the basic properties of the cone
$\mathrm{T}(A)$. Even though various classes of traces have been studied in
the past (e.g., [dixmier], [pedersen], [perdrizet]), we have found no
bibliographic source for the properties of $\mathrm{T}(A)$. On the other hand,
the subcone of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ consisting of densely finite traces has been
studied more thoroughly (e.g., in [pedersen] and [perdrizet]). We will show
that some well known properties of the cone of densely finite traces persist
as properties of $\mathrm{T}(A)$. Furthermore, some properties appear that are
not present in the cone of densely finite traces, notably, the compactness of
$\mathrm{T}(A)$ (in a suitable topology).
In Section 3 we turn our attention to $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$. By results of
Blanchard and Kirchberg (see [kirchberg-blanchard, Proposition 2.24]), which
in turn extend work by Cuntz, Blackadar, Handelman, and Goodearl, the lower
semicontinuous 2-quasitraces are in bijective correspondence with the
additive, order-preserving, extended positive real-valued maps on the Cuntz
semigroup that vanish at 0 and preserve the suprema of increasing
sequences—which henceforth we shall just call functionals. Thus, we may think
of $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ as the cone of functionals on the Cuntz semigroup.
Section 4 contains the description of suitable dual cones for
$\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ and $\mathrm{T}(A)$. The main results of this section,
Theorem 5.7 and Theorem 5.12, relate the dual cones of $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$
and $\mathrm{T}(A)$ with the functions that the positive elements of $A$
induce on $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ and $\mathrm{T}(A)$.
The last section contains applications of our results to understanding the
structure of the Cuntz semigroup of certain C*-algebras, in particular those
C*-algebras that absorb the Jiang-Su algebra. For this class, we identify a
natural subsemigroup of the Cuntz semigroup that is isomorphic to the dual
cone of $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$. The complement of this subsemigroup consists of
the elements that become compact, and not a multiple of infinity, after
passing to the quotient by some closed two-sided ideal. The last result of the
paper is the computation of the Cuntz semigroup for two (disjoint) classes of
C*-algebras: C*-algebras that absorb the Jiang-Su algebra and have no non-zero
simple subquotients, and simple C*-algebras that absorb the Jiang-Su algebra.
The computation of the Cuntz semigroup for the latter class extends a previous
result of Brown, Perera, and Toms (see [brown-perera-toms]); in their
computation they made the additional assumptions that the algebra was unital,
exact, and of stable rank one.
## 2\. Preliminary results
### 2.1. The Cuntz-Pedersen equivalence relation
Let $A$ be a C*-algebra and let $a$ and $b$ be positive elements of $A$. Let
us say that $a$ is Cuntz-Pedersen equivalent to $b$, and write $a\sim b$, if
$a=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}x_{i}x_{i}^{*}$ and
$b=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}x_{i}^{*}x_{i}$ for some sequence $x_{i}\in A$,
$i=1,2,\dots$. Let us say that $a$ is Cuntz-Pedersen smaller than $b$ if
$a\sim a^{\prime}$ for some $a^{\prime}\in A^{+}$ with $a^{\prime}\leq b$. In
this case let us write $a\preccurlyeq b$. In [cuntz-pedersen] Cuntz and
Pedersen showed that the relations $\sim$ and $\preccurlyeq$ are transitive.
This is a consequence of the following result of Pedersen ([pedersen,
Proposition 1.1]).
###### Proposition 2.1.
(Riesz-Pedersen decomposition property.) Suppose that $x_{i},y_{i}\in A$,
$i=1,2\dots$, are such that
$\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}x_{i}x_{i}^{*}=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}y_{i}^{*}y_{i}$. Then
there are elements $z_{i,j}$, $i,j=1,2\dots$, such that
$x_{i}^{*}x_{i}=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}z_{i,j}^{*}z_{i,j}$ and
$y_{j}y_{j}^{*}=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}z_{i,j}z_{i,j}^{*}$, for all $i,j\geq 1$.
###### Lemma 2.2.
Let $a,b\in A^{+}$ be such that $\|a-b\|<\epsilon$. Then
$(a-\epsilon)_{+}\preccurlyeq b$.
###### Proof.
By [kirchberg-rordam, Lemma 2.2], there is $d\in A$ with $\|d\|\leq 1$ and
$(a-\epsilon)_{+}=dbd^{*}$. Hence, $(a-\epsilon)_{+}\sim
b^{1/2}d^{*}db^{1/2}\leq b$. ∎
The following proposition is a summary of the properties of the relations
$\preccurlyeq$ and $\sim$ between positive elements of $A$ that will be needed
later.
###### Proposition 2.3.
(i) For every $\epsilon>0$ there is $\epsilon^{\prime}>0$ such that
(2.1) $\displaystyle(a_{1}+a_{2}-\epsilon)_{+}$ $\displaystyle\preccurlyeq$
$\displaystyle(a_{1}-\epsilon^{\prime})_{+}+(a_{2}-\epsilon^{\prime})_{+},$
(2.2) $\displaystyle(a_{1}-\epsilon)_{+}+(a_{2}-\epsilon)_{+}$
$\displaystyle\preccurlyeq$
$\displaystyle(a_{1}+a_{2}-\epsilon^{\prime})_{+}.$
(ii) For every $\epsilon>0$ and $x\in A$ we have
$(xx^{*}-\epsilon)_{+}\sim(x^{*}x-\epsilon)_{+}$.
(iii) (Riesz decomposition property.) Suppose that
$\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}a_{i}\sim\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}b_{i}$. Then there are
elements $w_{i,j}$, $i,j=1,2,\dots$, such that
$a_{i}\sim\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}w_{i,j}$ and
$b_{j}\sim\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}w_{i,j}$.
###### Proof.
(i) Since $(a_{1}-\epsilon^{\prime})_{+}+(a_{2}-\epsilon^{\prime})_{+}$ tends
to $a_{1}+a_{2}$ as $\epsilon^{\prime}$ tends to 0, we get (2.1) from Lemma
2.2.
Let us prove (2.2). Let $(e_{n})$ be an approximate unit for
$\overline{(a_{1}+a_{2})A(a_{1}+a_{2})}$ such that
$e_{n}(a_{1}+a_{2})e_{n}\leq(a_{1}+a_{2}-1/n)_{+}$ (e.g.,
$e_{n}=\phi_{n}(a_{1}+a_{2})$, with $\phi_{n}(t)=\frac{1}{t}(t-1/n)_{+}$).
Since $e_{n}a_{1}e_{n}\to a_{1}$ and $e_{n}a_{2}e_{n}\to a_{2}$, by Lemma 2.2
there exists $n$ such that
$(a_{1}-\epsilon)_{+}+(a_{2}-\epsilon)_{+}\preccurlyeq
e_{n}(a_{1}+a_{2})e_{n}\leq(a_{1}+a_{2}-1/n)_{+}$.
(ii) Let us show that $(x^{*}x-\epsilon)_{+}$ is Murray-von Neumann equivalent
to $(xx^{*}-\epsilon)_{+}$ (i.e., Cuntz-Pedersen equivalent by means of a
single element). Consider the polar decomposition $x=u|x|$ of $x$ in the
bidual of $A$. The element $y=u(x^{*}x-\epsilon)_{+}^{1/2}$ belongs to $A$,
and we have $y^{*}y=(x^{*}x-\epsilon)_{+}$ and $yy^{*}=(xx^{*}-\epsilon)_{+}$.
(iii) Suppose that $\sum_{i}a_{i}=\sum_{j}x_{j}^{*}x_{j}$ and
$\sum_{k}b_{k}=\sum_{j}x_{j}x_{j}^{*}$. By the Riesz-Pedersen decomposition
property, there are $y_{i,j}$s such that $a_{i}=\sum_{j}y_{i,j}^{*}y_{i,j}$
and $x_{j}x_{j}^{*}=\sum_{i}y_{i,j}y_{i,j}^{*}$. We have
$\sum_{i,j}y_{i,j}y_{i,j}^{*}=\sum_{k}b_{k}$. Therefore, there are
$z_{i,j,k}$s such that $b_{k}=\sum_{i,j}z_{i,j,k}^{*}z_{i,j,k}$ and
$y_{i,j}^{*}y_{i,j}=\sum_{k}z_{i,j,k}z_{i,j,k}^{*}$. Set
$\sum_{j}z_{i,j,k}^{*}z_{i,j,k}=w_{i,k}$. Then
$\sum_{k}w_{i,k}=\sum_{j,k}z_{i,j,k}^{*}z_{i,j,k}\sim\sum_{j}y_{i,j}^{*}y_{i,j}=a_{i}$.
Also, $\sum_{i}w_{i,k}\sim\sum_{i,j}z_{i,j,k}z_{i,j,k}^{*}=b_{k}$. ∎
### 2.2. Non-cancellative cones.
Let us introduce the terminology non-cancellative cone for an abelian
semigroup endowed with a scalar multiplication by strictly positive real
numbers. The semigroup may not have cancellation, that is to say,
$\tau+\tau_{1}=\tau+\tau_{2}$ may not imply that $\tau_{1}=\tau_{2}$. However,
we will often refer to non-cancellative cones simply as cones, and refer to
standard cones that embed in a vector space as cancellative cones.
Notice that we have not included scalar multiplication by 0 or $\infty$ in the
definition of non-cancellative cone. For some of the cones that we shall
consider here—of traces and, more generally, of 2-quasitraces—we will be able
to extend the scalar multiplication to include $0$ and $\infty$. However, it
will not necessarily be the case that scalar multiplication by $0$ will result
in the zero element of the cone (see (3.4)).
Non-cancellative cones satisfy the following form of restricted cancellation.
###### Lemma 2.4.
(Cancellation lemma.) Let $S$ be a non-cancellative cone. Suppose that
$x+z=y+z$ for some $z$ such that $z+z_{1}=nx$ and $z+z_{2}=ny$. Then $x=y$.
###### Proof.
By induction we have $nx+z=ny+z$. So let us assume that $n=1$. Then
$x+y=x+z+z_{2}=y+z+z_{2}=2y$. In the same way $x+y=2x$, and so $x=y$. ∎
## 3\. The cone of lower semicontinuous traces
### 3.1. The cone $\mathrm{T}(A)$
Let $A$ be a C*-algebra. Let us say that $\tau\colon A^{+}\to[0,\infty]$ is a
trace on $A$ if $\tau$ is linear (i.e., additive, homogeneous with respect to
strictly positive scalars, and vanishing at 0) and satisfies the trace
identity $\tau(xx^{*})=\tau(x^{*}x)$.
The following lemma is well known (see [kirchberg-blanchard, Remark 2.27
(iv)]).
###### Lemma 3.1.
If $\tau\colon A^{+}\to[0,\infty]$ is a trace then $\widetilde{\tau}$ defined
by $\widetilde{\tau}(a):=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})$ is a lower
semicontinuous trace, and is the largest such trace majorized by $\tau$.
###### Proof.
By parts (i) and (ii) of Proposition 2.3 we have that $\widetilde{\tau}$ is a
trace. We also have that
$\widetilde{\tau}(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\widetilde{\tau}((a-\epsilon)_{+})$. Let
us show that this implies that $\widetilde{\tau}$ is lower semicontinuous.
Suppose that $\widetilde{\tau}(a)>\alpha$ for some $\alpha\geq 0$. Let
$\epsilon>0$ be such that $\widetilde{\tau}((a-\epsilon)_{+})>\alpha$. By
Lemma 2.2, if $\|a^{\prime}-a\|<\epsilon$ then $(a-\epsilon)_{+}\preccurlyeq
a^{\prime}$, whence
$\widetilde{\tau}(a^{\prime})\geq\widetilde{\tau}((a-\epsilon)_{+})>\alpha$.
If $\sigma$ is another lower semicontinuous trace with $\sigma\leq\tau$, then
for any $a\in A^{+}$,
$\sigma(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\sigma((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\sup_{\epsilon>0}\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})=\widetilde{\tau}(a)\qed$
Let us denote by $\mathrm{T}(A)$ the collection of all lower semicontinuous
traces of $A$. This set is a non-cancellative cone endowed with the operations
of pointwise addition and pointwise scalar multiplication by strictly positive
real numbers. (We will later extend the scalar multiplication to include $0$
and $\infty$.) We shall also consider $\mathrm{T}(A)$ endowed with the order
induced by its addition operation. (When we consider the dual cone of
$\mathrm{T}(A)$ in Section 5 below, we shall also need to consider its
pointwise order, but, as we shall now show, for $\mathrm{T}(A)$ itself this is
determined by addition.)
The following proposition is well known for various classes of traces on a
C*-algebra (e.g., see [dixmier, Proposition 6]).
###### Proposition 3.2.
Let $\tau_{1},\tau_{2}\in\mathrm{T}(A)$. Suppose that
$\tau_{1}(x)\leq\tau_{2}(x)$ for all $x\in A^{+}$. Then there exists
$\tau_{3}\in\mathrm{T}(A)$ such that $\tau_{1}+\tau_{3}=\tau_{2}$.
###### Proof.
Define $\tau\colon A^{+}\to[0,\infty]$ as follows:
$\tau(x):=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{cl}\tau_{2}(x)-\tau_{1}(x)&\hbox{ if
}\tau_{2}(x)<\infty,\\\ \infty&\hbox{ otherwise.}\\\ \end{array}\right.$
It is easily verified that $\tau$ is linear, satisfies the trace identity, and
satisfies $\tau_{1}+\tau=\tau_{2}$. Set $\widetilde{\tau}=\tau_{3}$, where
$\widetilde{\tau}$ is the lower semicontinuous regularization of $\tau$
described in Lemma 3.1. Taking the suprema of both sides with respect to
$\epsilon$ in the equation
$\tau_{1}((a-\epsilon)_{+})+\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})=\tau_{2}((a-\epsilon)_{+}),$
we get that $\tau_{1}+\tau_{3}=\tau_{2}$. ∎
In [pedersen, Theorem 3.1], Pedersen used the Riesz-Pedersen property to show
that the cone of densely finite lower semicontinuous traces is a lattice. We
shall follow a similar method here to show that the whole of $\mathrm{T}(A)$
is a lattice, and is in fact complete.
###### Theorem 3.3.
The cone $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is a complete lattice with respect to the order
determined by addition (equivalently, by Proposition 3.2, the pointwise
order). For all $\tau_{1},\tau_{2},\tau_{3}\in\mathrm{T}(A)$ we have
(3.1)
$\displaystyle\tau_{1}\vee\tau_{2}+\tau_{3}=(\tau_{1}+\tau_{3})\vee(\tau_{2}+\tau_{3}),$
(3.2)
$\displaystyle\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}+\tau_{3}=(\tau_{1}+\tau_{3})\wedge(\tau_{2}+\tau_{3}).$
###### Proof.
The properties of lower semicontinuity and linearity, and also the trace
identity, are preserved under passing to the pointwise supremum of an upward
directed collection of lower semicontinuous traces. Thus, $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is
closed under passage to directed suprema. In order to prove that
$\mathrm{T}(A)$ is a complete lattice it is then enough to show that the
supremum of any two lower semicontinuous traces exists. (The supremum of any
non-empty set will then exist, and the supremum of the empty set is 0. It
follows that the infimum of any set also exists.)
Let $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ be in $\mathrm{T}(A)$. Define $\tau\colon
A^{+}\to[0,\infty]$ by the Riesz-Kantorovich formula:
$\tau(x):=\sup\\{\,\tau_{1}(x_{1})+\tau_{2}(x_{2})\mid x_{1}+x_{2}\sim
x\,\\}.$
We clearly have $\tau(xx^{*})=\tau(x^{*}x)$. The linearity of $\tau$ follows
from the Riesz decomposition property (i.e., Proposition 2.3 (iii)), by a
standard argument that goes back to Riesz (see [riesz, Theorem 1]). It is
clear that $\tau_{1}\leq\tau$, $\tau_{2}\leq\tau$, and that any trace that
majorizes $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ is greater than or equal to $\tau$. With
$\widetilde{\tau}$ the lower semicontinuous regularization of $\tau$ of Lemma
3.1, i.e., $\widetilde{\tau}(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})$, we
have $\widetilde{\tau}\leq\tau$, and, furthermore, both
$\tau_{1}\leq\widetilde{\tau}$ and $\tau_{2}\leq\widetilde{\tau}$ (as
$\tau_{i}=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\tau_{i}((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\sup_{\epsilon>0}\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})=\widetilde{\tau}(a)$).
Therefore, $\tau\leq\widetilde{\tau}$, and so $\tau=\widetilde{\tau}$; in
other words, the supremum of $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ in the cone of all
traces belongs to $\mathrm{T}(A)$.
The identity (3.1) follows from the Riesz-Kantorovich formula for the supremum
of two traces in $\mathrm{T}(A)$. (Note that we have shown that this formula
does describe the supremum in $\mathrm{T}(A)$.)
Consider now $\tau\colon A^{+}\to[0,\infty]$ defined by
$\tau(x):=\inf\\{\,\tau_{1}(x_{1})+\tau_{2}(x_{2})\mid x_{1}+x_{2}\sim
x\,\\}.$
By the Riesz decomposition property $\tau$ is a trace. Very much as shown
above for the supremum, $\tau$ is seen to be lower semicontinuous and to be
the infimum of $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ in $\mathrm{T}(A)$. The identity
(3.2) now follows from the Riesz-Kantorovich formula that we have just
established for the infimum of $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ in $\mathrm{T}(A)$. ∎
Vector lattices, i.e., ordered vector spaces that are lattices with respect to
their order, have a number of properties that are implied by their lattice
structure. For example, a vector lattice is always distributive and satisfies
the identities (3.1) and (3.2) (see [vector-lattices]). The cone
$\mathrm{T}(A)$ cannot be embedded in a vector space since it is not
cancellative. For instance, if $I$ denotes a closed two-sided ideal of $A$
then $\tau_{I}$ defined by
$\tau_{I}(x):=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{lc}0&x\in I^{+},\\\ \infty&x\notin
I^{+},\end{array}\right.$
is a lower semicontinuous trace and satisfies $\tau_{I}+\tau_{I}=\tau_{I}$.
Indeed, the lower semicontinuous traces with the only possible values $0$ and
$\infty$—i.e., that satisfy $\tau+\tau=\tau$—are, as is easily seen, in order
reversing bijection with the closed two-sided ideals of $A$ by the map
$I\mapsto\tau_{I}$.
Making use of equations (3.1) and (3.2), and the restricted cancellation of
Lemma 2.4, we can show that $\mathrm{T}(A)$ has some of the properties of a
vector lattice.
###### Proposition 3.4.
(i) We have $\tau_{1}\vee\tau_{2}+\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}=\tau_{1}+\tau_{2}$
for all $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ in $\mathrm{T}(A)$.
(ii) $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is a distributive lattice.
###### Proof.
(i) Taking $\tau_{3}=\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}$ in (3.1) yields
$\tau_{1}\vee\tau_{2}+\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}=(\tau_{1}+\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2})\vee(\tau_{2}+\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2})\leq\tau_{1}+\tau_{2}.$
Taking $\tau_{3}=\tau_{1}\vee\tau_{2}$ in (3.2) yields
$\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}+\tau_{1}\vee\tau_{2}=(\tau_{1}+\tau_{1}\vee\tau_{2})\wedge(\tau_{2}+\tau_{1}\vee\tau_{2})\geq\tau_{1}+\tau_{2}.$
(ii) Let us prove that
$(\tau_{1}\vee\tau_{2})\wedge\tau_{3}=(\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{3})\vee(\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3})$.
It is enough to prove this equality after adding
$\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3}$ to both sides, since this term may be
cancelled by Lemma 2.4. Considering the right-hand side, we have
$\displaystyle(\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{3})\vee(\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3})+\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3}$
$\displaystyle=\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{3}+\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3}$
$\displaystyle=(\tau_{1}+\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3})\wedge(\tau_{3}+\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3})$
$\displaystyle=(\tau_{1}+\tau_{2})\wedge(\tau_{1}+\tau_{3})\wedge(\tau_{2}+\tau_{3})\wedge
2\tau_{3}.$
Considering the left-hand side, we obtain the same quantity:
$\displaystyle(\tau_{1}\vee\tau_{2})\wedge\tau_{3}+\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3}$
$\displaystyle=(\tau_{1}\vee\tau_{2}+\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3})\wedge(\tau_{3}+\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3})$
$\displaystyle=(\tau_{1}+\tau_{2})\wedge(\tau_{1}\vee\tau_{2}+\tau_{3})\wedge(\tau_{3}+\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3})$
$\displaystyle=(\tau_{1}+\tau_{2})\wedge(\tau_{3}+\tau_{1}\wedge\tau_{2}\wedge\tau_{3})$
$\displaystyle=(\tau_{1}+\tau_{2})\wedge(\tau_{1}+\tau_{3})\wedge(\tau_{2}+\tau_{3})\wedge
2\tau_{3}.\qed$
### 3.2. The topology on $\mathrm{T}(A)$
Let us endow the cone $\mathrm{T}(A)$ with the topology in which the net
$(\tau_{i})$ converges to $\tau$ if
(3.3)
$\displaystyle\limsup\tau_{i}((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\tau(a)\leq\liminf\tau_{i}(a)$
for any $a\in A^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$. Equivalently (by Lemma 3.1—both
parts—combined with compactness of the infinite product of copies of
$[0,\infty]$—one for each $a\in A^{+}$), $\tau_{i}\to\tau$ if, whenever a
subnet of $(\tau_{i})$ converges pointwise to a trace $\sigma$, the
regularization $\widetilde{\sigma}$ of $\sigma$ given by Lemma 3.1 is equal to
$\tau$ (cf. proof of Theorem 3.7, below). A sub-basis of neighbourhoods for
the trace $\tau$ is given by the sets
$\displaystyle U(\tau;a,\epsilon)$
$\displaystyle:=\\{\,\tau^{\prime}\in\mathrm{T}(A)\mid\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\tau^{\prime}(a)+\epsilon\hbox{
or }\tau^{\prime}(a)>\frac{1}{\epsilon}\,\\},$ $\displaystyle
V(\tau;a,\epsilon)$
$\displaystyle:=\\{\,\tau^{\prime}\in\mathrm{T}(A)\mid\tau^{\prime}((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\tau(a)+\epsilon\,\\}.$
###### Remark 3.5.
In order to define the topology of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ the element $a$ can be
restricted to vary in a dense subset $S$ of $A^{+}$ such that $a\in S$ implies
that $(a-1/n)_{+}\in S$ for all $n\geq 1$. Let us verify this. Let $S$ be such
a set. Let $a\in A^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$. Choose $a^{\prime}\in S$ and
$n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\|a-(a^{\prime}-2/n)_{+}\|<\epsilon$ and
$\|a-a^{\prime}\|<1/n$. By Lemma 2.2 (applied twice), we have
$(a-\epsilon)_{+}\preccurlyeq(a^{\prime}-\frac{2}{n})_{+}\preccurlyeq(a^{\prime}-\frac{1}{n})_{+}\preccurlyeq
a.$
Hence, $U(\tau;(a^{\prime}-\frac{1}{n})_{+},\frac{1}{n})\subseteq
U(\tau;a,\epsilon)$ and
$V(\tau;(a^{\prime}-\frac{1}{n})_{+},\frac{1}{n})\subseteq
V(\tau;a,\epsilon)$.
One can verify using (3.3) that $\alpha\tau\to\tau_{\ker\tau}$ when
$\alpha\to\infty$. One also verifies that
$\alpha\tau\to\tau_{\operatorname{fin}\tau}$ when $\alpha\to 0$, where
$\operatorname{fin}\tau$ is the closed two-sided ideal spanned by $\\{\,x\in
A^{+}\mid\tau(x)<\infty\,\\}$. (In the terminology of [dixmier],
$\operatorname{fin}\tau$ is the closure of the ideal of definition of $\tau$;
we shall refer to this ideal as the (closed) ideal of finiteness of $\tau$.)
In view of these computations, we may extend by continuity the scalar
multiplication in order to include the scalars 0 and $\infty$:
(3.4)
$0\cdot\tau=\tau_{\operatorname{fin}\tau},\quad\infty\cdot\tau=\tau_{\ker\tau}.$
###### Proposition 3.6.
Addition and (extended) scalar multiplication in $\mathrm{T}(A)$ are jointly
continuous.
###### Proof.
We will prove here that if $\tau_{i}\to\tau$ then $0\cdot\tau_{i}\to
0\cdot\tau$. The other parts of the proposition are easily verified from the
definition of the topology of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ by the inequalities (3.3).
Let us show that
$\limsup(0\cdot\tau_{i})((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq(0\cdot\tau)(a)$ for all $a\in
A^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$. If $(0\cdot\tau)(a)=\infty$ this is obvious. Suppose
that $(0\cdot\tau)(a)=0$. Then $a\in\operatorname{fin}\tau$, and so
$\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})<\infty$ for all $\epsilon>0$. Since $\tau_{i}\to\tau$,
we have
$\limsup\tau_{i}((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\tau((a-\epsilon/2)_{+})<\infty$. Hence
$(0\cdot\tau_{i})((a-\epsilon)_{+})=0$ for all $i\geq i_{0}$ for some $i_{0}$,
and from this the desired inequality follows.
Let us show now that $(0\cdot\tau)(a)\leq\liminf(0\cdot\tau_{i})(a)$ for all
$a\in A^{+}$. If $\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})<\infty$ for all $\epsilon>0$ then
$(0\cdot\tau)(a)=0$, and so the desired inequality clearly holds. Suppose that
$\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})=\infty$ for some $\epsilon>0$. Then
$\tau_{i}((a-\epsilon)_{+})=\infty$ for all $i\geq i_{0}$, for some $i_{0}$.
Hence $(0\cdot\tau_{i})(a)=\infty$ for all $i\geq i_{0}$, and from this the
desired inequality follows. ∎
###### Theorem 3.7.
$\mathrm{T}(A)$ is a compact Hausdorff space. If $A$ is separable then
$\mathrm{T}(A)$ has a countable basis.
###### Proof.
Let us show that $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is Hausdorff. Let $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$
be distinct points in $\mathrm{T}(A)$. Since either $\tau_{1}\nleq\tau_{2}$ or
$\tau_{2}\nleq\tau_{1}$, we may suppose that we are in the first case. Then
there are $a\in A^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$ such that
$\tau_{1}((a-\epsilon)_{+})\nleq\tau_{2}(a)+\epsilon$. Let us choose
$\epsilon>0$ such that $\tau_{2}(a)<2/\epsilon-\epsilon/2$ (this is possible
since, necessarily, $\tau_{2}(a)<\infty$). Then the sets
$U(\tau_{1};(a-\epsilon/2)_{+},\epsilon/2)$ and $V(\tau_{2};a,\epsilon/2)$ are
disjoint neighbourhoods of $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ respectively. For suppose
that $\tau$ belongs to their intersection. Then, either
$\tau_{1}((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\tau((a-\epsilon/2)_{+})+\epsilon/2\leq\tau_{2}(a)+\epsilon$
or
$\frac{2}{\epsilon}<\tau((a-\epsilon/2)_{+})\leq\tau_{2}(a)+\frac{\epsilon}{2}.$
In either case, this is a contradiction.
The following simple proof of the compactness of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ was suggested
to us by E. Kirchberg (our original proof was much longer).
Let $(\tau_{i})_{i\in\Lambda}$ be a net of traces in $\mathrm{T}(A)$. By
Tychonoff’s theorem (using the compactness of $[0,\infty]$), we can choose a
subnet $(\tau_{i})_{i\in\Lambda^{\prime}}$ converging pointwise to $\sigma$.
The function $\sigma\colon A^{+}\to[0,\infty]$ is linear and satisfies the
trace identity. With $\widetilde{\sigma}$ the lower semicontinuous trace of
Lemma 3.1, i.e.,
$\widetilde{\sigma}(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\sigma((a-\epsilon)_{+})$, let us show
that $(\tau_{i})_{i\in\Lambda^{\prime}}$ converges to $\widetilde{\sigma}$ in
$\mathrm{T}(A)$ (i.e., the inequalities (3.3) are satisfied for all $a\in
A^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$). Let $a\in A^{+}$ and let $\epsilon>0$. Then
$\limsup_{i\in\Lambda^{\prime}}\tau_{i}((a-\epsilon)_{+})=\sigma((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\widetilde{\sigma}(a)\leq\sigma(a)=\liminf_{i\in\Lambda^{\prime}}\tau_{i}(a).$
(This convergence is also immediate from the alternative form of the
definition.) This shows that $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is compact.
Now suppose that $A$ is separable. It follows from the remark made after the
definition of the topology of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ that if $A$ is separable then
$\mathrm{T}(A)$ is first countable, and in fact there is a countable basis of
symmetric entourages for a uniform structure giving rise to the topology of
$\mathrm{T}(A)$; let us choose such a basis. Inspection of the entourages
described shows that not only are they symmetric but also the corresponding
neighbourhoods in the topology are open; we shall assume therefore that our
countable basis consists of such entourages.
Separability of $A$ also implies that there is a countable dense subset of
$\mathrm{T}(A)$: as a set of maps from $A^{+}$ to $[0,\infty]$, we may
naturally identify $\mathrm{T}(A)$ with a subset of $\Pi_{a\in
A^{+}}[0,\infty]$, and (since the maps in $\mathrm{T}(A)$ are lower
semicontinuous) in fact, as we shall now show, with a subset of $\Pi_{a\in
S}[0,\infty]$ where $S$ is a suitable countable dense subset of $A^{+}$. Since
lower semicontinuous functions are not determined on just any dense subset, we
must choose $S$ to consist of a countable dense subset of $A^{+}$ (any such
subset) together with, for each $a\in S$, the set of all elements
$(a-\epsilon)^{+}$ with $\epsilon=1/n$, $n=1,2,3,\ldots$. (It follows from
Lemma 2.2 that $S$ separates elements of $\mathrm{T}(A)$: if
$\tau,\tau^{\prime}\in\mathrm{T}(A)$ and $\tau$ and $\tau^{\prime}$ agree on
$S$, then for any $a\in A^{+}$, with $b\in S$ such that $\|a-b\|<\epsilon$, we
have $(b-\epsilon)_{+}\preceq a$, in the sense of Cuntz and Pedersen, and so
$\tau(b)=\sup_{n\geq 1}\tau((b-1/n)_{+})=\sup_{n\geq
1}\tau^{\prime}((b-1/n)_{+})\leq\tau^{\prime}(b).$
In other words, $\tau\leq\tau^{\prime}$, and so by symmetry
$\tau=\tau^{\prime}$.)
Not only is the embedding of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ in $\Pi_{a\in S}[0,\infty]$
injective, but also by the alternative definition of the topology on
$\mathrm{T}(A)$ the inverse of this map, from the image with the coordinate-
wise topology, is continuous. In other words, as we shall now show, if
$\tau_{i}(a)\to\tau(a)$ for all $a\in S$, with $\tau_{i}$ and $\tau$ in
$\mathrm{T}(A)$, then $\tau_{i}\to\tau$ in $\mathrm{T}(A)$. It is enough to
show that if $\tau^{\prime}$ is a trace and $\tau_{i}\to\tau^{\prime}$
pointwise on $A^{+}$ then $(\tau^{\prime})^{\sim}=\tau$. By hypothesis,
$\tau^{\prime}$ agrees with $\tau$ on $S$. By the choice of $S$,
$(\tau^{\prime})^{\sim}$ also coincides with $\tau$ on $S$, and therefore by
injectivity $(\tau^{\prime})^{\sim}=\tau$ in $\mathrm{T}(A)$. Hence, one
obtains a countable dense subset of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ as the image under the
inverse map of a countable dense subset of its domain—which exists as the
countable Cartesian product is a metrizable compact space.
It follows that $\mathrm{T}(A)$ has a countable basis for the topology under
consideration, namely, the collection of all neighbourhoods of a fixed dense
sequence $\tau_{1},\tau_{2},\ldots$ in $\mathrm{T}(A)$ corresponding to the
countable basis of symmetric entourages for the uniform structure referred to
above. (The proof of this is just as if the entourages were determined by a
metric, as the degrees of closeness corresponding to a sequence of distances
converging to zero. Let $\tau$ be a point in $\mathrm{T}(A)$, and let $W$ be
an arbitrary open neighbourhood of a symmetric entourage $U$ such that if
$(\tau,s)\in U$ then $s\in W$. Choose an entourage $V$ such that if
$(\tau,\tau^{\prime})\in V$ and $(\tau^{\prime},\sigma)\in V$ then
$(\tau,\sigma)\in U$. We may choose $V$ to be one of the countable basis of
symmetric entourages chosen above and in particular such that the
neighbourhood of any point determined by $V$ is open. Choose $n$ such that
$(\tau,\tau_{n})\in V$. The neighbourhood of $\tau_{n}$ determined by the
symmetric entourage $V$ then both includes the point $\tau$ and is included in
the neighbourhood of $\tau$ determined by $U$, and therefore also in the given
open neighbourhood $W$ of $\tau$. Since this neighbourhood is open by the
choice of $V$, we have identified a countable basis of open sets (the
neighbourhoods of $\tau_{1},\tau_{2},\cdots$ determined by the chosen
countable basis of entourages).) ∎
###### Proposition 3.8.
(i) The order relation in $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is continuous (i.e., the set
$\\{(\tau_{1},\tau_{2})\mid\tau_{1}\leq\tau_{2}\\}$ is closed in
$\mathrm{T}(A)\times\mathrm{T}(A)$).
(ii) An upward directed subset of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ converges to its supremum
(when indexed by itself), and a downward directed subset converges to its
infimum.
(iii) The complete, distributive, lattice $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is join continuous;
that is, for any subset $S$ of $\mathrm{T}(A)$, and for any
$\tau\in\mathrm{T}(A)$,
$(\bigwedge_{\sigma\in S}\sigma)\vee\tau=\bigwedge_{\sigma\in
S}(\sigma\vee\tau).$
###### Proof.
(i) Let $((\tau_{i},\mu_{i}))$ be a net converging to $(\tau,\mu)$ and suppose
that $\tau_{i}\leq\mu_{i}$ for all $i$. Then
$\mu_{i}=\tau_{i}+\mu_{i}^{\prime}$ for some $\mu_{i}^{\prime}$. Passing to a
convergent subnet of $\mu_{i}^{\prime}$ (by compactness) and then passing to
the limit we get that $\mu=\tau+\mu^{\prime}$, whence $\tau\leq\mu$.
(ii) Let $(\tau_{i})_{i\in\Lambda}$ be a decreasing net with infimum $\tau$.
It is enough by compactness to show that every convergent subnet of
$(\tau_{i})_{i\in\Lambda}$ converges to $\tau$, and so we may assume without
loss of generality that $(\tau_{i})_{i\in\Lambda}$ converges to
$\tau^{\prime}$. For every $i$ we have $\tau\leq\tau_{i}$. Thus, passing to
the limit and using part (i) of this proposition we conclude that
$\tau\leq\tau^{\prime}$. On the other hand, for every $i$ and $j$ with $i\leq
j$ we have $\tau_{j}\leq\tau_{i}$. Fixing $i$ and passing to the limit in $j$
we obtain $\tau^{\prime}\leq\tau_{i}$. Since this holds for all $i$ we
conclude that $\tau^{\prime}\leq\tau$.
One may proceed in a similar way for upward directed subsets of
$\mathrm{T}(A)$.
(iii) By the distributivity of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ we have
$(\bigwedge_{i\in F}\tau_{i})\vee\tau=\bigwedge_{i\in F}(\tau_{i}\vee\tau)$
for every finite subset $F$ of $S$. Let us consider both sides as downward
directed families of traces indexed by the finite subsets of $S$. The infimum
of the right side is $\bigwedge_{i\in\Lambda}(\tau_{i}\vee\tau)$. Set
$\bigwedge_{i\in F}\tau_{i}=\mu_{F}$. It is enough to prove that if the
downward directed subset $\\{\mu_{F}\\}$ has infimum $\mu$, then the infimum
of $\\{\mu_{F}\vee\tau\\}$ is $\mu\vee\tau$. By Proposition 3.4 (i), we have
$\mu_{F}\vee\tau+\mu_{F}\wedge\tau=\mu_{F}+\tau$. By (ii) together with
Proposition 3.6, for any two downward directed sets $S_{1}$ and $S_{2}$,
$\bigwedge(S_{1}+S_{2})=\bigwedge S_{1}+\bigwedge S_{2}$. Hence, taking infima
on both sides of $\mu_{F}\vee\tau+\mu_{F}\wedge\tau=\mu_{F}+\tau$ we get
$\bigwedge_{F}(\mu_{F}\vee\tau)+\bigwedge_{F}(\mu_{F}\wedge\tau)=\bigwedge_{F}\mu_{F}+\tau=(\bigwedge_{F}\mu_{F})\wedge\tau+(\bigwedge_{F}\mu_{F})\vee\tau.$
Cancelling $(\bigwedge_{F}\mu_{F})\wedge\tau$ (using Lemma 2.4 with $n=1$) we
obtain $\bigwedge_{F}(\mu_{F}\vee\tau)=(\bigwedge_{F}\mu_{F})\vee\tau$, as
desired. ∎
###### Remark 3.9.
Proposition 3.8 (i) and (ii) may be proved directly from the definition of the
topology of $\mathrm{T}(A)$. The proof given above, however, applies to an
arbitrary topological cone that is a complete lattice, and is compact and
Hausdorff. The infinite distributivity of Proposition 3.8 (iii) implies that
the lattice obtained by reversing the order of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is a continuous
lattice (in the sense of [compendium]; see [compendium, Theorem I-2.7]). Since
the map $I\mapsto\tau_{I}$ is an order reversing embedding of
$\mathrm{Lat}(A)$ as a subcomplete sublattice of $\mathrm{T}(A)$, we deduce
from Proposition 3.8 (iii) the well known fact that $\mathrm{Lat}(A)$ is a
continuous lattice.
_Question._ Is the map $\mu\mapsto\mu\vee\tau$ continuous in the topology of
$\mathrm{T}(A)$? Is the topology of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ the Fell-Lawson topology
of the complete lattice obtained by reversing the order of $\mathrm{T}(A)$?
Let us write $\mathrm{T}_{I}(A)$ for the subcone of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ of traces
with ideal of finiteness $I$ (i.e., $\tau$ with $\operatorname{fin}\tau=I$).
The subcone $\mathrm{T}_{I}(A)$ is in bijective correspondence with the
densely finite lower semicontinuous traces on the ideal $I$, because for every
such trace we get a trace in $\mathrm{T}_{I}(A)$ by setting it equal to
$\infty$ outside $I^{+}$.
###### Proposition 3.10.
(i) For each ideal $I$ of $A$, the relative topology on the subcone
$\mathrm{T}_{I}(A)$ of $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is the topology of pointwise
convergence on the positive elements of the Pedersen ideal of $I$.
(ii) The relative topology on the subset $\mathrm{Lat}(A)$ of
$\mathrm{T}(A)$—the image of the embedding $I\mapsto\tau_{I}$—is the Fell-
Lawson topology.
###### Proof.
(i) Let $\tau\in\mathrm{T}_{I}(A)$ and let $(\tau_{i})$ be a net in
$\mathrm{T}_{I}(A)$ converging to $\tau$ in the topology of $\mathrm{T}(A)$.
Let us show that $\tau_{i}(a)\to\tau(a)$ for all $a\in\mathrm{Ped}(I)^{+}$. By
the alternative definition of limit in $\mathrm{T}(A)$ as the regularization
of every pointwise convergent subnet, it is sufficient to show that an
arbitrary densely finite trace $\sigma$ on $I^{+}$ satisfies
$\sigma=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\sigma((a-\epsilon)_{+})$ for each
$a\in\mathrm{Ped}(I)^{+}$. This holds by [pedersen2, Corollary 3.2].
Now suppose that we have a net $(\tau_{i})$ of traces in $\mathrm{T}_{I}(A)$
converging pointwise on $\mathrm{Ped}(I)^{+}$ to a trace $\tau$, also in
$\mathrm{T}_{I}(A)$. Let $a\in A^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$. We need to show that
the inequalities (3.3) hold. If $a\notin I^{+}$ then this is true, since
$\tau_{i}(a)=\tau(a)=\infty$ for all $i$. Suppose that $a\in I^{+}$. Then
$(a-\epsilon)_{+}\in\mathrm{Ped}(I)^{+}$ for all $\epsilon>0$. So
$\limsup\tau_{i}((a-\epsilon)_{+})=\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\tau(a),$
and
$\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})=\liminf\tau_{i}((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\liminf\tau_{i}(a),$
for all $\epsilon>0$.
(ii) The traces that are a multiple of 0 form a closed subset of
$\mathrm{T}(A)$. Hence $\mathrm{Lat}(A)$ is compact and Hausdorff in the
relative topology inherited from $\mathrm{T}(A)$. Let us show that this
topology is finer than the Fell-Lawson topology. This will give the desired
result, since $\mathrm{Lat}(A)$ is compact and Hausdorff in both topologies.
Recall that the Fell-Lawson topology has the sub-basis of open sets
$U_{I}=\\{J\in\mathrm{Lat}(A)\mid I\nleq J\\}$, and
$V_{I}=\\{J\in\mathrm{Lat}(A)\mid I\ll J\\}$, where $I$ ranges in
$\mathrm{Lat}(A)$. Here we have denoted by $\ll$ the (countable) far below
relation in the ordered set $\mathrm{Lat}(A)$; see Section 4.2 below (cf. also
[compendium], where uncountable increasing nets are allowed). Suppose that
$(J_{i})_{i\in\Lambda}$ is a net converging to $J$ in the relative topology,
and $J\in U_{I}$. If we have $I\leq J_{i}$ for a subnet
$(J_{i})_{i\in\Lambda^{\prime}}$, then $\tau_{J_{i}}\leq\tau_{I}$ for all
$i\in\Lambda^{\prime}$, whence $\tau_{J}\leq\tau_{I}$. This contradicts the
relation $I\nleq J$. Therefore, there exists $i_{0}$ such that $I\nleq J_{i}$
for all $i\geq i_{0}$. This shows that the set $U_{I}$ is open in the relative
topology.
Let $J\in V_{I}$. For every $b\in J^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$ consider the ideal
$J_{b,\epsilon}=\mathrm{Ideal}((b-\epsilon)_{+})$. By Proposition 2.3 (i), the
ideals $J_{b,\epsilon}$ form an upward directed subset of $\mathrm{Lat}(A)$.
Since they have supremum $J$, we must have
$I\subseteq\mathrm{Ideal}((b-\epsilon)_{+})$ for some $b\in J^{+}$ and
$\epsilon>0$. If $(J_{i})$ is a net such that $J_{i}\to J$ in the relative
topology, then $\limsup\tau_{J_{i}}((b-\epsilon/2)_{+})\leq\tau_{J}(b)=0$.
Thus $(b-\epsilon/2)_{+}\in J_{i}$ for all $i\geq i_{0}$, for some $i_{0}$. In
other words,
$I\subseteq\mathrm{Ideal}((b-\epsilon)_{+})\ll\mathrm{Ideal}((b-\epsilon/2)_{+})\subseteq
J_{i}$ for all $i\geq i_{0}$. This shows that the set $V_{I}$ is open in the
relative topology. ∎
### 3.3. The functor $\mathrm{T}(\cdot)$
Homomorphisms between C*-algebras induce morphisms in the opposite direction
between their cones of traces; given $\phi\colon A\to B$ the map
$\mathrm{T}(\phi)\colon\mathrm{T}(B)\to\mathrm{T}(A)$ is defined by
$\mathrm{T}(\phi)(\tau)=\tau\circ\phi$. It is easily verified that
$\mathrm{T}(\phi)$ is linear and continuous.
Let us denote by $\mathcal{C}$ the category of compact Hausdorff non-
cancellative cones with jointly continuous addition and jointly continuous
scalar multiplication by $[0,\infty]$, with, as morphisms, continuous linear
maps between cones. (Here, linear means additive, homogeneous with respect to
scalars in $[0,\infty]$, and takes $0$ into $0$.) By Proposition 3.6 and
Theorem 3.7, the cone $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is in the category $\mathcal{C}$.
###### Theorem 3.11.
$\mathrm{T}(\cdot)$ is a continuous contravariant functor from the category of
C*-algebras to the category $\mathcal{C}$.
###### Proof.
It is straightforward that $\mathrm{T}(\cdot)$ is a functor. (If $\phi:A\to
B)$ is a homomorphism of C*-algebras and $\tau_{i}\to\tau$ in $\mathrm{T}(B)$,
then to show that $\tau_{i}\phi\to\tau\phi$ in $\mathrm{T}(A)$, passing to a
subnet with $\tau_{i}\phi$ converging pointwise to $\sigma$ we must show that
$\widetilde{\sigma}=\tau\phi$. We may suppose that
$\tau_{i}\to\sigma^{\prime}$ pointwise, so $\sigma=\sigma^{\prime}\phi$, and
since $(\sigma^{\prime})^{\sim}=\tau$, we have
$(\sigma^{\prime}\phi)^{\sim}=(\sigma^{\prime})^{\sim}\phi=\tau\phi$, as
desired.) Let $A=\varinjlim(A_{i},\phi_{i,j})$ be an inductive limit of
C*-algebras. N.B: we will not assume that the index set in this inductive
system is countable. Let $C$ denote the subset of the Cartesian product
$\prod_{i}\mathrm{T}(A_{i})$ of vectors $(\tau_{i})$ compatible with the
projective system $(\mathrm{T}(A_{i}),\mathrm{T}(\phi_{i,j}))$; that is,
$\tau_{i}=\mathrm{T}(\phi_{i,j})(\tau_{j})$ for all $i<j$. Denote by
$\mu_{i}\colon C\to\mathrm{T}(A_{i})$ the projection onto the $i$th
coordinate. It is well known that $C$ is the projective limit of
$(\mathrm{T}(A_{i}),\mathrm{T}(\phi_{i,j}))$ in the category of compact
Hausdorff spaces. It is easily verified that $C$ is a cone when endowed with
the operations of coordinate-wise addition and scalar multiplication, that $C$
belongs to the category $\mathcal{C}$, and that $(C,\mu_{i})$ is in fact the
projective limit of the system of cones
$(\mathrm{T}(A_{i}),\mathrm{T}(\phi_{i,j}))$ in the category $\mathcal{C}$.
Let $m\colon\mathrm{T}(A)\to C$ denote the map given by
$m(\tau):=(\mathrm{T}(\phi_{i,\infty}(\tau)))$. In order to show that
$\mathrm{T}(A)$ and $C$ are isomorphic, it is enough to prove that $m$ is
bijective, since a continuous bijection between compact Hausdorff spaces has
continuous inverse.
Suppose that $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ are traces in $\mathrm{T}(A)$ such that
$m(\tau_{1})=m(\tau_{2})$, i.e.,
$\tau_{1}\circ\phi_{i,\infty}=\tau_{2}\circ\phi_{i,\infty}$ for all $i$. Then
$\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ agree on the set
$\bigcup_{i}\phi_{i,\infty}(A_{i}^{+})$ of positive elements coming from the
algebras $A_{i}$. Let us call this set $B$. We have that $B$ is dense in
$A^{+}$ and is such that if $a\in B$ then $(a-\epsilon)_{+}\in B$ for all
$\epsilon>0$. It follows, by Remark 3.5, that $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ cannot
be separated in the topology of $\mathrm{T}(A)$. Since $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is
Hausdorff (by Theorem 3.7), this shows that $\tau_{1}=\tau_{2}$.
Let $(\tau_{i})$ be a vector in $C$. Let us find a trace $\tau$ such that
$m(\tau)=(\tau_{i})$. For $a\in A_{i}^{+}$ write
$\tau_{i}(a)=\tau(\phi_{i,\infty}(a))$. Let us show that $\tau$ is well
defined on the set $B$. Suppose that $\phi_{i,\infty}(a)=\phi_{i,\infty}(b)$.
For every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $j$ such that
$\|\phi_{i,j}(a)-\phi_{i,j}(b)\|<\epsilon$. Using Lemma 2.2 we get
$\tau_{i}((a-\epsilon)_{+})=\tau_{j}(\phi_{i,j}((a-\epsilon)_{+}))\leq\tau_{j}(\phi_{i,j}(b))=\tau_{i}(b).$
In the limit as $\epsilon\to 0$ we obtain $\tau_{i}(a)\leq\tau_{i}(b)$. Hence
by symmetry, $\tau_{i}(a)=\tau_{i}(b)$. So $\tau$ is well defined on $B$.
Let us extend $\tau$ from $B$ to $A^{+}$ as follows. Define
$\widetilde{\tau}\colon A^{+}\to[0,\infty]$ by
$\widetilde{\tau}(a):=\sup\\{\,\tau(a^{\prime})\mid a^{\prime}\in
B,a^{\prime}\preccurlyeq(a-\epsilon)_{+}\hbox{ for some }\epsilon>0\,\\}.$
Let us show that $\widetilde{\tau}$ is a trace; clearly, it extends $\tau$.
For every $a^{\prime}\in B$ and $\epsilon>0$ such that
$a^{\prime}\preccurlyeq(a-\epsilon)_{+}$ we have
$\widetilde{\tau}(a^{\prime})\leq\widetilde{\tau}((a-\epsilon/2)_{+})$. It
follows from this that
$\widetilde{\tau}(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\widetilde{\tau}((a-\epsilon)_{+})$.
Since $(xx^{*}-\epsilon)_{+}\sim(x^{*}x-\epsilon)_{+}$ for all $\epsilon>0$
and $x\in A$, we have $\widetilde{\tau}(xx^{*})=\widetilde{\tau}(x^{*}x)$.
Also, it can be shown using (2.1) (see Proposition 2.3 (i)) that
$\widetilde{\tau}$ is superadditive, i.e.,
$\widetilde{\tau}(a)+\widetilde{\tau}(b)\leq\widetilde{\tau}(a+b)$. In
particular $\widetilde{\tau}$ is increasing.
It remains to show that $\tau$ is subadditive. (Homogeneity is clear.) Before
proceeding with the proof of the subadditivity of $\tau$ let us prove a
preliminary fact. Suppose that $c,c^{\prime}\in A^{+}$ are such that
$\|c-c^{\prime}\|<\epsilon$. By [kirchberg-rordam, Lemma 2.2] there exists a
contraction $d\in A$ such that $(c-\epsilon)_{+}=dc^{\prime}d^{*}$. Since
$\tau$ is increasing and satisfies the trace identity, it follows that
$\widetilde{\tau}((c-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\widetilde{\tau}(c^{\prime})$ whenever
$\|c-c^{\prime}\|<\epsilon$.
Let us show that $\tau$ is subadditive. Let $a,b\in A^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$
and assume, as we may without loss of generality, that $\|a\|,\|b\|\leq 1$.
Choose $a^{\prime},b^{\prime}\in B$ such that $\|a-a^{\prime}\|<\epsilon/4$
and $\|b-b^{\prime}\|<\epsilon/4$. Then
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\tau}((a+b-\epsilon)_{+})$
$\displaystyle\leq\widetilde{\tau}((a^{\prime}-\frac{\epsilon}{2})_{+}+(b^{\prime}-\frac{\epsilon}{2})_{+})=$
$\displaystyle=\widetilde{\tau}((a^{\prime}-\frac{\epsilon}{2})_{+})+\widetilde{\tau}((b^{\prime}-\frac{\epsilon}{2})_{+})\leq\widetilde{\tau}(a)+\widetilde{\tau}(b).$
Passing to the supremum on the left side with respect to $\epsilon$, we deduce
that $\widetilde{\tau}$ is subadditive. This shows that $\widetilde{\tau}$ is
a trace. That $\widetilde{\tau}$ is lower semicontinuous follows from Lemma
3.1 and the equation
$\widetilde{\tau}(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\widetilde{\tau}((a-\epsilon)_{+})$. ∎
###### Remark 3.12.
In addition to being an object in the category $\mathcal{C}$, we have seen
that the cone $\mathrm{T}(A)$ is a complete lattice and satisfies the
identities (3.1) and (3.2). Inspection of the proofs of Propositions 3.4 and
3.8 shows that they also hold on replacing $\mathrm{T}(A)$ by any topological
cone in $\mathcal{C}$ that is a complete lattice and satisfies the identities
(3.1) and (3.2). Is Proposition 3.10 (i) true for such cones too?
## 4\. Functionals on the Cuntz Semigroup
### 4.1. Quasitraces and functionals
Let $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ denote the stabilized Cuntz semigroup of $A$, i.e., the
ordered semigroup of Cuntz equivalence classes of positive elements in
$A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ (see [coward-elliott-ivanescu] and [rordam]). Given
$\tau\in\mathrm{T}(A\otimes\mathcal{K})$ let us define the function
$\lambda_{\tau}([a]):=\sup_{n}\tau(a^{1/n})$, where $[a]\in\mathrm{Cu}(A)$
denotes the equivalence class of $a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$. This is
known to be a well defined function on $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ with values in
$[0,\infty]$ and with the following properties:
(1) $\lambda_{\tau}$ is additive and order preserving, and
$\lambda_{\tau}(0)=0$,
(2) $\lambda_{\tau}$ preserves the suprema of increasing sequences.
Let us refer to a function $\lambda\colon\mathrm{Cu}(A)\to[0,\infty]$ with the
properties (1) and (2) as a functional on $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$.
###### Lemma 4.1.
If $\tau:A^{+}\to[0,\infty]$ is a quasitrace then $\widetilde{\tau}$ defined
by $\widetilde{\tau}(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})$ is a lower
semicontinuous quasitrace on $A$, and is the largest such quasitrace majorized
by $\tau$.
###### Proof.
If $B$ is a commutative sub-C*-algebra of $A$, then the restriction $\tau|B$
of $\tau$ to $B$ is a trace on $B$, and the restriction of $\widetilde{\tau}$
to $B$ is the lower semicontinuous regularization $(\tau|B)^{\sim}$ of Lemma
3.1. This shows that $\widetilde{\tau}$ is additive on elements that commute.
Since for every $x\in A$ and $\epsilon>0$ there is $y\in A$ such that
$(x^{*}x-\epsilon)_{+}=y^{*}y$ and $(xx^{*}-\epsilon)_{+}=yy^{*}$ (see the
proof of Proposition 2.3 (ii)), we have
$\widetilde{\tau}(x^{*}x)=\widetilde{\tau}(xx^{*})$ for all $x\in A$. So
$\widetilde{\tau}$ is a quasitrace. This, together with the defining equation
$\widetilde{\tau}(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\tau((a-\epsilon)_{+})$, implies that
$\widetilde{\tau}$ is lower semicontinuous (see the last remark in [kirchberg-
blanchard, Definition 2.2]). If $\sigma$ is another lower semicontinuous
quasitrace with $\sigma\leq\tau$, then (as in the proof of Lemma 3.1), for any
$a\in A^{+}$,
$\sigma(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\sigma((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\sup_{\epsilon>0}\tau(a-\epsilon)_{+})=\tau(a).\qed$
To repeat, we shall denote by $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ the cone of lower
semicontinuous quasitraces of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$. The notation
$\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ is explained by the result of Blanchard and Kirchberg
that every lower semicontinuous 2-quasitrace of $A$ extends to a lower
semicontinuous quasitrace of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$; see [kirchberg-blanchard,
Remark 2.27 (viii)]). Let $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ denote the cone of
functionals on $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$, as defined above.
###### Proposition 4.2.
Given $\tau\in\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ the function
$\lambda_{\tau}([a]):=\sup_{n}\tau(a^{1/n})$ is well defined and gives a
functional on $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$, i.e., an element of
$\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$. Given $\lambda\in\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ the
function $\tau_{\lambda}(a)=\int^{\infty}_{0}\lambda([(a-t)_{+}])\,dt$ is a
lower semi-continuous quasitrace on $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$, i.e., an element of
$\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$. The maps $\tau\mapsto\lambda_{\tau}$ and
$\lambda\mapsto\tau_{\lambda}$ are the inverses of each other.
###### Proof.
Let $\tau\in\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ and set $\sup_{n}\tau(a^{1/n})=D(a)$, for
$a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$. The restriction of $\tau$ to a commutative
sub-C*-algebra $B$ of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ consists of integration by some
measure on the spectrum of $B$. If $a\in B^{+}$ then $D(a)$ is the measure of
the open subset of the spectrum of $B$ consisting of points where $a$ does not
vanish. From this observation it follows that (1) $D(a+b)=D(a)+D(b)$ if $a$
and $b$ are orthogonal, (2) $D(a)\leq D(b)$ if $a$ and $b$ commute and $a\leq
Mb$ for some $M>0$, and (3) $D(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}D((a-\epsilon)_{+})$.
Let us show that $D$ is constant on the Cuntz equivalence classes of positive
elements. First, note that for any $x\in A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ and $g\in
C_{0}(\mathbb{R}^{+})$ there is $y$ such that $g(x^{*}x)=y^{*}y$ and
$g(xx^{*})=yy^{*}$. Therefore, $D(x^{*}x)=D(xx^{*})$. Suppose now that $a$ is
Cuntz smaller than $b$, i.e., $d^{*}_{n}bd_{n}\to a$ for some sequence
$(d_{n})$. Let $\epsilon>0$. Choose $d\in A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ and $\delta>0$
such that $\|a-d^{*}(b-\delta)_{+}d\|<\epsilon$. By the proof of Lemma 2.2,
there is $y$ such that $(a-\epsilon)_{+}=y^{*}y$ and
$yy^{*}\leq(b-\delta)_{+}$. Choose a continuous function $g$ with $g(0)=0$
such that $g(b)\leq Mb$ for some $M>0$ and
$g(b)(b-\delta)_{+}=(b-\delta)_{+}$. We have $g(b)yy^{*}=yy^{*}g(b)=yy^{*}$.
In particular, $yy^{*}$ and $g(b)$ commute and $yy^{*}\leq\|y\|^{2}g(b)$.
Hence $D(yy^{*})\leq D(g(b))\leq D(b)$, by (2) of the previous paragraph.
Thus, $D((a-\epsilon)_{+})=D(yy^{*})\leq D(b)$. Letting $\epsilon$ tend to $0$
and applying (3) of the previous paragraph we obtain $D(a)\leq D(b)$.
It follows from the previous discussion that $\lambda$ defined by
$\lambda([a]):=D(a)$ is well defined on $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$, additive, order
preserving, takes $0$ into $0$, and satisfies
$\lambda([a])=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\lambda([(a-\epsilon)_{+}])$. In order to show
that $\lambda$ is a functional it remains to show that it preserves the
suprema of arbitrary increasing sequences. Let $([a_{n}])$ be increasing with
supremum $[a]$. It is known that $[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\ll[a]$ (see the first
paragraph of the next subsection for the definition of the relation $\ll$—and
see [coward-elliott-ivanescu] for the statement $[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\ll[a]$).
This implies that $[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\leq[a_{n}]$ for some $n$. Thus,
$\lambda([a-\epsilon)_{+}])\leq\sup_{n}\lambda[a_{n}]),$ and letting
$\epsilon$ go to $0$ we get $\lambda([a])\leq\sup_{n}\lambda([a_{n}])$. The
reverse inequality is clearly true, since $\lambda$ is order preserving.
Let us now start with a functional $\lambda$ and let $\tau_{\lambda}$ be
defined as in the statement of the proposition. If $B$ is commutative
sub-C*-algebra of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$, and $a\in B^{+}$, then $\lambda([a])$
depends only on the set of points in the spectrum of $B$ where $a$ does not
vanish. Moreover, $\lambda$ defines a Borel measure on the spectrum of $B$ in
this way. By Fubini’s theorem, $\tau_{\lambda}(a)$ is the integral of $a$ with
respect to that measure. Therefore, $\tau_{\lambda}$ is additive on $B$ and
$\tau_{\lambda}(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\tau_{\lambda}((a-\epsilon)_{+})$.
For every $x\in A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ and $\epsilon>0$ there exists $y$ such
that $(x^{*}x-\epsilon)_{+}=y^{*}y$ and $(xx^{*}-\epsilon)_{+}=yy^{*}$. Hence
$\lambda([x^{*}x-\epsilon)_{+}])=\lambda([xx^{*}-\epsilon)_{+}])$, and so
$\tau_{\lambda}(x^{*}x)=\tau_{\lambda}(xx^{*})$. It follows that
$\tau_{\lambda}$ is a quasitrace. We also know that
$\tau_{\lambda}(a)=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\tau_{\lambda}((a-\epsilon)_{+})$. This
implies that $\tau_{\lambda}$ is lower semicontinuous (see [kirchberg-
blanchard, Definition 2.22]).
Finally, we need to show that the maps $\tau\mapsto\tau_{\lambda}$ and
$\lambda\mapsto\lambda_{\tau}$ are inverse to each other. It is immediate from
the definitions of these two maps that it is enough to prove this on the
commutative sub-C*-algebra generated by a positive element. In this case the
result follows from standard results in the theory of integration. ∎
###### Remark 4.3.
A theorem of Haagerup says that if $A$ is exact and unital then every bounded
2-quasitrace on $A$ is a trace. It was observed in [kirchberg-blanchard,
Remark 2.29 (i)] that after a number of elementary reductions this theorem can
be extended to obtain that every lower semicontinuous 2-quasitrace on an exact
C*-algebra must be a trace. It follows that if $A$ is exact then every
functional on $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ arises from a lower semicontinuous trace.
Let us endow $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ with the topology in which the net
$(\tau_{i})$ converges to $\tau$ if
(4.1) $\limsup\tau_{i}((a-\epsilon)_{+})\leq\tau(a)\leq\liminf\tau_{i}(a)$
for all $a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$. Alternatively (as
for $\mathrm{T}(A)$), $\tau_{i}\to\tau$ if, whenever a subnet of $(\tau_{i})$
converges pointwise to a function
$\sigma\colon(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}\to[0,\infty]$, the regularization
$\widetilde{\sigma}$ of $\sigma$ given by Lemma 4.1 above is equal to $\tau$.
A neighbourhood basis of a point of $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ (or for a uniform
structure determining the topology) can be described just as before for
$\mathrm{T}(A)$. Notice that the relative topology of
$\mathrm{T}(A\otimes\mathcal{K})$, as a subset of $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$, is the
same topology that we assigned to $\mathrm{T}(A\otimes\mathcal{K})$ in the
previous section.
Let us say that the net $(\lambda_{i})$ converges to $\lambda$ on the cone
$\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ of functionals on $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ if
$\limsup\lambda_{i}([(a-\epsilon)_{+}])\leq\lambda([a])\leq\liminf\lambda_{i}([a])$
for all $[a]\in\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ and $\epsilon>0$. Alternatively (as for
$\mathrm{T}(A)$), $\lambda_{i}\to\lambda$ if
$\lambda([a])=\sup_{\epsilon>0}\lambda^{\prime}([(a-\epsilon)_{+}])$ for all
$a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$, whenever a subnet of $(\lambda_{i})$
converges pointwise to a function
$\lambda^{\prime}\colon\mathrm{Cu}(A)\to[0,\infty]$.
###### Theorem 4.4.
The cones $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ and $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ are compact
and Hausdorff, and the map $\tau\mapsto\lambda_{\tau}$ is a a homeomorphism
between them.
###### Proof.
The proof that $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ is compact and Hausdorff is similar to the
proof given above for $\mathrm{T}(A)$ (Theorem 3.7). This is also the case for
the proof that $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ is compact and Hausdorff (see
Theorem 4.8 below for a generalization of this). In order to show that
$\tau\mapsto\lambda_{\tau}$ is a homeomorphism it is enough to show that it is
continuous. Let $(\tau_{i})$ be a net in $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ such that
$\tau_{i}\to\tau$ in $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$. Let $[a]\in\mathrm{Cu}(A)$. We have
$\tau(a^{1/n})\leq\liminf\tau_{i}(a^{1/n})\leq\liminf\lambda_{\tau_{i}}([a]),$
for all $n$. Therefore,
$\lambda_{\tau}([a])\leq\liminf\lambda_{\tau_{i}}([a])$.
Let $\epsilon>0$. Choose $f\in C_{0}(\mathbb{R}^{+})$ such that $0\leq f\leq
1$ and $f(t)=1$ for $t\in[\epsilon,\|a\|]$. Set $f(a)=a^{\prime}$. We have
$(1-\epsilon)\limsup\lambda_{\tau_{i}}([(a-\epsilon)_{+}])\leq\limsup\tau_{i}(a^{\prime}-\epsilon)_{+}\leq\tau(a^{\prime})\leq\lambda_{\tau}([a]),$
for all $\epsilon>0$. This implies that
$\limsup\lambda_{\tau_{i}}([(a-\epsilon)_{+}])\leq\lambda_{\tau}([a])$. ∎
###### Remark 4.5.
If $A$ is exact then $\mathrm{T}(A\otimes\mathcal{K})=\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ (see
Remark 4.3). Since it is always the case that
$\mathrm{T}(A)\cong\mathrm{T}(A\otimes\mathcal{K})$, we have that if $A$ is
exact then
$\mathrm{T}(A)\cong\mathrm{T}(A\otimes\mathcal{K})=\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)\cong\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$.
### 4.2. The category $\mathcal{C}u$
In [coward-elliott-ivanescu], Coward, Elliott, and Ivanescu showed that
$\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ belongs to a particular category of ordered semigroups
denoted by $\mathcal{C}u$. Let us recall the definition of this category here.
For elements $a$ and $b$ of an ordered set, let us say that $a$ is far below
$b$, and write $a\ll b$, if for any increasing sequence $(b_{n})$ with
supremum greater than or equal to $b$ there exists $n$ such that $a\leq
b_{n}$. (Then in particular $a\leq b$.) The category $\mathcal{C}u$ has for
objects the ordered semigroups $S$ with 0 such that
(1) increasing sequences in $S$ have a supremum,
(2) for every $a\in S$ there is a sequence $a_{1},a_{2},\dots$ with supremum
$a$ such that $a_{n}\ll a_{n+1}$ for all $n$,
(3) if $a_{1}\ll b_{1}$ and $a_{2}\ll b_{2}$ then $a_{1}+a_{2}\ll
b_{1}+b_{2}$, and
(4) if $(a_{n})$ and $(b_{n})$ are increasing sequences then
$\sup(a_{n}+b_{n})=\sup a_{n}+\sup b_{n}$.
The morphisms of the category $\mathcal{C}u$ are the ordered semigroup
morphisms (i.e., the additive and order preserving maps) that preserve suprema
of increasing sequences and the far below relation.
###### Remark 4.6.
The far below relation (also referred to as the way below relation, or, more
formally, compact containment), is usually defined with respect to increasing
nets $(b_{i})$ instead of increasing (countable) sequences $(b_{n})$.
Nevertheless, it is (countable) increasing sequences that we wish to consider
here. To avoid confusion we might say countable compact containment.
Let $S$ be a semigroup in the category $\mathcal{C}u$. Let us call functionals
on $S$ those additive and order preserving functions from $S$ to $[0,\infty]$
that take 0 into 0 and preserve the suprema of increasing sequences. Let us
denote by $\mathrm{F}(S)$ the cone of functionals on $S$ endowed with
pointwise addition and scalar multiplication by strictly positive real
numbers. Let us consider $\mathrm{F}(S)$ with the topology in which a net
$(\lambda_{i})$ converges to a point $\lambda$ if
(4.2)
$\displaystyle\limsup\lambda_{i}(x)\leq\lambda(y)\leq\liminf\lambda_{i}(y)$
for all $x,y\in S$ such that $x\ll y$. If $\phi\colon S\to T$ is a morphism in
the category $\mathcal{C}u$ then
$\mathrm{F}(\phi)(\lambda):=\lambda\circ\phi$, $\lambda\in\mathrm{F}(T)$, is a
continuous linear map from $\mathrm{F}(T)$ to $\mathrm{F}(S)$.
###### Lemma 4.7.
Let $S$ be a semigroup in the category $\mathcal{C}u$ and let $\lambda\colon
S\to[0,\infty]$ be an additive map on $S$. Then $\widetilde{\lambda}$ defined
by $\widetilde{\lambda}(x):=\sup\\{\,\lambda(z)\mid z\ll x\,\\}$ is a
functional on $S$, and is the largest functional majorized by $\lambda$.
###### Proof.
If $x\leq y$ and $x^{\prime}\ll x$ then $x^{\prime}\ll y$. This allows us to
conclude that $\widetilde{\lambda}(x)\leq\widetilde{\lambda}(y)$. If
$x^{\prime}\ll x$ and $y^{\prime}\ll y$ then $x^{\prime}+y^{\prime}\ll x+y$,
and so
$\widetilde{\lambda}(x)+\widetilde{\lambda}(y)\leq\widetilde{\lambda}(x+y)$.
If $z\ll x+y$ then there are $x^{\prime}\ll x$ and $y^{\prime}\ll y$ such that
$z\ll x^{\prime}+y^{\prime}$. It follows that
$\widetilde{\lambda}(x+y)\leq\widetilde{\lambda}(x)+\widetilde{\lambda}(y)$.
Finally, let $(x_{n})$ be an increasing sequence with supremum $x$. Since
$\widetilde{\lambda}$ is order preserving we have
$\sup\widetilde{\lambda}(x_{n})\leq\widetilde{\lambda}(x)$. On the other hand,
for all $x^{\prime}\ll x$ we have $x^{\prime}\ll x_{n}\leq x$ for some $n$.
Therefore, $\widetilde{\lambda}(x)\leq\sup\widetilde{\lambda}(x_{n})$. The
last statement is proved as in 3.1 and 4.1. ∎
The order of pointwise comparison of functionals in $\mathrm{F}(S)$ is the
same as the order arising from the semigroup structure. The proof of this is
identical to the proof for $\mathrm{T}(A)$ (see Proposition 3.2), provided
that Lemma 4.7 is used instead of Lemma 3.1.
Just as with $\mathrm{T}(A)$, we may extend the scalar multiplication of
$\mathrm{F}(S)$ to include 0 and $\infty$:
(4.3) $\displaystyle(\infty\cdot\lambda)(x)$ $\displaystyle:=0\hbox{ if
}\lambda(x)=0,\hbox{ and }(\infty\cdot\lambda)(x):=\infty\hbox{ otherwise},$
(4.4) $\displaystyle(0\cdot\lambda)(x)$ $\displaystyle:=0\hbox{ if
}\lambda(z)<\infty,\forall z\ll x,\hbox{ and }(0\cdot\lambda)(x)=\infty\hbox{
otherwise.}$
Notice that $0\cdot\lambda$ is the regularization (as in the statement of
Lemma 4.7) of the additive map $x\mapsto 0\cdot\lambda(x)$, where
$0\cdot\infty$ is taken to be $\infty$. Notice also that $\alpha\lambda\to
0\cdot\lambda$ and $\frac{1}{\alpha}\lambda\to\infty\cdot\lambda$ as
$\alpha\to 0$, and, indeed, extended scalar multiplication is (jointly)
continuous overall.
###### Theorem 4.8.
$\mathrm{F}(\cdot)$ is a sequentially continuous contravariant functor from
the category $\mathcal{C}u$ to the category of topological cones
$\mathcal{C}$.
###### Proof.
The proof that $\mathrm{F}(S)$ is compact and Hausdorff is similar to the
proof for $\mathrm{T}(A)$ (cf. also Theorem 4.4). We use Lemma 4.7 instead of
Lemma 3.1.
Let us show that $\mathrm{F}(\cdot)$ is a sequentially continuous functor. As
can be seen from the construction given in [coward-elliott-ivanescu],
inductive limits in the category $\mathcal{C}u$ are characterized as follows:
$S$ is the inductive limit of $(S_{i},\phi_{i,j})$ if
(1) every element of $S$ is supremum of an increasing sequence of elements
coming from the $S_{i}$s,
(2) if $x,y\in S_{i}$ are such that $\phi_{i,\infty}(x)\leq\phi_{i,\infty}(y)$
in the limit, then for all $z\ll x$ in $S_{i}$ there is $n\geq i$ such that
$\phi_{i,n}(z)\leq\phi_{i,n}(y)$ in $S_{n}$.
Let $C$ denote the projective limit of
$(\mathrm{F}(S_{i}),\mathrm{F}(\phi_{i,j}))$ in the category $\mathcal{C}$
(cf. proof of Theorem 3.11). If $\lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$ are two
functionals on $S$ that agree on the elements coming from finite stages, then
$\lambda_{1}$ and $\lambda_{2}$ are equal by the property (1) above of
inductive limits in $\mathcal{C}u$. Thus, the map from $C$ to $\mathrm{F}(S)$
is in injective. In order to see that this map is surjective we need to show
that for any sequence of functionals $\lambda_{i}\in\mathrm{F}(S_{i})$
compatible with the inductive limit, there is $\lambda\in\mathrm{F}(S)$ such
that $\mathrm{F}(\phi_{i,\infty})(\lambda)=\lambda_{i}$. Let us define
$\lambda$ on the subsemigroup $\bigcup_{i}\phi_{i,\infty}(S_{i})$ of $S$ by
$\lambda(\phi_{i,\infty}(x))=\lambda_{i}(x)$. Let us check that this map is
well defined. Suppose that $\phi_{i,\infty}(x)=\phi_{i,\infty}(y)$. Then by
the property (2) of inductive limits in the category $\mathcal{C}u$, for every
$z\ll x$ there is $n$ such that $\phi_{i,n}(x)\leq\phi_{i,n}(y)$. So
$\lambda_{i}(z)=\lambda_{n}(\phi_{i,n}(z))\leq\lambda_{n}(\phi_{i,n}(y))=\lambda_{i}(y)$.
Since this holds for all $z\ll x$ we have $\lambda_{i}(x)\leq\lambda_{i}(y)$,
whence, by symmetry, $\lambda_{i}(x)=\lambda_{i}(y)$.
Let us write $T=\bigcup_{i}\phi_{i,\infty}(S_{i})$. Let us extend $\lambda$
from $T$ to all of $S$ as follows:
$\widetilde{\lambda}(x)=\sup\\{\,\lambda(x^{\prime})\mid x^{\prime}\ll
x,x^{\prime}\in T\,\\}.$
One can now show that $\widetilde{\lambda}$ is a functional on $S$ that
extends $\lambda$. We will only show here that $\widetilde{\lambda}$ is
additive. Let $x,y\in S$. Let $x^{\prime}\ll x$, $y^{\prime}\ll y$ and
$x^{\prime},y^{\prime}\in T$. Then $x^{\prime}+y^{\prime}\ll x+y$ and
$x^{\prime}+y^{\prime}\in T$. This implies that $\widetilde{\lambda}$ is
superadditive. On the other hand, if $z^{\prime}\ll x+y$ , $z^{\prime}\in T$,
then there are $x^{\prime},y^{\prime}\in T$ such that $z\leq
x^{\prime}+y^{\prime}\ll x+y$ and $x^{\prime}\ll x$, $y^{\prime}\ll y$. From
this we conclude that $\widetilde{\lambda}$ is subadditive. ∎
###### Remark 4.9.
It was shown in [coward-elliott-ivanescu] that $\mathrm{Cu}(\cdot)$ is a
sequentially continuous covariant functor from the category of C*-algebras to
the category $\mathcal{C}u$. Therefore, by Theorem 4.8,
$\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(\cdot))$ is a sequentially continuous contravariant
functor from the category of C*-algebras to the category $\mathcal{C}$.
## 5\. Dual cones for $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ and $\mathrm{T}(A)$
### 5.1. The space $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$
Before discussing the dual cone of the cone $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ let
us begin with some general considerations concerning the cones in the category
$\mathcal{C}$.
Let $C$ be a cone in the category $\mathcal{C}$. Let $\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$ denote
the set of lower semicontinuous functions on $C$ with values in $[0,\infty]$
that are additive, homogeneous (with respect to the scalar multiplication by
$\mathbb{R}^{+}$), and take 0 into 0. We shall regard $\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$ as a
non-cancellative cone endowed with the operations of pointwise addition and
pointwise multiplication by strictly positive scalars. We shall also consider
$\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$ as ordered by the order of pointwise comparison of
functions. Notice that $\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$ is closed under passage to suprema of
upward directed sets. Thus, we can extend the scalar multiplication to include
$\infty$ by setting $\sup_{n}n\cdot f=\infty\cdot f$. For functions $f$ and
$g$ in $\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$ we shall write $f\ll g$ if for every increasing
sequence $(g_{n})$ such that $g\leq\sup g_{n}$ there is $g_{n_{0}}$ such that
$f\leq g_{n_{0}}$.
Let us denote by $\mathrm{L}(C)$ the subset of $\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$ composed of
those functions $f$ for which there is an increasing sequence $(h_{n})$,
$h_{n}\in\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$, with the following two properties:
(I) the supremum of the $h_{n}$s is $f$,
(II) $h_{n}$ is continuous at each point where $h_{n+1}$ is finite.
The definition of $\mathrm{L}(C)$ is motivated by Proposition 5.3 below. It is
shown there that the functions arising from the positive elements of a
C*-algebra $A$ (and of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$) on the cones $\mathrm{T}(A)$ and
$\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ satisfy (I) and (II) (for suitable increasing
sequences).
For $f\in\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$ let us write $\mathrm{Set}(f)=\\{\,\lambda\in C\mid
f(\lambda)>1\,\\}$. Notice that $f\leq g$ if and only if
$\mathrm{Set}(f)\subseteq\mathrm{Set}(g)$.
###### Proposition 5.1.
Let $f$ and $g$ be in $\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$.
(i) If $f\leq(1-\mu)g$ for some $\mu>0$, and $f$ is continuous at each point
where $g$ is finite, then
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(f)}\subseteq\mathrm{Set}(g)$.
(ii) If $\overline{\mathrm{Set}(f)}\subseteq\mathrm{Set}(g)$ then $f\ll g$ in
$\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$.
(iii) $\mathrm{L}(C)$ is a subcone of
$\mathrm{Lsc}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ closed under passage to suprema of
increasing sequences.
###### Proof.
(i) Let $(\lambda_{i})$ be a net in $C$ such that $\lambda_{i}\to\lambda$ and
$\lambda_{i}\in\mathrm{Set}(f)$. If $g(\lambda)<\infty$ then $f(\lambda)=\lim
f(\lambda_{i})\geq 1$, and so $g(\lambda)>1$.
(ii) Let $(g_{n})$ be an increasing sequence of functions in $\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$
with pointwise supremum greater than or equal to $g$. Then
$\mathrm{Set}(g)\subseteq\bigcup_{n}\mathrm{Set}(g_{n})$. Since
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(f)}$ is compact, we must have that
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(f)}\subseteq\mathrm{Set}(g_{n_{0}})$ for some $n_{0}$.
Therefore, $f\leq g_{n_{0}}$.
(iii) It follows easily from its definition that $\mathrm{L}(C)$ is closed
under addition and multiplication by strictly positive scalars.
Let $(f_{n})$ be an increasing sequence of functions in $\mathrm{L}(C)$ with
supremum $f$. For every $f_{n}$ let $(h_{k}^{n})_{k=1}^{\infty}$ be a choice
of the corresponding sequence satisfying (I) and (II). We may assume without
loss of generality that $h_{k}^{n}\leq(1-\mu_{k}^{n})h_{k+1}^{n}$ for some
$\mu_{k}^{n}>0$. Let $k_{1}=1$. Since $h_{k_{1}+1}^{1}\ll f_{2}$ on
$\mathrm{Lsc}(C)$ (by (i) and (ii)), there is $h_{k_{2}}^{2}$ such that
$h_{k_{1}+1}^{1}\leq h_{k_{2}}^{2}$. In the same way we may find
$h_{k_{3}}^{3}$ such that $h_{k_{2}+1}^{2}\leq h_{k_{3}}^{3}$. Continue in
this way to obtain a sequence $(h_{k_{n}}^{n})$ such that $h_{k_{n}+1}^{i}\leq
h_{k_{n+1}}^{n+1}$. By proceeding as in the proof of [coward-elliott-ivanescu,
Theorem 1 (i)], we can choose this sequence so that its supremum is $f$. If
$h_{k_{n+1}}^{n+1}(\lambda)<\infty$ then $h_{k_{n}+1}^{n}(\lambda)<\infty$,
and it follows that $h_{k_{n}}^{n}$ is continuous at $\lambda$. This shows
that $f$ belongs to $\mathrm{L}(C)$. ∎
###### Remark 5.2.
The cone $\mathrm{L}(C)$ is not to be confused with a cone belonging to the
category $\mathcal{C}$. In particular, no topology will be defined on
$\mathrm{L}(C)$. Instead, we shall consider $\mathrm{L}(C)$ as a non-
cancellative cone endowed with an order—that of pointwise comparison of
functions—which may not coincide with the order arising from the addition
operation of $\mathrm{L}(C)$. Also, we shall not define a scalar
multiplication by $0$ in $\mathrm{L}(C)$.
Let us now specialize the study of $\mathrm{L}(C)$ to the case that
$C=\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ for some C*-algebra $A$. Our main result is
Theorem 5.7. As applications of this theorem we will obtain that
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ is an ordered semigroup in the
category $\mathcal{C}u$ and that $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(\cdot)))$
is a sequentially continuous functor from the category of C*-algebras to the
category $\mathcal{C}u$. We will also make use of this theorem in the next
section when we look at the structure of the Cuntz semigroup for certain
C*-algebras.
Let $A$ be a C*-algebra and $a$ be a positive element of
$A\otimes\mathcal{K}$. The Cuntz semigroup element $[a]$ and the positive
element $a$ give rise to functions on $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$:
(5.1) $\displaystyle\widehat{[a]}(\lambda)$ $\displaystyle:=\lambda([a]),$
(5.2) $\displaystyle\widehat{a}(\lambda)$
$\displaystyle:=\tau_{\lambda}(a)=\int_{0}^{\infty}\lambda([(a-t)_{+}])\,dt,$
where $\lambda\in\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ and $\tau_{\lambda}$ is the
quasitrace associated to $\lambda$ by Proposition 4.2. The function
$\widehat{[a]}$ belongs to $\mathrm{Lsc}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ by the
inequalities (4.2) that define the topology on $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$).
The function $\widehat{a}$ belongs to
$\mathrm{Lsc}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ by the inequalities that define the
topology on $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$ and the isomorphism between
$\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ and $\mathrm{QT}_{2}(A)$.
For the rest of this section if $a$ is a positive element of a C*-algebra we
will use the notation $a_{\epsilon}$ to mean the positive element
$(a-\epsilon)_{+}$.
###### Proposition 5.3.
For all $a\in A^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$ the function $\widehat{a_{\epsilon}}$ is
continuous at each point where $\widehat{a}$ is finite.
###### Proof.
Let $\lambda$ be such that $\widehat{a}(\lambda)<\infty$ and let
$(\lambda_{i})$ be a net in $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ that converges to
$\lambda$. We have
$\tau_{\lambda}(a_{\epsilon})\leq\liminf\tau_{\lambda_{i}}(a_{\epsilon})$. Let
$\mu>0$ and set $a^{\prime}=a_{\epsilon}+\mu a$. There is
$\epsilon^{\prime}>0$ such that $a_{\epsilon}\leq
a_{\epsilon^{\prime}}^{\prime}$ (this is easily verified in $C^{*}(a)$).
Therefore,
$\limsup\tau_{\lambda_{i}}(a_{\epsilon})\leq\tau_{\lambda}(a^{\prime})=\tau_{\lambda}(a_{\epsilon})+\mu\tau_{\lambda}(a)$.
This is true for all $\mu>0$. Since $\tau_{\lambda}(a)$ is finite we conclude
that
$\limsup\tau_{\lambda_{i}}(a_{\epsilon})\leq\tau_{\lambda}(a_{\epsilon})$. ∎
Proposition 5.3 implies that $\widehat{a}$ is in
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ for every
$a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$. Since
$\widehat{[a]}=\sup_{n}\widehat{(a^{1/n})}$ and
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ is closed under passage to suprema of
increasing sequences, $\widehat{[a]}$ is in
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ too. Notice also that since
$\widehat{a_{\epsilon}}\leq(1-\epsilon)\widehat{a}$, we have that
$\widehat{a_{\epsilon}}\ll\widehat{a}$, by Propositions 5.1 and 5.3.
Let $I$ be a closed two-sided ideal of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$. Let
$f_{I}\colon\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))\to[0,\infty]$ denote the function given
by
(5.5) $\displaystyle f_{I}(\lambda)=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}0&\hbox{if
}\lambda([a])=0\hbox{ for all }a\in I^{+},\\\
\infty&\hbox{otherwise}.\end{array}\right.$
It can be verified that $f_{I}$ is in
$\mathrm{Lsc}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. Moreover, every function in
$\mathrm{Lsc}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ with the only possible values $0$
and $\infty$ has the form $f_{I}$ for some ideal $I$. For
$f\in\mathrm{Lsc}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ let us write
$\mathrm{Ideal}(f)$ for the ideal of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ such that
$\infty\cdot f=f_{\mathrm{Ideal}(f)}$. If $a$ is a positive element then
$\mathrm{Ideal}(\widehat{a})$ is the closed two-sided ideal generated by $a$
(i.e., $\mathrm{Ideal}(a)$).
###### Lemma 5.4.
Let $f,g\in\mathrm{Lsc}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. If
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(f)}\subseteq\mathrm{Set}(g)$ then
$\mathrm{Ideal}(f)\ll\mathrm{Ideal}(g)$ (in $\mathrm{Lat}(A)$).
###### Proof.
Let $(I_{i})$ be an upward directed collection of ideals with supremum
$\mathrm{Ideal}(g)$. The functions $f_{I_{i}}$ form an upward directed subset
of $\mathrm{Lsc}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ with supremum $\infty\cdot g$,
and so $\mathrm{Set}(\infty\cdot g)=\bigcup_{i}\mathrm{Set}(f_{I_{i}})$. Since
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(f)}$ is compact and
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(f)}\subseteq\mathrm{Set}(g)\subseteq\mathrm{Set}(\infty\cdot
g)$ (as $g\leq\infty\cdot g$), we have
$\mathrm{Set}(f)\subseteq\mathrm{Set}(f_{I_{i_{0}}})$ for some $i_{0}$. From
this we get $\infty\cdot f\leq f_{I_{i_{0}}}$ that is to say,
$\mathrm{Ideal}(f)\subseteq I_{i_{0}}$. ∎
The following proposition relies on a result in the duality theory of
topological vector spaces.
###### Proposition 5.5.
Let $\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ denote the subcone of
$\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ of functionals such that $0\cdot\lambda=0$. Let
$\mathrm{V}(\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ denote the ordered vector space
of linear, real-valued, continuous functions on
$\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$. Then for every positive linear functional
$\Lambda\colon\mathrm{V}(\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))\to\mathbb{R}$ there
is $\lambda\in\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ such that
$\Lambda(f)=f(\lambda)$.
###### Proof.
By (4.4), $0\cdot\lambda=0$ if and only if $\lambda([a_{\epsilon}])<\infty$
for all $a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$. Let us identify—via
Proposition 4.2—the subcone $\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ with the
quasitraces of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ that are densely finite. Notice that
$\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ is a cancellative cone, since the quasitraces
in it are densely finite.
Let us show that the relative topology on $\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$
induced by the topology of $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ is the topology of
pointwise convergence on the set $\\{\,a_{\epsilon}\mid
a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+},\epsilon>0\,\\}$. Let $(\lambda_{i})$ be a net
in $\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ and
$\lambda\in\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$. Suppose that
$\lambda_{i}\to\lambda$ in the topology of $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$. Since
$\widehat{a_{\epsilon/2}}(\lambda)<\infty$ for all
$a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$, by Proposition 5.3
$\widehat{a_{\epsilon}}(\lambda_{i})\to\widehat{a_{\epsilon}}(\lambda)$.
Suppose on the other hand that
$\widehat{a_{\epsilon}}(\lambda_{i})\to\widehat{a_{\epsilon}}(\lambda)$ for
all $a\in A^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$. Then we may proceed as in the proof of
Proposition 3.10 (i) to conclude that $\lambda_{i}\to\lambda$ in the relative
topology of $\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$.
We conclude that the relative topology on $\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ is
the weak*-topology of pointwise convergence on the set $\\{\,a_{\epsilon}\mid
a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}\,\\}$. Therefore,
$\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ is a weakly complete cancellative cone in the
class $\mathcal{S}$ of Choquet (see [choquet, page 194]). Now the theorem
follows from [choquet, Proposition 30.7]. ∎
###### Lemma 5.6.
Let $h_{1},h_{2},h_{3}\in\mathrm{Lsc}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ be such
that $h_{i}\leq(1-\mu_{i})h_{i+1}$ and $h_{i}$ is continuous at each point
where $h_{i+1}$ is finite, for $i=1,2$ and some $\mu_{1},\mu_{2}>0$. Then for
every $\delta>0$ there is $a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ such that
$\widehat{a}\leq h_{3}$ and $h_{1}\leq\delta h_{3}+\widehat{a}$.
###### Proof.
We may assume without loss of generality that
$\mathrm{Ideal}(h_{3})=A\otimes\mathcal{K}$, i.e., $h_{3}(\lambda)>0$ unless
$\lambda=0$. Then we have $\widehat{b}\leq\infty\cdot h_{3}$ for every
$b\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$. Since $\widehat{b_{\epsilon}}\ll\widehat{b}$
for every $\epsilon>0$, we obtain that $\widehat{b_{\epsilon}}\leq Mh_{3}$ for
some finite $M>0$. Set $K=\\{\,\lambda\in\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))\mid
h_{3}(\lambda)\leq 1\,\\}$. By Proposition 5.3, the function
$\widehat{b_{\epsilon}}$ is continuous on $K$ for all
$b\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ and all $\epsilon>0$. Also, by hypothesis,
$h_{1}$ is continuous on $K$.
Let us show that $h_{1}$ can be uniformly approximated on $K$ by convex
combinations of functions of the form $\widehat{b_{\epsilon}}$. Suppose the
contrary. Then there is a real measure $m$ on $K$ such that
$\int\widehat{b_{\epsilon}}\,dm=0$ for all $b\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ and
$\epsilon>0$, and $\int h_{1}\,dm=1$. Let $m=m_{+}-m_{-}$ denote the Jordan
decomposition of $m$. Then
$\int h_{1}\,dm_{+}=\int h_{1}\,dm_{-}+1\hbox{\quad and
\quad}\int\widehat{b_{\epsilon}}\,dm_{+}=\int\widehat{b_{\epsilon}}\,dm_{-},\hbox{\quad
for all }b,\epsilon.$
For $\lambda\in K$ we have $h_{3}(0\cdot\lambda)=0$, and since
$\mathrm{Ideal}(h_{3})=A\otimes\mathcal{K}$, we conclude that
$0\cdot\lambda=0$. Therefore, $K$ is contained in
$\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$, with $\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ as
defined in Proposition 5.5. So we can define positive linear functionals
$\Lambda_{+}$, $\Lambda_{-}$ on the vector space
$\mathrm{V}(\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ by $\Lambda_{+}(f)=\int
fd\,m_{+}$ and $\Lambda_{-}=\int f\,dm_{-}$. By Proposition 5.5, $\Lambda_{+}$
and $\Lambda_{-}$ are given by evaluation on functionals $\lambda_{+}$ and
$\lambda_{-}$ belonging to $\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$. For all
$b\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ and $\epsilon>0$ we have
$b_{\epsilon}\in\mathrm{V}(\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. So
$\widehat{b_{\epsilon}}(\lambda_{+})=\widehat{b_{\epsilon}}(\lambda_{-})$ for
all $b$ and $\epsilon$. This implies that $\lambda_{+}=\lambda_{-}$.
Let us show that the restriction of $h_{1}$ to
$\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ is also in
$\mathrm{V}(\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. Let
$\lambda\in\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$, i.e., $0\cdot\lambda=0$. If
$h_{2}(\lambda)=\infty$ then $h_{2}(\lambda/n)=\infty$ for all $n$. Since
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(h_{2})}\subseteq\mathrm{Set}(h_{3})$ (by Proposition
5.1 (i)), $0\cdot\lambda\in\mathrm{Set}(h_{3})$. This implies that
$h_{3}(0\cdot\lambda)=\infty$, which contradicts the equation
$0\cdot\lambda=0$. We conclude that $h_{2}(\lambda)<\infty$ for all
$\lambda\in\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$, and so $h_{1}$ is continuous on
$\mathrm{F}_{A}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$.
We now have $h_{1}(\lambda_{+})=h_{1}(\lambda_{-})+1$. This contradicts the
earlier conclusion $\lambda_{+}=\lambda_{-}$. Therefore, the restriction of
$h_{1}$ to $K$ belongs to the closure of the convex set spanned by the
functions $\widehat{b_{\epsilon}}$. Hence, for every $\delta>0$ there exists a
positive element $a$ such that $\|h_{1}-a\|_{K}<\delta$. Equivalently,
$h_{1}\leq\widehat{a}+\delta h_{3}$ and $\widehat{a}\leq h_{1}+\delta h_{3}$
on $K$. It is easily shown that these inequalities also hold on all
$\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$. Changing $\widehat{a}$ to
$\widehat{a}/(1+\delta)$ we can arrange that $\widehat{a}\leq h_{3}$. ∎
###### Theorem 5.7.
Let $f$ be in $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. Then $f$ is the
supremum of an increasing sequence of $\widehat{a}$s
($a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$). Such a sequence may even be chosen to be
rapidly increasing: $a_{1}\ll a_{2}\ll\cdots$.
###### Proof.
Let $(h_{n})$ be a an increasing sequence satisfying (I) and (II). We may
assume without loss of generality that $h_{n}\leq(1-\mu_{n})h_{n+1}$ for some
$\mu_{n}>0$, for all $n$. By Proposition 5.1,
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(h_{n})}\subseteq\mathrm{Set}(h_{n+1})$ and $h_{n}\ll
h_{n+1}$ for all $n$. Hence, by Lemma 5.4,
$\mathrm{Ideal}(h_{n})\ll\mathrm{Ideal}(h_{n+1})$ in $\mathrm{Lat}(A)$ for all
$n$. Let us choose $b\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ and $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such
that $\mathrm{Ideal}(h_{4})\subseteq\mathrm{Ideal}(b_{\epsilon_{0}})$ and
$\mathrm{Ideal}(b)\subseteq\mathrm{Ideal}(h_{5})$. We have that
$h_{4}\leq\infty\cdot\widehat{b_{\epsilon_{0}}}$ and
$\widehat{b}\leq\infty\cdot h_{5}$. Therefore, there is a constant $M>0$ such
that $h_{2}\leq M\widehat{b_{\epsilon_{0}}}$ and
$\widehat{b_{\epsilon_{0}}}\leq Mh_{5}$. Let us choose $\delta$ such that
$\delta M<\mu_{3}$. Finally, using Lemma 5.6, let us find $a$ in
$(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ such that $\widehat{a}\leq h_{3}$ and
$h_{1}\leq(\delta/M)h_{3}+\widehat{a}$.
By the stability of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$, we may assume that the positive
elements $a$ and $b$ that we found in the previous paragraph are orthogonal to
each other. (If they are not, we may replace them by Murray-von Neumann
equivalent elements that are orthogonal.) Let $a_{1}=a+\delta
b_{\epsilon_{0}}$. Then
$\widehat{a}_{1}=\widehat{a}+\delta\widehat{b_{\epsilon_{0}}}\leq(1-\mu_{3}+\delta
M)h_{5}\leq h_{5}.$
Also
$\widehat{a}_{1}=\widehat{a}+\delta\widehat{b_{\epsilon_{0}}}\geq\widehat{a}+\frac{\delta}{M}h_{3}\geq
h_{1}.$
So $h_{1}\leq\widehat{a}_{1}\leq h_{5}$. In the same way we may find
$\widehat{a}_{2}$ such that $h_{5}\leq\widehat{a}_{2}\leq h_{9}$. Continuing
in this way we get the desired sequence—by Proposition 5.1 (i) and (ii) even
rapidly increasing. ∎
###### Corollary 5.8.
Every function in $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ is the supremum of
an increasing (even rapidly increasing) sequence of functions of the form
$\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_{i}\widehat{[c_{i}]}$, where
$\alpha_{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$ and $[c_{i}]\in\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ for
$i=1,\dots,n$.
###### Proof.
By (5.2)—cf. Proposition 4.2—, the function $\widehat{a}$ is the supremum of
the increasing sequence of Riemann sums
$\sum_{i=1}^{2^{n}}1/2^{n}\widehat{[(a-i/2^{n})]}$. Let $f$ be an arbitrary
function in $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. Then by Theorem 5.7
there is a rapidly increasing sequence $(\widehat{a_{i}})$, with
$a_{i}\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$, such that $f=\sup\widehat{a_{i}}$. We may
now interpolate between $\widehat{a_{i}}$ and $\widehat{a_{i+i}}$ an element
of the form $\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_{i}\widehat{[c_{i}]}$. This proves the
result. ∎
###### Corollary 5.9.
For every functional
$\Lambda\colon\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))\to[0,\infty]$ (i.e,
additive, order-preserving map, taking 0 into 0, and preserving suprema of
increasing sequences) there is $\lambda\in\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ such
that $\Lambda(f)=f(\lambda)$.
###### Proof.
Set $\Lambda(\widehat{[a]})=\lambda([a])$. Then $\Lambda(f)=f(\lambda)$ for
every $f$ of the form $\widehat{[a]}$. By the previous corollary this equality
also holds all $f\in\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. ∎
Let $\phi\colon A\to B$ be homomorphism of C*-algebras. Recall that
$\mathrm{F}(\phi)$ is a continuous linear map from
$\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(B))$ to $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$. It follows that
$f\mapsto f\circ\mathrm{F}(\phi)$ maps
$\mathrm{Lsc}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ to
$\mathrm{Lsc}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(B)))$. Moreover, in this way
$\widehat{a}$ is mapped to $\widehat{\phi(a)}$. Thus, by Theorem 5.7,
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(\phi)))(f):=f\circ\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(\phi))$
is a map from $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ to
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$.
###### Theorem 5.10.
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(\cdot)))$ is a sequentially continuous
covariant functor from the category of C*-algebras to the category
$\mathcal{C}u$.
###### Proof.
Let us first show that $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ is an ordered
semigroup in the category $\mathcal{C}u$. We have already seen that the
supremum of an increasing sequence in
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$, with respect to the pointwise order
under consideration, exists, and is equal to the pointwise supremum of the
sequence. By Theorem 5.7 every element is the supremum of a rapidly increasing
sequence (i.e., a sequence satisfying the axiom (2) of the category
$\mathcal{C}u$) of functions that also belong to
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. We clearly have the axiom (3) of the
category $\mathcal{C}u$ too, since the supremum of an increasing sequence of
functions in $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ is the pointwise
supremum of the sequence. Suppose that $f_{1}\ll g_{1}$ and $f_{2}\ll g_{2}$
in $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. Let $h_{1}$ be such that
$f_{1}\leq h_{1}\leq(1-\mu)g_{1}$, and $h_{1}$ is continuous at each point
where $g_{1}$ is finite. Suppose that $h_{2}$ is in the same relationship with
respect to $f_{2}$ and $g_{2}$. Then $f_{1}+f_{2}\leq
h_{1}+h_{2}\leq(1-\mu)(g_{1}+g_{2})$, and $h_{1}+h_{2}$ is continuous at the
points where $g_{1}+g_{2}$ is finite. Hence, $f_{1}+f_{2}\ll g_{1}+g_{2}$.
This shows that $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ is in $\mathcal{C}u$.
If $\phi\colon A\to B$ is a homomorphism of C*-algebras then
$\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(\phi))$ is continuous and linear. Keeping this in
mind, it is easy to show that $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(\phi)))$
preserves suprema of increasing sequences and the relation $\ll$.
Let $A=\varinjlim(A_{i},\phi_{i,j},i,j\in\mathbb{N})$ be a sequential
inductive limit of C*-algebras. Recall from the proof of Theorem 4.8 the two
conditions (1) and (2) that characterize inductive limits in the category
$\mathcal{C}u$. In order to show that $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$
is the inductive limit of the $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A_{i})))$s it
is enough to show that these conditions are satisfied with respect to
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ and the inductive system
$(\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A_{i}))),\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(\phi_{i,j})))$.
Let us show that the condition (1) is satisfied. It was shown in [coward-
elliott-ivanescu, Theorem 2] that
$\mathrm{Cu}(A)=\varinjlim(\mathrm{Cu}(A_{i}),\mathrm{Cu}(\phi_{i,j}),i,j\in\mathbb{N})$
in the category $\mathcal{C}u$. Thus, for every $[c]$ in $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$
there is an increasing sequence $([a_{n}])$ of elements coming from the finite
stages of the limit and with supremum $[c]$. It follows that the same is true
for every element of $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ of the form
$\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_{i}\widehat{[c_{i}]}$. Finally, since, by Corollary 5.8,
every $f\in\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ is the supremum of an
increasing—even rapidly increasing—sequence of functions of the form
$\sum_{i=1}^{m}\alpha_{i}\widehat{[c_{i}]}$, we deduce by a standard argument
that $f$ is also the supremum of an increasing sequence of elements coming
from finite stages.
Let us now show that the condition (2) of the proof of Theorem 4.8 is
satisfied. For $h\in\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A_{1})))$ let us denote
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(\phi_{1,i})))(h)$ by $h_{i}$, for
$i=2,\dots,\infty$. Let
$f^{\prime},f,g\in\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A_{1})))$ be such that
$f^{\prime}\ll f$ and $f_{\infty}\leq g_{\infty}$. Then the compact sets
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(f_{i}^{\prime})}\cap\mathrm{Set}(g_{i})^{c}$ have as
projective limit the set
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(f_{\infty}^{\prime})}\cap\mathrm{Set}(g_{\infty})^{c}$.
This last set is empty, since $f_{\infty}^{\prime}\ll g_{\infty}$. Therefore,
for some $i$ we must have
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(f_{i}^{\prime})}\subseteq\mathrm{Set}(g_{i})$, and so
$f_{i}^{\prime}\leq g_{i}$. ∎
The following lemma will be used in the next section.
###### Lemma 5.11.
If $[a]\ll[b]$ then $\widehat{[a]}\ll(1+\delta)\widehat{[b]}$ for all
$\delta>0$.
###### Proof.
By Proposition 5.1 (ii), it is sufficient to show that
$\overline{\mathrm{Set}(\widehat{[a]})}\subseteq\mathrm{Set}((1+\delta)\widehat{[b]})$.
Let $(\lambda_{i})$ be a net in $\mathrm{Set}(\widehat{[a]})$ converging to
$\lambda$. By the definition of the topology of $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$
we have $1\leq\limsup\lambda_{i}[a]\leq\lambda([b])$. So
$\lambda\in\mathrm{Set}((1+\delta)\widehat{[b]})$ for any $\delta>0$. ∎
### 5.2. The space $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{T}(A))$
Here we briefly review the properties of the space
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{T}(A))$.
If $a\in A^{+}$ then $\bar{a}(\tau)=\tau(a)$ defines a lower semicontinuous
function in $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{T}(A))$. All the propositions and lemmas that
were proved before for the ordered cone
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ have obvious counterparts for
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{T}(A))$. The proofs of these results are entirely
analogous to the ones that we have seen above. We therefore have the following
theorem:
###### Theorem 5.12.
Let $f$ be in $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{T}(A))$. Then $f$ is the supremum of an
increasing sequence $(\bar{a}_{n})$, with $a_{n}\in A^{+}$.
###### Remark 5.13.
Notice that the positive elements $a_{n}$ are now chosen in the C*-algebra $A$
and not in $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ (unlike in Theorem 5.7). The stability of
$A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ was used in the proof of Theorem 5.7 to find orthogonal
elements $a$ and $b$ that were Murray-von Neumann equivalent to two given
elements. This step is not needed in proving Theorem 5.12, since the
additivity on pairs of orthogonal elements of quasitraces is now replaced by
the full additivity of traces.
###### Remark 5.14.
As was done before for $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$, Theorem 5.12
may be used to show that $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{T}(A))$ is an ordered semigroup
in the category $\mathcal{C}u$ and $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{T}(\cdot))$ is a
continuous functor from the category of C*-algebras to the category
$\mathcal{C}u$. Theorem 5.12 is also used, and at the same time improved, in
[tracecomp, Theorem 2]. It is shown there that if $A$ is stable then
$f\in\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{T}(A))$ if and only if $f=\bar{a}$ for some $a\in
A^{+}$.
## 6\. The structure of the Cuntz semigroups of certain C*-algebras
Let us apply the results of the previous sections to study the structure of
the Cuntz semigroup, in certain well-behaved cases.
###### Proposition 6.1.
Suppose that $A$ is an AH C*-algebra with no dimension growth. Then there is a
constant $M$ such that for all $[a]$ and $[b]$ in $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ we have
$\widehat{[a]}\leq\widehat{[b]}$ if and only if $k[a]\leq(k+M)[b]$ for all
$k\in\mathbb{N}$.
###### Proof.
First suppose that $A$ is a direct sum of homogeneous algebras. For
$a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ let $\operatorname{rank}([a])$ denote the
lower semicontinuous function on the spectrum of $A$ given by
$\operatorname{rank}([a])(x):=\operatorname{rank}(a(x))$. In this case we
shall obtain the desired result as a corollary of the following theorem of
Toms (see [toms, Theorem 3.15]):
_There is a constant $K$ such that for every finite dimensional compact
Hausdorff space $X$, if $[a],[b]\in\mathrm{Cu}(C_{0}(X))$ satisfy
$\operatorname{rank}[a]+K\dim X\leq\operatorname{rank}[b]$, then
$[a]\leq[b]$._
Let us see how. Suppose that $\widehat{[a]}\leq\widehat{[b]}$. This implies
that $\operatorname{rank}[a]\leq\operatorname{rank}[b]$. So
$k\cdot\operatorname{rank}[a]+K\dim X\leq k\cdot\operatorname{rank}[b]+K\dim
X$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. We may assume without loss of generality that
$b(x)\neq 0$ for all $x$. So $\operatorname{rank}b\geq 1$ and
$k\cdot\operatorname{rank}[a]+K\dim X\leq(k+K\dim
X)\cdot\operatorname{rank}[b]$. We conclude that $k[a]\leq(k+M)[b]$ for
$M=K\dim X$ and all $k\in\mathbb{N}$.
Let $A$ be an AH algebra with no dimension growth. Suppose that
$A=\varinjlim(A_{i},\phi_{i,j},i,j\in\mathbb{N})$ where the $A_{i}$s are
homogeneous algebras with spectra of bounded dimension. Since
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(\cdot)))$ is a sequentially continuous
functor, $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ is the limit of the
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A_{i})))$s in the category $\mathcal{C}u$.
First let us suppose that $[a]$ and $[b]$ come from finite stages of the
sequence $(A_{i})$, say, $[a]=\phi_{1,\infty}([a_{1}])$ and
$[b]=\phi_{1,\infty}([b_{1}])$. Let us write $a_{n}=\phi_{1,n}(a_{1})$ and
$b_{n}=\phi_{1,n}(b_{1})$. For every $\epsilon>0$ and $k>0$ we have
$\widehat{[(a_{1}-\epsilon)_{+}]}\ll(1+1/k)\widehat{[a_{1}]}$ by Lemma 5.11.
By the condition (2) for inductive limits in the category $\mathcal{C}u$ (see
proof of Theorem 4.8), there is $n$ such that
$\widehat{[(a_{n}-\epsilon)_{+}]}\leq(1+1/k)\widehat{[b_{n}]}$. Therefore,
$k\widehat{[(a_{n}-\epsilon)_{+}]}\leq(k+1)\widehat{[b_{n}]}$. We have already
established that as this is at a finite stage of the sequence $(A_{i})$ this
implies that $k[(a_{n}-\epsilon)_{+}]\leq(k+M)[b_{n}]$, where $M$ depends only
on the bound on the dimensions of the spectra of this $A_{i}s$—and, as we may
take the best choice for different inductive limit decompositions, therefore
depends only on $A$. Recalling that $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ map into $[a]$ and
$[b]$ in $A$, we have $k[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\leq(k+M)[b]$.
Let us consider the case that $[a]$ and $[b]$ do not necessarily come from
finite stages. Let $[f_{i}]$ and $[g_{i}]$, $i=1,2,\dots$, be increasing
sequences of elements coming from finite stages and with suprema $[a]$ and
$[b]$ respectively. Since
$\widehat{[f_{i}]}\ll\widehat{[a]}\leq\widehat{[b]}$, there is $[g_{j}]$ such
that $\widehat{[f_{i}]}\leq\widehat{[g_{j}]}$. Hence as before,
$k[f_{i}]\leq(k+C)[g_{j}]\leq(k+M)[b]$. Passing to the supremum with respect
to $i$ we get that $k[a]\leq(k+M)[b]$. ∎
We now turn to the setting of arbitrary C*-algebras with almost unperforated
Cuntz semigroup. Recall from [rordam] that an ordered semigroup is said to be
almost unperforated if the inequality $(k+1)x\leq ky$ for some
$k\in\mathbb{N}$ implies that $x\leq y$.
The following proposition is an improvement of [rordam, Proposition 3.2] for
ordered semigroups in the category $\mathcal{C}u$.
###### Proposition 6.2.
Let $S$ be an ordered semigroup in the category $\mathcal{C}u$. Then $S$ is
almost unperforated if and only if the following condition is fulfilled: for
all $x$ and $y$ in $S$ with $x\leq\infty\cdot y$ and $\lambda(x)<\lambda(y)$
for any functional on $S$ such that $\lambda(y)=1$, one has $x\leq y$.
###### Proof.
Suppose that $S$ satisfies the condition of comparison of elements by
functionals described in the statement of the proposition (this condition is
often referred to as “strict comparison”). If $(k+1)x\leq ky$ then
$\lambda(x)\leq k/(k+1)<\lambda(y)$ for any $\lambda$ such that
$\lambda(y)=1$. Since $x\leq ky\leq\infty\cdot y$, we conclude that $x\leq y$,
as desired.
Suppose that $S$ is almost unperforated. Let $x,y\in S$ be such that
$x\leq\infty\cdot y$ and $\lambda(x)<\lambda(y)$ for all $\lambda$ such that
$0<\lambda(y)<\infty$. Let $z\ll x$. Then $z\leq ky$ for some $k$. We shall
prove that for every additive, order preserving, function $D$ on $S$—not
necessarily preserving suprema of increasing sequences—such that $D(y)=1$, we
have $D(z)<D(y)$. By [rordam, Proposition 3.2], this will imply that $z\leq
y$, from which the desired result will follow on taking the supremum over all
$z$ that are far below $x$.
Let $D\colon S\to[0,\infty]$ be additive, order preserving, and such that
$D(y)=1$. Set $\widetilde{D}w:=\sup\\{\,Dw^{\prime}\mid w^{\prime}\ll w\,\\}$,
for each $w\in S$. By Lemma 4.7, $\widetilde{D}$ is a functional on $S$, and
it is clear that $\widetilde{D}(y)\leq 1<\infty$.
Case 1. Suppose that $\widetilde{D}y\neq 0$. Then
$D(z)\leq\widetilde{D}(x)<\widetilde{D}(y)\leq D(y).$
Case 2. Suppose that $\widetilde{D}y=0$. Then $\widetilde{D}x=0$ (because
$x\leq\infty\cdot y$), and so
$D(z)\leq\widetilde{D}(x)=0<D(y).\qed$
###### Corollary 6.3.
Let $S$ be an almost unperforated ordered semigroup in the category
$\mathcal{C}u$. Let $x,y\in S$. Then $\lambda(x)\leq\lambda(y)$ for every
functional $\lambda$ on $S$ if and only if $kx\leq(k+1)y$ for all
$k\in\mathbb{N}$.
###### Proof.
The implication that $\lambda(x)\leq\lambda(y)$ for every functional $\lambda$
if $kx\leq(k+1)y$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$ is obvious. Let us prove the
converse.
By considering functionals with the only possible values $0$ or $\infty$ we
conclude that $x\leq\infty y$. We may now apply the previous proposition with
$kx$ and $(k+1)y$ in place of $x$ and $y$, respectively. ∎
By a theorem of Rørdam (see [rordam, Theorem 4.5]), the Cuntz semigroup of a
C*-algebra that absorbs the Jiang-Su algebra is almost unperforated. It
follows by Corollary 6.3 that if $A$ absorbs the Jiang-Su algebra then
$\widehat{[a]}\leq\widehat{[b]}$ if and only if $k[a]\leq(k+1)[b]$ for all
$k\in\mathbb{N}$. In the sequel we shall denote the Jiang-Su algebra by the
letter $Z$.
Let us now try to identify $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ with a
subsemigroup of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$. Notice that if
$f\in\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ is compact (i.e., $f\ll f$ in
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$) then $(1-\epsilon)f=f$ for some
$0\not=\epsilon\not=1$ and so $f$ takes 0 and $\infty$ as its only possible
values. This observation suggests the following definition.
Let us say that $[a]\in\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ is purely non-compact if it has the
property that if the image of $[a]$ in the quotient by some ideal $I$—let us
denote this by $[a_{I}]$—is compact (i.e., $[a_{I}]\ll[a_{I}]$), then
$[a_{I}]$ is a multiple of infinity (i.e., $2[a_{I}]=[a_{I}]$).
###### Proposition 6.4.
(i) The purely non-compact elements of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ form a subobject of
$\mathrm{Cu}(A)$, i.e., a subsemigroup closed under the passage to suprema of
increasing sequences.
(ii) If $[a]$ is purely non-compact then for all $[b]$, with $[b]\ll[a]$, and
for all $M\in\mathbb{N}$, we have $(k+M)[b]\leq k[a]$ for all sufficiently
large $k$.
(iii) If $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ is almost unperforated the converse of (ii) is true.
(iv) If $A$ is simple then every element of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ is purely non-
compact except for the element $[p]$ where $p$ is any non-zero finite
projection.
(v) If $[a]=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}[c_{i}]$ and
$\mathrm{Ideal}(c_{i})=\mathrm{Ideal}(a)$, then $[a]$ is purely non-compact.
###### Proof.
Before proving the proposition we need some preliminary formulas.
Suppose that $[a]$ is purely non-compact. Let $\epsilon>0$ and choose a
positive function $c_{\epsilon}(t)$ different from 0 precisely on the interval
$(0,\epsilon)$. Then $(a-\epsilon)_{+}$ and $c_{\epsilon}(a)$ are orthogonal
and $(a-\epsilon)_{+}+c_{\epsilon}(a)\leq C_{1}a\leq
C_{2}((a-\epsilon/2)_{+}+c_{\epsilon}(a))$ for some positive scalars $C_{1}$
and $C_{2}$. Hence,
(6.1)
$[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]+[c_{\epsilon}(a)]\leq[a]\leq[(a-\epsilon/2)_{+}]+[c_{\epsilon}(a)].$
These inequalities imply that $[a]$ is compact after passing to the quotient
by the ideal $\mathrm{Ideal}(c_{\epsilon}(a))$. Let us call this ideal $I$ and
let us denote with the subscript $I$ the images of elements of $A$ in $A/I$.
We have that $2[a_{I}]=[((a-\epsilon)_{+})_{I}]$. By [crs, Theorem 1], this
means that $2[a]\leq[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]+[g]$ for some $[g]$ such that
$\mathrm{Ideal}(g)=I$. Since $[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\ll[a]$ and $[g]$ is the
supremum of an increasing sequence $[g_{i}]$ with $[g_{i}]\ll[g]$, so that
also $2[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\ll
2[a]\leq[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]+[g]=\sup_{i}([(a-\epsilon)_{+}]+[g_{i}])$, there is
$[g^{\prime}]\ll[g]$ such that
$2[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\leq[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]+[g^{\prime}]$. Since
$[g^{\prime}]\ll\infty[c_{\epsilon}(a)]$, there is $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that
$[g^{\prime}]\leq k[c_{\epsilon}(a)]$. Thus,
(6.2) $2[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\leq[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]+k[c_{\epsilon}(a)]$
for sufficiently large $k$.
(i) Suppose that $[a_{i}]$ is an increasing sequence of purely non-compact
elements with supremum $[a]$, and that $[a]$ is compact in $\mathrm{Cu}(A/I)$
for some ideal $I$. Without loss of generality, in order to prove that
$[a_{I}]$ is a multiple of infinity, we may assume that $I=0$. Thus, $[a]$ is
compact, and so $[a]=[a_{i_{0}}]$ for some $i_{0}$. Since $[a_{i_{0}}]$ is
purely non-compact, $[a_{i_{0}}]$ is a multiple of infinity, and therefore so
also is $[a]$, as desired.
Let $[a]$ and $[b]$ be purely non-compact and suppose that $[a]+[b]$ is
compact in $\mathrm{Cu}(A/I)$ for some ideal $I$. Again we may assume that
$I=0$. Thus, $[a]+[b]$ is compact, and so
$[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]+[(b-\epsilon)_{+}]+[c_{\epsilon}(a)]+[c_{\epsilon}(b)]\leq[a]+[b]=[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]+[(b-\epsilon)_{+}]$
for some $\epsilon$. Let $k$ be such that (6.2) holds both for $[a]$ and for
$[b]$. Then we have
$[a]+[b]=[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]+[(b-\epsilon)_{+}]+k([c_{\epsilon}(a)]+[c_{\epsilon}(b)])\geq
2([a]+[b]).$
Therefore, $[a]+[b]$ is a multiple of infinity, as desired.
(ii) It is enough to assume that $[b]=[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]$. From (6.2) we get
by induction that for every $M\in\mathbb{N}$ we have
$M[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\leq[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]+k[c_{\epsilon}(a)]$ for
sufficiently large $k$. On the other hand we deduce from (6.1) that
$k[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]+k[c_{\epsilon}(a)]\leq k[a]$. Combining these two
equations we get the desired result.
(iii) Suppose that $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ is almost unperforated and let $[a]$ be
such that for every $\epsilon>0$ we have $k[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\leq(k+1)[a]$ for
$k$ large enough. Suppose that $[a]$ is compact. Then for some $\epsilon>0$ we
have $[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]=[a]$. So $(k+1)[a]=k[a]$, and this implies that
$2(k+1)[a]=k[a]$. Since $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ is almost unperforated it follows
that $2[a]=[a]$. The same implication holds in any quotient of $A$.
(iv) Suppose that $A$ is simple. Then for any
$0\not=a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ the element $\infty\cdot[a]$ of
$\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ is the same, and is the largest element of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$.
(In general, the Cuntz semigroup may not have a largest element.)
Fix a $\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$. The element $[a]$ of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ is
purely non-compact unless $[a]$ is compact and not equal either to 0 or to the
largest element of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$. Suppose that the latter is true, i.e.,
that $[a]$ is compact and different from both zero and the largest element of
$\mathrm{Cu}(A)$. For some $\epsilon>0$ we have $[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]=[a]$. By
(6.1) we have $[a]+[c_{\epsilon}(a)]=[a]$. If $c_{\epsilon}(a)$ were non-zero
then, again as $A$ is simple, $\infty\cdot[c_{\epsilon}(a)]$ would be the
largest element of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$, and hence $[a]$ would be the largest
element of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$. Therefore, $c_{\epsilon}(a)=0$, and so $[a]=[p]$
for some non-zero projection $p$. The projection $p$ must be finite, as
otherwise $[p]$ would be the largest element of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$.
(v) Suppose that $[a]$ is compact. Then $[a]=[s]+[r]=[s]$ for some
$[r],[s]\in\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ such that
$\mathrm{Ideal}(r)=\mathrm{Ideal}(s)=\mathrm{Ideal}(a)$ ($[s]$ may be chosen
as a partial sum in the given representation of $[a]$ as an infinite series
and $[r]$ as the remainder term). Since $\mathrm{Ideal}(r)=\mathrm{Ideal}(a)$
we have $[a]\leq\infty[r]$. Since $[a]$ is compact we therefore have $[a]\leq
k[r]$ for some $k\in\mathbb{N}$. We now have $[a]=[s]+k[r]\geq 2[a]$. The same
implication holds in any quotient of $A$. ∎
###### Lemma 6.5.
If $A$ absorbs the Jiang-Su algebra then for every
$a\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ there is $[c]\in\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ such that
$\widehat{a}=\widehat{[c]}$. One can always choose $[c]$ to be purely non-
compact.
###### Proof.
First let us prove that if the existence of $[c]$ is guaranteed (in general),
then we can always choose it so that it is purely non-compact. Let $[c_{i}]$,
$i=1,2,\dots$, be such that $\widehat{a}/2^{i}=\widehat{[c_{i}]}$ for all $i$.
Then $[c]=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}[c_{i}]$ is purely non-compact by Proposition 6.4
(v), and $\widehat{[c]}=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\widehat{[c_{i}]}=\widehat{a}$.
Let us now prove that $[c]$ exists with $\widehat{[c]}=\widehat{a}$. Every
positive element of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}\otimes Z$ is approximately unitarily
equivalent to one of the form $b\otimes 1$ with
$b\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$ (see the proof of [brown-perera-toms, Theorem
5.5]). Therefore, we may assume that the given positive element $a$ has the
form $b\otimes 1\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})\otimes Z$. Recall that
$\widehat{(b\otimes 1)}(\lambda)=\int_{0}^{\infty}\lambda([(b-t)_{+}\otimes
1])\,dt.$
Since $t\mapsto\lambda([(b-t)_{+}])$ is a decreasing function of $t$, the
Riemann sums
$\sum_{i=1}^{2^{n}}\frac{1}{2^{n}}\lambda([(b-\frac{i}{2^{n}})_{+}\otimes 1])$
converge to the integral. Choose a positive element $e_{1/2^{n}}$ of the
Jiang-Su algebra with rank $1/2^{n}$. (That such an element exists follows,
for instance, by the computation of the Cuntz semigroup of the Jiang-Su
algebra obtained in [brown-perera-toms].) Then the Riemann sum above is equal
to
$\lambda\left(\sum_{i=1}^{2^{n}}[(b-\frac{i}{2^{n}})_{+}\otimes
e_{1/2^{n}}]\right).$
Let us show that the Cuntz semigroup elements
(6.3) $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{2^{n}}[(b-\frac{i}{2^{n}})_{+}\otimes
e_{1/2^{n}}]$
form an increasing sequence. Comparing two consecutive terms of this sequence
we see that it is enough to show that $[(b-i/2^{n})_{+}\otimes
e_{1/2^{n}}]=2[(b-i/2^{n})_{+}\otimes e_{1/2^{n+1}}]$. This is true, since
$[e_{1/2^{n}}]=2[e_{1/2^{n+1}}]$, as follows from the computation of
$\mathrm{Cu}(Z)$ in [brown-perera-toms]. We have $\widehat{b\otimes
1}=\widehat{[c]}$, with $[c]$ the supremum of the sequence (6.3). ∎
###### Theorem 6.6.
Let $A$ be a C*-algebra. Suppose that $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ is almost unperforated.
If $[a]$ and $[b]$ are in $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ and $[a]$ is purely non-compact,
then $[a]\leq[b]$ if and only if $\widehat{[a]}\leq\widehat{[b]}$.
Suppose further that $A$ absorbs the Jiang-Su algebra. Then the map
$[a]\mapsto\widehat{[a]}$ is an isomorphism of the ordered semigroups of
purely non-compact elements of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ and of
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$.
###### Proof.
Suppose that $[a]$ is purely non-compact, $[b]\in\mathrm{Cu}(A)$, and
$\widehat{[a]}\leq\widehat{[b]}$. By Corollary 6.3, for every $k\in\mathbb{N}$
we have $k[a]\leq(k+1)[b]$. On the other hand, by Proposition 6.4 (ii), for
every $\epsilon>0$ there exists $k$ such that $(k+2)[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\leq
k[a]\leq(k+1)[b]$. Since $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ is almost unperforated, it follows
that $[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]\leq[b]$ for all $\epsilon>0$. Hence, $[a]\leq[b]$.
Let us now prove that the map $[a]\mapsto\widehat{[a]}$ is a surjection from
the purely non-compact elements to $\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$.
Let $f\in\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. By Theorem 5.7 there exists
an increasing sequence $(\widehat{a_{i}})$ with supremum $f$, where
$a_{i}\in(A\otimes\mathcal{K})^{+}$. By Lemma 6.5, for each $i=1,2,\dots$
there exists a purely non-compact element $[c_{i}]\in\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ such that
$\widehat{a_{i}}=\widehat{[c_{i}]}$. We have
$\widehat{[c_{i}]}\leq\widehat{[c_{i+1}]}$, and so as shown above
$[c_{i}]\leq[c_{i+1}]$; that is, $[c_{i}]$, $i=1,\dots$, is an increasing
sequence. Set $\sup[c_{i}]=[c]$. Since the map $[a]\mapsto\widehat{[a]}$
preserves suprema of increasing sequences, we have $f=\widehat{[c]}$. In order
to ensure that $[c]$ is purely non-compact let us choose $[c_{i}^{\prime}]$
such that $1/2^{i}f=\widehat{[c_{i}^{\prime}]}$ for all $i=1,2,\dots$. Then
$[c^{\prime}]=\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}[c_{i}^{\prime}]$ is purely non-compact by
Proposition 6.4 (i), and $f=\widehat{[c^{\prime}]}$. ∎
###### Corollary 6.7.
Let $A$ be a C*-algebra that absorbs the Jiang-Su algebra. If $A$ has no non-
zero simple subquotients then
$\mathrm{Cu}(A)\cong\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. (Here by $\cong$
is meant a natural isomorphism of functors into the category $\mathcal{C}u$.)
###### Proof.
If $A$ has no non-zero simple subquotients then no non-zero element of
$\mathrm{Cu}(A)$, or of $\mathrm{Cu}(A/I)$ for an ideal $I$, is compact (and
in particular, every element of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ is purely non-compact, as
desired). For if $[a]$ is compact and non-zero then $[a]=[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]$
for some $\epsilon>0$, whence
$\mathrm{Ideal}(a)=\mathrm{Ideal}((a-\epsilon)_{+})$. It follows, for instance
from Lemma 2.2, that $\mathrm{Ideal}(a)$ is a compact ideal of $A$ (a compact
element of $\mathrm{Lat}(A)$). (Here we do not mean only countable
compactness; however, that would be sufficient for our purposes since
$\mathrm{Ideal}(a)$ is singly generated.) Hence, $\mathrm{Ideal}(a)/J$ is
simple for any maximal proper ideal $J$ of $\mathrm{Ideal}(a)$ ($J$ exists, by
Zorn’s Lemma, since $\mathrm{Ideal}(a)$ is compact and non-zero). ∎
As another corollary of Theorem 6.6, let us give a computation of the Cuntz
semigroup of a simple C*-algebra absorbing the Jiang-Su algebra (this
computation was previously obtained in [brown-perera-toms] with the additional
assumptions that the algebra was unital, exact, and of stable rank one). Let
$A$ be a simple C*-algebra absorbing the Jiang-Su algebra. Let $\mathrm{V}(A)$
denote the semigroup of Murray-von Neumann equivalence classes of projections
of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$. Let us define on the abstract disjoint union
$(\mathrm{V}(A)\backslash\\{0\\})\sqcup\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$
an order and an addition operation, making it what might be called the
lexicographic ordered semigroup disjoint union. Inside the two subsets
$(\mathrm{V}(A)\backslash\\{0\\})$ and
$\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ let us retain the order and addition
with which these sets are endowed. Let $[p]\in\mathrm{V}(A)\backslash\\{0\\}$
and $f\in\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. Let us define
$f+[p]\in\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$ as the function
$f+\widehat{[p]}$ if $f\not=0$, and as the class $[p]$ if $f=0$. Let us say
that $f\leq[p]$ if $f\leq\widehat{[p]}$, and that $[p]\leq f$ if
$\widehat{[p]}+g=f$ for some $0\not=g\in L(F(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$. It is not
difficult to verify that
$(\mathrm{V}(A)\backslash\\{0\\})\sqcup\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$
is an object in $\mathcal{C}u$.
###### Corollary 6.8.
Let $A$ be a simple C*-algebra absorbing the Jiang-Su algebra. Then either $A$
is purely infinite and $\mathrm{Cu}(A)\cong\\{0,\infty\\}$, or every
projection in $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ is finite and
$\mathrm{Cu}(A)\cong(\mathrm{V}(A)\backslash\\{0\\})\sqcup\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$.
(Here by $\cong$ is meant a natural isomorphism of functors into the category
$\mathcal{C}u$.)
###### Proof.
If $\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))\cong\\{0,\infty\\}$ then by Proposition 6.2,
$\mathrm{Cu}(A)\cong\\{0,\infty\\}$, in other words, $A$ is purely infinite
(this is also obtained in [rordam, Corollary 5.1]). If, on the other hand,
$\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$ contains a non-trivial functional, i.e., a
functional with a non-zero finite value, then every projection in
$A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ must be finite. Indeed, if $\lambda$ is a non-trivial
functional, and $p$ is a projection in $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$, then, by
[coward-elliott-ivanescu], the class $[p]$ is compact in $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$, and
so by simplicity is majorized by a finite multiple of any non-zero element,
and hence is finite on $\lambda$. Again by simplicity, Ker $\lambda=0$, and it
follows that if $[p]+[a]=[p]$ in $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ then $[a]=0$, and in
particular the projection $p$ is finite.
Suppose that every projection of $A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ is finite. By
Proposition 6.4 (iv), the complement of the set of purely non-compact elements
of $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$, in the case of a simple C*-algebra, is the set of
elements $[p]$ such that $p$ is a non-zero finite projection. It is easy to
show (and well known) that among finite projections Cuntz equivalence amounts
to Murray-von Neumann equivalence. Therefore, by Theorem 6.6, the map from
$\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ to
$(\mathrm{V}(A)\backslash\\{0\\})\sqcup\mathrm{L}(\mathrm{F}(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$
given by $[p]\mapsto[p]$ if $p$ is a projection, and $[a]\mapsto\widehat{[a]}$
if $[a]$ is purely non-compact, is a bijection.
To prove that that this (natural) map is an isomorphism of ordered semigroups,
let $0\not=p\in A\otimes\mathcal{K}$ be a projection and let
$0\not=a\in(A\times\mathcal{K})^{+}$ be such that $[a]$ is purely non-compact
in $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$. The sum $[p]+[a]$ in $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ is then also purely
non-compact. (By 6.4 (iv) it is enough to show that $[p]+[a]$ is not the class
of a non-zero finite projection, if $[a]$ itself is not the class of a non-
zero finite projection. We may assume that $pa=0$. If $[p]+[a]=[p+a]$ is the
class of a non-zero finite projection, say $q$, then, by the formulation of
Cuntz equivalence given in [coward-elliott-ivanescu], and since, also by
[coward-elliott-ivanescu], $[q]$ is compact, and
$\sup_{\epsilon>0}[(a-\epsilon)_{+}]=[a]$, whence
$\sup_{\epsilon>0}[p+(a-\epsilon)_{+}]=[p+a]$, the Hilbert $A$-module $qA$ is
(by compactness) isomorphic to a sub Hilbert module $X$ of
$((p+(a-\epsilon)_{+})A)^{-}$ for some $\epsilon>0$, and (for any
$\epsilon>0$) $((p+(a-\epsilon)_{+})A)^{-}$ is isomorphic to a sub Hilbert
module $Y$ of $qA$. Hence, if $X^{\prime}$ denotes the isomorphic copy of $X$
contained in $((p+(a-\epsilon)_{+})A)^{-}$, and $X^{\prime\prime}$ and
$Y^{\prime}$ the resulting isomorphic images of $X^{\prime}$ and $Y$ in $qA$,
so that $X^{\prime\prime}\subseteq Y^{\prime}\subseteq qA$ and
$X^{\prime\prime}$ is isomorphic to $qA$, by finiteness of $q$ it follows that
$X^{\prime\prime}=qA$—so that in particular $Y=qA$, and so
$((p+(a-\epsilon)_{+})A)^{-}=q^{\prime}A$ for some projection
$q^{\prime}=q^{\prime}_{\epsilon}$. Then necessarily
$p+(a-\epsilon)_{+}=q^{\prime}$, i.e., $(a-\epsilon)_{+}$ is a projection
(namely, $q^{\prime}-p$). Since $\epsilon>0$ may be arbitrarily small, it
follows that $a$ itself is a projection, equal to $(a-\epsilon)_{+}$ for some
$\epsilon>0$, and therefore $\leq q^{\prime}_{\epsilon}$ for that $\epsilon$;
and therefore finite. By hypothesis, $[a]\not=0$; we have therefore proved the
contrapositive.)
It follows that the image of $[p]+[a]$ in the disjoint union is
$([p]+[a])^{\wedge}$. On the other hand, the image of $[p]$ is $[p]$ and the
image of $[a]$ is $\widehat{[a]}$, and the sum of $[p]$ and $\widehat{[a]}$ in
the (lexicographic) disjoint union is by definition
$\widehat{[p]}+\widehat{[a]}$, which is equal to $([p]+[a])^{\wedge}$. The one
case remaining in which to check additivity, that the first element is $[p]$
and the second is the purely non-compact element $0\in\mathrm{Cu}A$, is
trivial: the sum of these elements is $[p]$, and the sum of the images,
$\widehat{[p]}$ and $0$, is $\widehat{[p]}$, the image of the sum.
It remains to verify that the relation $[a]\leq[p]$ or $[p]\leq[a]$ in
$\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ implies the relation $\widehat{[a]}\leq[p]$ or
$[p]\leq\widehat{[a]}$ for the images in the disjoint union, and conversely
(with $p$ and $a$ still as above). If $[a]\leq[p]$ in $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ then
$\widehat{[a]}\leq\widehat{[p]}$ in $L(F(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$, which is just the
definition of $\widehat{[a]}\leq[p]$ in the disjoint union. Conversely, if
$\widehat{[a]}\leq[p]$ in the disjoint union, i.e., if
$\widehat{[a]}\leq\widehat{[p]}$ in $L(F(\mathrm{Cu}(A))$, then, as $a$ is
purely non-compact, by Theorem 6.6, $[a]\leq[p]$.
If $[p]\leq[a]$ in $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$, then the compact Hilbert module $pA$ is
isomorphic (by [coward-elliott-ivanescu]) to a sub Hilbert module of
$(aA)^{-}$, necessarily complemented: $(aA)^{-}\cong pA\oplus(bA)^{-}$ (with,
e.g., $b=(1-p)a)$. Since $a$ is non-zero and purely non-compact, $b\not=0$.
Hence, $\widehat{[a]}=\widehat{[p]}+g$ with $0\not=g=\widehat{\,[b]\,}\in
L(F(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$, i.e., $[p]\leq\widehat{[a]}$ in the disjoint union.
Conversely, if $\widehat{[a]}=\widehat{[p]}+g$ with $0\not=g\in
L(F(\mathrm{Cu}(A)))$, then by Theorem 6.6 there exists a purely non-compact
element $0\not=[b]\in\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ such that $\widehat{\,[b]\,}=g$. Then, as
shown above, also $[p]+[b]$ is purely non-compact, and since
$\widehat{[a]}=\widehat{[p]}+{\widehat{\,[b]\,}}=([p]+[b])^{\wedge}$, and also
$[a]$ is non-compact, by Theorem 6.6, $[a]=[p]+[q]$, and in particular
$[p]\leq[a]$ in $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$. ∎
###### Remark 6.9.
Certain C*-algebras with no non-zero simple subquotients were considered by
the second author in [robert]—these were closed two-sided ideals of AI
algebras—and were classified by means of tracial data. (The techniques of
[robert] apply in fact to arbitrary ideals of AI algebras with no non-zero
simple subquotients—equivalently, with the K1-group of every ideal equal to
zero.) For these algebras, the results of [robert] may therefore be viewed as
a determination of the Cuntz semigroup in terms of tracial data, although the
way this ordered semigroup is determined is only implicit. Note that, in
[ciuperca-elliott], the Cuntz semigroup, together with the special element
consisting of the class of the strictly positive elements, was shown to be a
complete invariant for arbitrary AI algebras, or ideals of AI algebras. The
results of [robert] could be deduced from this together with Corollary 6.7.
The problem of describing the Cuntz semigroup in terms of K-theoretical and
tracial data in this more general setting would seem to be very interesting.
## References
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-20T17:24:37 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.849411 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "George A. Elliott, Leonel Robert, Luis Santiago",
"submitter": "Leonel Robert",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3122"
} |
0805.3222 | # CIRCUMSTELLAR Na I AND Ca II LINES IN TYPE IIP SUPERNOVAE AND SN 1998S
N. N. Chugai Institute of Astronomy, RAS, Pyatnitskaya 48, 119017 Moscow,
Russia nchugai@inasan.ru V. P. Utrobin Institute of Theoretical and
Experimental Physics, Moscow 117218, B. Cheremushkinskaya St. 25
utrobin@itep.ru
###### Abstract
We study a possibility of detection of circumstellar absorption lines of Na I
D1,2 and Ca II H,K in spectra of type IIP supernovae at the photospheric
epoch. The modelling shows that the circumstellar lines of Na I doublet will
not be seen in type IIP supernovae for moderate wind density, e.g.,
characteristic of SN 1999em, whereas rather pronounced Ca II lines with P
Cygni profile should be detectable. A similar model is used to describe Na I
and Ca II circumstellar lines seen in SN 1998S, type IIL with a dense wind. We
show that line intensities in this supernova are reproduced, if one assumes an
ultraviolet excess, which is caused primarily by the comptonization of
supernova radiation in the shock wave.
## 1 Introduction
Type IIP supernovae (SN IIP) presumably originate from stars with initial
masses in the range of $9-25~{}M_{\odot}$ (Heger et al. 2003). Prior to the
explosion a pre-SN IIP is usually a red supergiant (RSG) (Grasberg et al.
1971) that presumably loses matter in a form of a slow dense wind. It would be
reasonable to assume that the mass loss rate should correspond to RSG with the
initial mass characteristic of SN IIP, i.e., $\sim(1-10)\times
10^{-6}~{}M_{\odot}$ yr-1 (Chevalier et al. 2006). However, it is not yet
clear that this is always the case. There is an opinion that massive RSG
($10-20~{}M_{\odot}$) during the last $10^{4}$ yr before the gravitational
collapse of iron core could lose matter in the form of superwind with the rate
of $\sim 10^{-4}~{}M_{\odot}$ yr-1 owing to pulsation instability (Heger et
al. 1997). On the other hand, for type IIP SN 1999em with the known mass of
pre-SN of $\approx 20~{}M_{\odot}$ the mass loss rate is $\dot{M}\sim
10^{-6}~{}M_{\odot}$ yr-1 (Chugai et al. 2007), which is lower than not only
the pulsation mass loss rate but also the value of $\sim 8\times
10^{-6}~{}M_{\odot}$ yr-1, predicted by the phenomenological relation of
Nieuwenhuijsen and de Jager (1990) for a RSG with the same main sequence mass.
This disparity emphasises the significant uncertainty in the problem of the
mass loss by pre-SN IIP. To compose a more clear picture one needs to obtain
sufficiently large sample of SN IIP with the estimated density of the
circumstellar (CS) gas.
At present the mass loss rate by pre-SN IIP is estimated from radio and X-ray
emission originated from a shock interaction between supernova ejecta and the
wind (Chevalier 1982; Pooley et al. 2002), perhaps, with the more reliable
estimates based on X-ray data. For SN 1999em, SN 1999gi, SN 2004dj, and SN
2004et mass loss rates recovered from X-ray data are confined in the range of
$(1-2.5)\times 10^{-6}~{}M_{\odot}$ yr-1 (Chevalier et al. 2006; Rho et al.
2007), whereas for SN 2006bp the value of $\sim 10^{-5}~{}M_{\odot}$ yr-1 is
obtained (Immler et al. 2007). Recently another method based on the high
velocity components of H$\alpha$ and He I 10830 Å lines is proposed which in
case of SN 1999em results in the estimate of $\approx 10^{-6}~{}M_{\odot}$
yr-1 (Chugai et al. 2007).
Here we investigate a more direct diagnostic tool for estimating the wind
density based on the observation of CS absorption lines of Na I D1,2 and Ca II
H,K against the luminous supernova photosphere. Up to now these lines have
been confidently detected only in type IIL SN 1998S (Bowen et al. 2000). A
search for these lines in SN IIP has not yet been performed, although at
present the search for CS lines in SN Ia is actively carrying out (Patat et
al. 2007a; Patat et al. 2007b). In the case of SN 1998S the wind density
according to high X-ray and radio luminosity is large and corresponds to the
mass loss rate of $\sim 2\times 10^{-4}~{}M_{\odot}$ yr-1 (Pooley et al.
2002). By this reason it is not yet clear whether Na I and Ca II lines could
be observed in SN IIP in which case the mass loss rate is significantly lower
than in SN 1998S.
In the present paper we study the formation of Na I and Ca II lines in the RSG
wind after the SN IIP explosion and the use of these lines for the diagnostics
of the wind density. We start with the description of the model (section 2),
compute the ionization of Na I and Ca II in the wind before and after the
explosion, and then present model profiles of CS lines of Na I 5890 Å and Ca
II 3934 Å for typical wind densities (section 3). We then apply our model to
the explanation of circumstellar lines of Na I 5890 Å and Ca II 3934 Å in SN
1998S and discuss conditions for which these lines have the observed
intensities (section 4). In conclusion we consider the possibility of
detection of CS lines and discuss factors that might lead to the deviations of
line intensities from model results.
## 2 Model
We consider below a spherically-symmetric stationary wind with the density
$\rho=w/(4\pi r^{2})$ and velocity $u$, in which SN IIP explodes. It is
convenient to deal with the dimensionless parameter $\omega$ defined by the
relation $w=6.3\times 10^{13}\omega$ g cm-1; the values $\omega=1$ corresponds
to the mass loss rate of $10^{-6}(u/10\,\mbox{km s}^{-1})~{}M_{\odot}$ yr-1.
Before the supernova explosion the wind hydrogen is neutral, whereas Na and Ca
could be singly ionized by the RSG radiation. The major ionizing factor is the
chromospheric radiation of RSG.
A general idea about the intensity of the chromospheric radiation of pre-SN
provides the galactic RSG $\alpha$ Ori (Betelgeuse). According to the data
obtained with IUE (Rinehart et al. 2000), the fluxes in 1250-1750 Å and
1900-3200 Å bands are $(4-6)\times 10^{-11}$ and $(2-3)\times 10^{-9}$ erg
cm-2 s-1, respectively. For the power law approximation
$f_{\lambda}\sim\lambda^{q}$ these fluxes are reproduced with $q=5$. The
absolute monochromatic luminosity is determined adopting the standard distance
of 131 pc for $\alpha$ Ori. To calculate ionization of metals in the pre-SN
wind, we solve numerically a time-dependent ionization balance taking into
account the wind expansion with the velocity $u=15$ km s-1 assuming the same
ultraviolet luminosity as for Betelgeuse. Metals Mg, Si, and Fe, dominating in
the electron number density, are treated as a single element with the relative
abundance of $10^{-4}$ with respect to the hydrogen and with the ionization
potential of 7.9 eV. Time dependent ionization is solved on the time interval
of $10^{5}$ yr. The wind temperature is assumed to be equal to the local
radiation temperature $T=T_{\rm s}W^{0.25}$, where $W$ is the dilution factor,
while $T_{\rm s}=3900$ K is the effective temperature of the RSG, which
corresponds to the luminosity of $10^{5}~{}L_{\odot}$ and the radius of
$700~{}R_{\odot}$.
The calculated ionization fractions of Na I and Ca II in the pre-SN wind are
used then as initial conditions for the calculations of the time-dependent
ionization of these ions after the supernova explosion (cf. Chugai 2008). The
high initial supernova luminosity with the temperature $\geq 10^{5}$ K results
in the strong ionization of hydrogen in the wind, which then has not enough
time to recombine during the considered period of 50 days. We therefore adopt
the complete ionization of wind hydrogen. The metal ionization is calculated
with the fixed wind electron temperature of $3\times 10^{4}$ K, the log-
average between extreme values of $10^{4}$ K and $10^{5}$ K (Lundqvist and
Fransson 1988). The supernova bolometric luminosity and the velocity at the
photosphere are adopted to be equal to those of SN 1999em (Utrobin 2007). To
describe ultraviolet spectrum, we introduce a reduction factor for the black
body radiation; this factor depends on the wavelength and time according to
the evolution of the ultraviolet spectrum of SN 1987A (Pun et al. 1995).
To compute line profiles, we consider the wind outside the shock wave, which
coincides with the contact surface at the boundary between the supernova
ejecta and the wind in the thin shell model (Chevalier 1982). The evolution of
the radius of this shell is calculated numerically assuming the ejecta mass of
$18~{}M_{\odot}$ and the kinetic energy of $1.3\times 10^{51}$ erg, close to
the parameters of SN 1999em (Utrobin 2007). The density distribution of the
supernova envelope is set as a combination of internal plateau for $v<v_{0}$,
external power law drop $\rho\propto v^{-9}$, and outer cutoff at $v=v_{\rm
b}$. This cutoff is related with the shock wave breakout and the transition
from adiabatic to radiative regime (Grasberg et al. 1971). The adopted
boundary velocity is $v_{\rm b}=15000$ km s-1 in accordance with radial
velocities in the blue wing of H$\alpha$ absorption in early spectra of normal
SN IIP, e.g., SN 1999em (Leonard et al. 2002a) and SN 1999gi (Leonard et al.
2002b). Note, the adopted boundary velocity is qualitatively consistent with
the hydrodynamic modelling of SN 1999em which gives the value $v_{\rm
b}=13400$ km s-1 (Utrobin 2007).
## 3 Results
According to our model calculations the metals in the pre-SN wind turn out
strongly ionized within considered zone $r<10^{18}$ cm. Fractions ($y$) of Na
I/Na and Ca II/Ca as a function of radius are shown in Fig. 1a for the wind
density parameter $\omega=1$ and 10. In the internal wind zone $r<10^{16}$ cm
one gets $y(\mbox{Na\,I})\sim 10^{-3}-5\times 10^{-2}$ and
$y(\mbox{Ca\,II})\sim 0.1-1$; at the larger distance the value
$y(\mbox{Ca\,II})$ is lower by an order of magnitude. The supernova explosion
results in the significant enhancement of the metal ionization. The
distribution of the relative concentrations of Na I/Na and Ca II/Ca in the
wind on day 50 after the explosion is presented in Fig. 1b for the same
density parameter values $\omega=1$ and 10. The Na I ionization is strong
everywhere, while Ca II is strongly ionized only in the outer zone where
recombination is suppressed because of the low density.
At first glance the setting of the wind conditions for a single moment is
nonsense, because this does not take into account light travel effect. In
fact, however, the photon absorption is determined by the age of supernova
$t_{1}$, when the photons were emitted by the photosphere. Indeed, at the
moment $t_{1}+r/c$, when photon packet attains the point $r$, where they can
be absorbed, the state of the wind is determined by the radiation emitted in
the interval $0<t<t_{1}$ independent of the $r$ value. Moreover, for the
observer at the distance $D$ the moment of detection of this photon packet,
$t_{0}=t_{1}+r/c+(D-r)/c-D/c=t_{1}$, coincides with the supernova age $t_{1}$.
To summarize, when only absorption is considered the light travel effects do
not present explicitly. This statement is true with the accuracy of $u/c\ll
1$, where $u$ is the wind velocity. For photons scattered at the radius $r$ by
angle $\theta$ towards the observer the detection moment
$t_{0}=t_{1}+r(1-\cos\,\theta)/c>t_{1}$ is larger than the supernova age,
i.e., the light travel effects should be taken into account in this case (see
below).
The wind optical depth $\tau$ in Na I 5890 Å and Ca II 3934 Å lines outside
the shock wave on days 15 and 50 is given in Fig. 2 for the same wind density
and temperature as above and the turbulent velocity of 2 km s-1.
Interestingly, the optical depth of Ca II 3934 Å is contributed primarily by
the inner region $r<6\times 10^{15}$ cm, while the Na I 5890 Å line by the
region around $r\sim 10^{16}$ cm. In both lines $\tau$ grows with time. Note,
the optical depth of the Na I 5890 Å line for the wind density $\omega=1$,
characteristic of SN 1999em, is small even on day 50 ($\tau\sim 0.05$),
whereas the optical depth in the Ca II 3934 Å line is large not only on day 50
but on day 15 as well. Only for very dense wind $\omega\approx 10$ the optical
depth in the Na I 5890 Å line is large ($\tau>1$) at the late photospheric
phase ($t\sim 50$ d).
The obtained distributions of number density of Ca II and Na I in the wind
permit us to compute line profiles of CS lines via direct integration of the
equation of radiation transfer. The source function is determined in the
escape probability approximation assuming complete frequency redistribution
$S=\frac{\beta WI_{\rm c}}{\beta+(1-\beta)\epsilon}\,,$ (1)
where $W$ is the dilution factor, $I_{\rm c}$ is the photosphere brightness,
$\beta$ is the Sobolev escape probability, $\epsilon$ is the photon
destruction probability. In the resonance Na I line the scattering is
conservative ($\epsilon=0$), while in the Ca II 3934 Å line we take into
account photon destruction due to the fluorescence in the infrared triplet
lines ($\epsilon=0.068$). Light travel effects in the profile computations are
taken into account approximately by discarding the region for which the light
delay is greater than the supernova age. The occultation by the photosphere
and the resonance scattering by Na I and Ca II in the supernova atmosphere are
taken into account. To this end we assume that the inner scattering zone of
the supernova envelope is bounded by the velocity of 0.8 of the maximal
velocity. The wind velocity is set to be 15 km s-1, the value found for
Betelgeuse (Huggins et al. 1994). The turbulent velocity is set to be 2 km
s-1. This value is based on the turbulent velocity in the wind of Betelgeuse
$v_{\rm t}\approx 1$ km s-1 and on the estimate of the velocity dispersion due
to the radiative acceleration after the supernova explosion
$u=\frac{k_{\rm T}E_{\rm r}}{4\pi r^{2}c}=0.9E_{\rm
r,49}r_{16}^{-2}\;\;\mbox{km s${}^{-1}$}\,,$ (2)
where $k_{\rm T}=0.34$ cm2 g-1 is the Thomson opacity, $E_{\rm r}$ is the
radiated energy, $r$ is the radius; numerical indices indicate units in
$10^{49}$ erg and $10^{16}$ cm, respectively. This relation shows that in the
region $r\sim(0.4-1)\times 10^{16}$ cm, which contributes mostly to the
optical depth of Ca II line (Fig. 2), one obtains for $E_{\rm r,49}\approx
0.5$ at about day 40 the velocity dispersion of $\approx 1-2$ km s-1, so that
the total dispersion in the wind is about 2 km s-1. The Doppler width is
calculated in a standard way using turbulent and thermal velocity.
The calculated line profiles of Na I 5890 Å and Ca II 3934 Å on days 15 and 50
for $\omega=1$ and 10 are plotted in Fig. 3. The profiles are convolved with
the Gaussian instrumental profile FWHM=10 km s-1 to mimic the typical spectral
resolution. Calculated line profiles have strong emission component, which is
consistent with its formation in the inner wind zone in which light travel
effects are not pronounced. Note, the emission component may serve as a
signature that the line forms in the wind, not in the interstellar medium. It
should be emphasized that Ca II line is strong on days 15 and 50 even for
moderate density ($\omega=1$) whereas the Na I 5890 Å line gets noticeable
only for rather dense wind $\omega\approx 10$ and on the late stage $t\sim 50$
d. Equivalent width of the Ca II 3934 Å absorption grows with $\omega$
approximately as
$W_{\lambda}\approx 0.13(1+0.385\lg\,\omega)\,\mbox{\AA}.$ (3)
This relation can be used for a rough estimate of the wind density in SN IIP
using the CS absorption Ca II 3934 Å around day 50.
## 4 Type IIL supernova 1998S
It is tempting to apply our model to the interpretation of CS lines of Na I
and Ca II, detected in spectra of SN 1998S. This supernova belongs to bright
variety of SN IIL; in fact this is a close analogue of SN 1979C (Liu et al.
2000). According to X-ray data the wind around SN 1998S is characterized by
the mass loss rate of $(1-2)\times 10^{-4}~{}M_{\odot}$ yr-1 assuming wind
velocity of 10 km s-1 (Pooley et al. 2002). The corresponding wind density
parameter is $\omega\sim 200$. The extrapolation of results obtained above
suggests that strong circumstellar Ca II and Na I lines should be present in
the spectrum of this supernova with the equivalent width of Ca II 3934 Å of
$>0.2$ Å.
Indeed high resolution spectra of SN 1998S show CS lines of Na I D1,2 doublet
with the growing intensity between days 20 and 39 after the outburst (Bowen et
al. 2000). In the 3934 Å band on day 39 the spectrum shows similar CS
component of Ca II 3934 Å. Despite the expectation the circumstellar Ca II
3934 Å line has a moderate intensity with the equivalent width of 0.1 Å and a
relative depth of 0.5.
To reproduce CS lines in SN 1998S, we use the model applied above for SN IIP
with the following modifications. The bolometric light curve and the effective
temperature evolution correspond to SN 1998S (Fassia et al. 2000), while the
wind density is $\omega=200$. The adopted wind velocity is 40 km s-1 (Fassia
et al. 2001); the turbulent velocity is assumed to be 5 km s-1, higher than
for SN IIP, because the radiated energy of SN 1998S is 2-3 times larger than
that for SN IIP on day 40. The envelope mass of SN 1998S can be estimated from
the following considerations. The mass of mixed metal core in the velocity
range $v\leq 3650$ km s-1 is about $4~{}M_{\odot}$ (Fassia et al. 2001). The
major envelope mass is confined within the velocity of 5000 km s-1 (Fransson
et al. 2005). Assuming homogeneous density distribution we find that the total
mass is $M=10~{}M_{\odot}$. Since the density should fall towards higher
velocities, the mass should be $M<10~{}M_{\odot}$; we adopt $M=8~{}M_{\odot}$.
The kinetic energy is taken the same as in SN IIP, i.e., $E=1.3\times 10^{51}$
erg. Note, the uncertainty in mass and energy only weakly affects the final
results.
Preliminary modelling shows that for the black body continuum CS absorption
lines turn out too strong. The natural mechanism for the suppressing of line
intensity could be an ultraviolet excess in the SN 1998S spectrum. There are
two reasons for the emergence of this excess: Compton scattering on hot
electrons of the forward shock wave (Fransson 1984) and intrinsic emission of
the gas in the shock wave. We consider, therefore, two options for the
supernova spectrum: (1) black body spectrum and (2) black body continuum with
the ultraviolet excess $F_{\nu}\propto\nu^{-3}$ in the region $\lambda<2000$
Å. Integrated flux of the ultraviolet excess makes up the fraction $\eta$
relative to the black body flux $\sigma T^{4}$. The first option corresponds
to $\eta=0$, while the second to $\eta>0$. We find that the optimal value of
the ultraviolet excess is $\eta=0.06$.
The results of computations of the optical depth in Na I 5890 Å and Ca II 3934
Å lines on days 20 and 39 for $\eta=0$ and $\eta=0.06$ are presented in Fig.
4. The line intensity increases with time and Ca II line is stronger than Na I
line in the same way as for SN IIP. In the case $\eta=0$ CS lines are stronger
than for $\eta=0.06$, which is a natural outcome of a more stronger ionization
in the latter case. Moreover, for $\eta=0$ the intensities of Ca II and Na I
lines differ stronger than for $\eta=0.06$ since in the latter case the
ultraviolet excess ionizes Ca II relatively stronger than Na I, which results
in the equalizing of Na I and Ca II concentrations. Observed CS Na I 5890 Å
and Ca II 3934 Å lines in SN 1998S have moderate intensities and differ
weakly. By these signatures the case $\eta=0.06$ should be preferred compared
to $\eta=0$.
The above said is illustrated by Fig. 5 that shows calculated profiles of Na I
5890 Å and Ca II 3934 Å in SN 1998S on days 20 and 39 in the case of $\eta=0$
(Fig. 5a,b) and $\eta=0.06$ (Fig. 5c,d). The case with ultraviolet excess
describes observed CS lines of Na I 5890 Å and Ca II 3934 Å in SN 1998S (cf.
Bowen et al. 2000, their Fig. 4) much better than the case $\eta=0$ that
predicts unacceptably strong lines on day 39. We conclude that the moderate
intensity of Na I 5890 Å and Ca II 3934 Å and their resemblance are related
with the presence of the ultraviolet excess compared to the black body
radiation in the spectrum of SN 1998S.
To what extent the required ultraviolet excess is consistent with the shape of
ultraviolet spectrum on day 30 taken from HST data (Fransson et al. 2005) and
with comptonized black body spectrum? We computed the comptonized spectrum in
the single scattering approximation (Rephaeli & Yankovitch 1997) adopting
parameters of SN 1998S on day 30, i.e., the radiation temperature of 9440 K,
electron temperature in the forward shock of 57 keV, for the Thomson optical
depth of the forward shock $\tau_{\rm T}=0.13$. The computed spectrum in
comparison with the required ultraviolet excess is shown in Fig. 6. We show
there also the observed spectrum corrected for the reddening $E(B-V)=0.26$,
which is slightly higher than the value 0.22 adopted by Fassia et al. (2000),
but still within reported uncertainties. The figure shows reasonable agreement
between the required ultraviolet excess and both observed and computed
comptonized spectrum. Yet it should be noted that on day 39 the computed
ultraviolet comptonized flux is weaker by 1.3 times than the required
ultraviolet excess. We suggest that this deficit is covered by the thermal
radiation of the shock.
It was mentioned already that the characteristic signature of model CS lines
is the presence of an emission component. We note that the comparison of the
observed Na I D1,2 profiles on days 20 and 39 (Bowen et al. 2000) indeed shows
the presence of emission component on day 39. This is an additional argument
in favour of the CS origin of the blue component of Na I D1,2 blend in SN
1998S.
## 5 Conclusion
The primary goal of the paper was to construct the model of the formation of
Na I and Ca II CS lines in the wind around SN IIP in a hope to use them for
the wind diagnostics. The modelling shows that lines of Na I doublet will not
be seen in SN IIP spectra for moderate wind density, $\omega\sim 1$, but will
be detectable at late photospheric stage $t\geq 50$ d in the case of the dense
wind $\omega\sim 10$. Yet the Ca II lines will be seen even in the case of a
rarefied wind $\omega<1$ and therefore they are especially advantageous for
the detection of the wind around SN IIP. We predict that the spectrum with the
resolution of $\approx 10$ km s-1 of a normal SN IIP at the photospheric stage
should show the presence of CS lines of Ca II with P Cygni profile. We
emphasize that the emission component is a signature for the confident
distinguishing of CS lines from interstellar ones.
Another goal of the paper was the interpretation of CS lines detected in the
spectrum of SN 1998S with a very dense wind. The modelling demonstrates that
for the wind density $\omega=200$ and the black body spectrum of the supernova
radiation the CS lines, especially Ca II, turn out to be too strong compared
with observations. This controversy is resolved by assuming the existence of
the ultraviolet excess with the relative flux fraction of about 6%. We show
that at the early stage $t<35$ d this ultraviolet excess can form owing to
comptonization of the supernova radiation in the forward shock wave. At the
later epoch the thermal radiation of the gas in the forward shock may
contribute additionally, although this assumption requires a confirmation.
An observation of CS lines in SN IIP can be used to estimate the wind density.
However, an example of SN 1998S shows that the equivalent width of the
absorption depends non-monotonically on the wind density. For $\omega<10$ we
expect that equivalent width grows with the wind density, whereas in the
region $\omega\sim 10^{2}$ the equivalent width decreases with the wind
density because of the ionization of metals in the wind by ultraviolet
radiation produced by comptonization of optical photons on hot electrons of
the forward shock. The use of the relation between the equivalent width of Ca
II and $\omega$ for SN IIP is hampered by uncertainties related with the
reduction factor of the ultraviolet radiation and with parameters of the
turbulent velocity and the wind temperature. By these reasons one hardly could
measure the wind density with an accuracy better than factor of two. A wind
clumpiness also affects the equivalent width. The effect of clumpiness is two-
fold. First, the ionization decreases with the growing density. Therefore, for
a given average column density the optical depth in clumpy case will be
larger. Second, for a given average column density of absorbing ions the
equivalent width will be smaller, if the average number of clouds in the the
line of sight is small, i.e., an order or less than unity. The expected
modification of the line profile in this case is the decrease of the line
depth because of incomplete covering of the photosphere by clouds. The effect
of clumpiness will be especially apparent when profiles of the H and K lines
of Ca II are compared. A similar relative intensities of these lines would
evidence in favor of a saturation, while a shallow depth would indicate the
clumpy structure of the wind with the average number of clouds in the line of
sight of the order or less than unity.
We assumed that the wind is spherically-symmetric. In the case of asymmetric
wind, e.g., equatorial wind, the emission component can become notably weaker
than the absorption one, if the line of sight is close to the equatorial
plane, or it can be stronger than the absorption, if the line of sight is
close to the polar axis. In the case of RSG strong deviations from spherical
symmetry are unlikely, since SN IIP are single stars or components of wide
binaries. For example, Betelgeuse shows only weak deviations from spherical
symmetry of its CS dusty envelope (Skinner et al. 1997) which indicates a
quasi-spherical wind structure. Yet we should not rule out that in rare cases
the SN IIP wind could be strongly asymmetric (SN 1987A is an example) because
of close binary configuration. The line profile of Ca II 3934 Å could be a
valuable indicator of the asphericity of the wind outflow.
## References
* (1) Bowen D. V., Roth K. C., Meyer D. M., Blades C. J. 2000, ApJ, 536, 225
* (2) Chevalier R. A., Fransson C., Nymark T. 2006, ApJ, 641, 1029
* (3) Chevalier R. A. 1982, ApJ, 258, 790
* (4) Chugai N. N., Chevalier R. A., Utrobin V. P. 2007, ApJ, 662, 1136
* (5) Chugai N. N. 2008, Astron. Lett., in press, (arXiv:0801.4468)
* (6) Fassia A., Meikle W. P. S., Vacca W. D., et al. 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1093
* (7) Fassia A., Meikle W. P. S., Chugai N.N., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 325, 907
* (8) Fransson C., Challis P. M., Chevalier R.A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 991
* (9) Fransson C. 1984, A&A, 133, 264
* (10) Grasberg E. K., Imshennik V. S., Nadyozhin D. K. 1971, Ap&SS, 10, 28
* (11) Huggins P. J., Bachiller R., Cox P., Forveille T. 1994, ApJ, 424, L127
* (12) Heger A., Fryer C. L., Woosley S. E., Langer N., Hartmann D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288
* (13) Heger A., Jeannin L., Langer N., Baraffe I. 1997, A&A, 327, 224
* (14) Immler S., Brown P. J., Milne P., et al. 2007, ApJ, 664, 435
* (15) Leonard D. C., Filippenko A. V., Gates E. L., et al. 2002a, PASP, 114, 35
* (16) Leonard D. C., Filippenko A. V., Li W., et al. 2002b, AJ, 124, 2490
* (17) Liu Q.-Z., Hu J.-Y., Hang H.-R., Qiu Y.-L., Zhu Z.-X., Qiao Q.-Y. 2000, A&AS, 144, 219
* (18) Lundqvist P., Fransson C. 1998, A&A, 192, 221
* (19) Nieuwenhuijsen H., de Jager C. 1990, A&A, 231, 134
* (20) Pun C. S. J., Kirshner R. P., Sonneborn G., et al. 1995, ApJS, 99, 223
* (21) Patat F., Chandra P., Chevalier R. et al. 2007a, Science, 315, 924
* (22) Patat F., Benetti S., Mazzali P. A. et al. 2007b, A&A, 474, 931
* (23) Pooley D., Lewin W. H. G., Fox D. W., et al. 2002, ApJ, 572, 932
* (24) Rephaeli Y., Yankovitch D. 1997, ApJ, 481, L55
* (25) Rinehart S. A., Hajian A. R., Houck J. R., Terzian Y. 2000, PASP, 112, 977
* (26) Rho J., Jarrett T. H., Chugai N. N., Chevalier R. A. 2007, ApJ, 666, 1108
* (27) Skinner C. J., Dougherty S. M., Meixner M. 1997, MNRAS, 288, 295
* (28) Utrobin V. P. 2007, A&A, 461, 233
Figure 1: Fraction of ions Na I (thin lines) and Ca II (thick lines) in the
wind before the supernova explosion (panel a) and 50 days after (panel b).
Lower and upper line of each couple correspond to $\omega=1$ and $\omega=10$,
respectively.
Figure 2: Optical depth of the wind in lines of Na I 5890 Å (thin lines) and
Ca II 3934 Å (thick lines) integrated from the shock wave for two epochs.
Lower and upper line of each couple correspond to $\omega=1$ and $\omega=10$,
respectively.
Figure 3: Model profiles of Na I 5890 Å (thin lines) and Ca II 3934 Å (thick
lines) for two epochs and two values of the wind density.
Figure 4: Optical depth of the wind in lines of Na I 5890 Å (thin lines) and
Ca II 3934 Å (thick lines) in the model of the wind around SN 1998S for two
epochs with ($\eta=0.06$) and without ($\eta=0$) ultraviolet excess.
Figure 5: Model profiles of Na I 5890 Å and Ca II 3934 Å lines for two epochs
without ($\eta=0$) and with ($\eta=0.06$) ultraviolet excess. Thin line
corresponds to the age of 20 d, while thick line corresponds to the age of 39
d.
Figure 6: Comptonized spectrum (solid line) of black body radiation (dotted
line) in comparison with the ultraviolet excess (dashed) required to reproduce
CS lines in SN 1998S. Crosses show the observed spectrum of SN 1998S on day 30
corrected for reddening.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-21T08:18:18 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.860123 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "N.N. Chugai, V.P. Utrobin",
"submitter": "Nikolai Chugai",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3222"
} |
0805.3268 | # On Perelman’s Dilaton
Marco Caldarelli marco.caldarelli@gmail.com , Giovanni Catino Dept. of
Math., University of Pisa, Largo Bruno Pontecorvo 5, Pisa, Italy, 56126
catino@mail.dm.unipi.it , Zindine Djadli Institut Fourier, 100 Rue des
Maths, BP 74, St. Martin d’Heres, France, 38402 Zindine.Djadli@ujf-
grenoble.fr , Annibale Magni SISSA – International School for Advanced
Studies, Via Beirut 2–4, Trieste, Italy, 34014 magni@sissa.it and Carlo
Mantegazza Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, P.za Cavalieri 7, Pisa, Italy,
56126 mantegazza@sns.it
###### Abstract.
By means of a Kaluza–Klein type argument we show that the Perelman’s
${\mathcal{F}}$–functional is the Einstein–Hilbert action in a space with
extra “phantom” dimensions. In this way, we try to interpret some remarks of
Perelman in the introduction and at the end of the first section in his famous
paper [2].
As a consequence the Ricci flow (modified by a diffeomorphism and a
time–dependent factor) is the evolution of the “real” part of the metric under
a constrained gradient flow of the Einstein–Hilbert gravitational action in
higher dimension.
###### Contents
1. 1 Einstein–Hilbert Action and Perelman’s ${\mathcal{F}}$–Functional
2. 2 The Associated Flow
3. 3 Other Flows
## 1\. Einstein–Hilbert Action and Perelman’s ${\mathcal{F}}$–Functional
Let $(M^{m},g)$ and $(N^{n},h)$ be two closed Riemannian manifolds of
dimension $m$ and $n$ respectively and let $f:M\rightarrow{{\mathbb{R}}}$ be a
smooth function on $M$. On the product manifold $\widetilde{M}=M\times N$ we
consider a metric $\widetilde{g}$ of the form
$\widetilde{g}=e^{-Af}g\oplus e^{-Bf}h,$
where $A$ and $B$ are real constants. Notice that $\widetilde{g}$ is a
conformal deformation of a warped product on $M$. We call the function $f$
dilaton field.
As a notation, we will use Latin indices, $i,j,\dots$ for the coordinates on
$M$ (we will call them the ”real” variables) and Greek indices,
$\alpha,\beta,\dots$, for the coordinates on $N$ (the ”phantom” variables).
Under these notations, clearly we have $\forall\,i,j\in\\{1,\dots,m\\}$ and
$\forall\,\alpha,\beta\in\\{1,\dots,n\\}$,
$\widetilde{g}_{i\alpha}=\widetilde{g}^{i\alpha}=0\,,$
$\widetilde{g}^{ij}=e^{Af}g^{ij}\,,\,\,\,\,\,\widetilde{g}^{\alpha\beta}=e^{Bf}h^{\alpha\beta}\,.$
Let $\mu$, $\sigma$ and $\widetilde{\mu}$ be respectively the canonical volume
measure on $M$, $N$ and $\widetilde{M}$. By definition of $\widetilde{g}$, it
follows that $\widetilde{\mu}=e^{-\frac{Am+Bn}{2}}\mu\times\sigma$.
The Christoffel symbols of the metric $\widetilde{g}$ are given by the formula
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ab}^{c}=\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{g}^{cd}\left(\partial_{a}\widetilde{g}_{bd}+\partial_{b}\widetilde{g}_{ad}-\partial_{l}\widetilde{g}_{ab}\right)\,,$
where $a,b,\dots$ can be both real and phantom variables.
We have the following,
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ij}^{k}=$
$\displaystyle\,\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{g}^{kl}\left(\partial_{i}\widetilde{g}_{jl}+\partial_{j}\widetilde{g}_{il}-\partial_{l}\widetilde{g}_{ij}\right)$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\frac{1}{2}e^{Af}g^{kl}\left[e^{-Af}\left(\partial_{i}g_{jl}+\partial_{j}g_{il}-\partial_{l}g_{ij}\right)-Ae^{-Af}\left(\partial_{i}fg_{jl}+\partial_{j}fg_{il}-\partial_{l}fg_{ij}\right)\right]$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\Gamma_{ij}^{k}-\frac{A}{2}\left(\partial_{i}f\delta^{k}_{j}+\partial_{j}f\delta^{k}_{i}-g^{kl}\partial_{l}fg_{ij}\right)\,.$
Using the fact that the metric $\widetilde{g}$ is zero for a pair of “mixed”
indexes and that the function $f$ depends only on the real variables, we get
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ij}^{\gamma}=$
$\displaystyle\,\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{g}^{\gamma\beta}\left(\partial_{i}\widetilde{g}_{j\beta}+\partial_{j}\widetilde{g}_{i\beta}-\partial_{\beta}\widetilde{g}_{ij}\right)=0\,,$
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha i}^{k}=$
$\displaystyle\,\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{g}^{kl}\left(\partial_{i}\widetilde{g}_{\alpha
l}+\partial_{\alpha}\widetilde{g}_{il}-\partial_{l}\widetilde{g}_{i\alpha}\right)=0\,,$
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\Gamma}_{i\beta}^{\gamma}=$
$\displaystyle\,\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{g}^{\gamma\alpha}\left(\partial_{i}\widetilde{g}_{\alpha\beta}+\partial_{\beta}\widetilde{g}_{i\alpha}-\partial_{\alpha}\widetilde{g}_{i\beta}\right)=-\frac{B}{2}\partial_{i}f\delta^{\gamma}_{\beta}\,,$
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha\beta}^{k}=$
$\displaystyle\,\frac{1}{2}\widetilde{g}^{kl}\left(\partial_{\alpha}\widetilde{g}_{l\beta}+\partial_{\beta}\widetilde{g}_{\alpha
l}-\partial_{l}\widetilde{g}_{\alpha\beta}\right)=\frac{B}{2}e^{(A-B)f}g^{kl}\partial_{l}fh_{\alpha\beta}\,.$
Finally, a computation analogous to the one above gives
$\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}=\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}$.
Hence, summarizing
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ij}^{k}=$
$\displaystyle\,\Gamma_{ij}^{k}-\frac{A}{2}\left(\partial_{i}f\delta^{k}_{j}+\partial_{j}f\delta^{k}_{i}-g^{kl}\partial_{l}fg_{ij}\right)$
(1.1) $\displaystyle\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ij}^{\alpha}=$
$\displaystyle\,\widetilde{\Gamma}_{i\alpha}^{k}=0$ (1.2)
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha\beta}^{k}=$
$\displaystyle\,\frac{B}{2}e^{(A-B)f}g^{kl}\partial_{l}fh_{\alpha\beta}$ (1.3)
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\Gamma}_{i\beta}^{\gamma}=$
$\displaystyle\,-\frac{B}{2}\partial_{i}f\delta^{\gamma}_{\beta}$ (1.4)
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}=$
$\displaystyle\,\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}^{\gamma}\,.$ (1.5)
We want now to compute the Ricci curvature of the metric $\widetilde{g}$.
The Riemann tensor, as a $(1,3)$–tensor, is defined in terms of the
derivatives of the Christoffel’s symbols as follows
$\widetilde{R}_{ab\,\,d}^{\,\,\,\,\,c}=\partial_{a}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{bd}^{c}-\partial_{b}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ad}^{c}+\widetilde{\Gamma}_{bd}^{p}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ap}^{c}-\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ad}^{p}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{bp}^{c}$
hence, the Ricci tensor is given by
$\widetilde{R}_{bd}=\partial_{a}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{bd}^{a}-\partial_{b}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ad}^{a}+\widetilde{\Gamma}_{bd}^{p}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ap}^{a}-\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ad}^{p}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{bp}^{a}\,.$
Using equations (1.1)– (1.5), and computing in normal coordinates on both $M$
and $N$, we get the following
$\displaystyle\widetilde{R}_{jl}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\partial_{i}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{jl}^{i}-\partial_{j}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{kl}^{k}-\partial_{j}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha
l}^{\alpha}+\widetilde{\Gamma}_{jl}^{k}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ki}^{i}+\widetilde{\Gamma}_{jl}^{k}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha
k}^{\alpha}-\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ij}^{k}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{kl}^{i}-\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha
j}^{\beta}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\beta l}^{\alpha}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle R_{jl}-\frac{A}{2}\left(2\nabla^{2}_{jl}f-\Delta
fg_{jl}\right)$
$\displaystyle+\frac{Am}{2}\nabla^{2}_{jl}f+\frac{Bn}{2}\nabla^{2}_{jl}f$
$\displaystyle+\frac{A^{2}m}{4}\left(2df_{j}df_{l}-|\nabla
f|^{2}g_{jl}\right)+\frac{ABn}{4}\left(2df_{j}df_{l}-|\nabla
f|^{2}g_{jl}\right)$
$\displaystyle-\frac{A^{2}}{4}\left[(m+2)df_{j}df_{l}-2|\nabla
f|^{2}g_{jl}\right]-\frac{B^{2}n}{4}df_{j}df_{l}\,,$
that is, collecting similar terms,
$\displaystyle\widetilde{R}_{jl}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
R_{jl}+\nabla^{2}_{jl}f\left(\frac{Am+Bn}{2}-A\right)+\frac{A}{2}g_{jl}\left[\Delta
f-|\nabla f|^{2}\left(\frac{Am+Bn}{2}-A\right)\right]$
$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{4}df_{j}df_{l}\left(2ABn+(m-2)A^{2}-B^{2}n\right)\,.$
On the other hand, for the phantom indexes, we get
$\displaystyle\widetilde{R}_{\beta\gamma}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\partial_{\alpha}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\beta\gamma}^{\alpha}-\partial_{\gamma}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha\beta}^{\alpha}+\partial_{k}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\beta\gamma}^{k}+\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\beta\gamma}^{k}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha\gamma}^{\alpha}+\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\beta\gamma}^{k}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{ik}^{i}-\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha\gamma}^{k}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\beta
k}^{\alpha}-\widetilde{\Gamma}_{k\gamma}^{\alpha}\widetilde{\Gamma}_{\alpha\beta}^{k}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
R_{\beta\gamma}+\frac{B}{2}e^{(A-B)f}h_{\beta\gamma}\left(\Delta
f+(A-B)|\nabla f|^{2}\right)$
$\displaystyle-\frac{B^{2}n}{4}e^{(A-B)f}h_{\beta\gamma}|\nabla
f|^{2}-\frac{ABm}{4}e^{(A-B)f}h_{\beta\gamma}|\nabla f|^{2}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{B^{2}}{4}e^{(A-B)f}h_{\beta\gamma}|\nabla
f|^{2}+\frac{B^{2}}{4}e^{(A-B)f}h_{\beta\gamma}|\nabla f|^{2}\,,$
that is,
$\widetilde{R}_{\beta\gamma}=R_{\beta\gamma}+\frac{B}{2}e^{(A-B)f}h_{\beta\gamma}\left[\Delta
f-|\nabla f|^{2}\left(\frac{Am+Bn}{2}-A\right)\right]\,.$ (1.7)
Finally, it is easy to see that the mixed terms of the Ricci tensor of
$\widetilde{g}$ vanish, $\widetilde{R}_{i\alpha}=0$.
From this computation we get then the formula for the scalar curvature of
$\widetilde{g}$,
$\displaystyle\widetilde{R}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
e^{Af}R^{M}+e^{Bf}R^{N}+e^{Af}\Delta f(Am+Bn-A)$
$\displaystyle+\frac{e^{Af}}{4}|\nabla
f|^{2}\left(4ABn-2ABmn+3mA^{2}-2A^{2}-m^{2}A^{2}-B^{2}n-B^{2}n^{2}\right)\,.$
where $R^{M}$ and $R^{N}$ are respectively the scalar curvatures of $(M,g)$
and $(N,h)$.
We make now the following ansatz:
$2ABn+(m-2)A^{2}-B^{2}n=0$ (C1)
and
$\frac{Am+Bn}{2}-A=1\qquad\Longleftrightarrow\qquad A(m-2)+Bn=2\,.$ (C2)
###### Remark 1.1.
We spend some words to motivate our choice of the constants $A$ and $B$, which
we guess it is not very clear at this point.
Condition (C1) is assumed in order to make vanish from the expression of
$\widetilde{R}_{ij}$ the term in $df\otimes df$ that otherwise appears in
doing the flow by the gradient of the functional
$\int_{\widetilde{M}}\widetilde{R}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$ (see Section 3 and
Remark 3.1).
The second condition, that clearly also simplifies both $\widetilde{R}_{ij}$
and $\widetilde{R}_{\alpha\beta}$, is instead more related to Perelman’s
${\mathcal{F}}$–functional. In writing the functional
$\int_{\widetilde{M}}\widetilde{R}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$ as an integral on $M$
with respect to the measure $\mu$ we will see that the only way to get the
factor $e^{-f}$ is to assume condition (C2).
###### Lemma 1.2.
If $m+n>2$, we can always find two non zero constants $A$ and $B$ satisfying
these two conditions.
###### Proof.
Notice that $A=0$ implies $B=0$. If $B\not=0$, dividing both sides of
condition (C1) by $B^{2}$, it can be expressed in the following form for
$\theta=A/B$,
$(m-2)\theta^{2}+2n\theta-n=0\,.$ (C1∗)
If $m\not=2$, this second degree equation for $\theta$ has always two
solutions for every choice of the dimensions $m,n\in{{\mathbb{N}}}$, which
would coincide only in the case $m=n=1$, that we excluded.
Notice also that the two solutions have opposite signs. Precisely, they are
$\theta=\frac{-n\pm\sqrt{n(n+m-2)}}{m-2}$
and in the special case $n=1$, we have $\theta=\frac{-1\pm\sqrt{m-1}}{m-2}$.
If $m=2$ we have only one solution of equation (C1∗) which is $\theta=1/2$.
Then, condition (C2) is equivalent to $\theta(m-2)+n=2/B$ which can be
fulfilled, by homogeneity, if $\theta(m-2)+n\not=0$. If this happen, we would
have
$0=\theta^{2}(m-2)+2n\theta-n=n\theta-n$
which would imply $\theta=1$. Hence, $m-2+n=0$ and $m=n=1$. ∎
Under assumptions (C1) and (C2), the last term of $\widetilde{R}_{jl}$ in
formula (1) cancels out and many coefficients becomes one. We get indeed the
following “smooth“ formulas for the components of the Ricci tensor of
$\widetilde{g}$,
$\widetilde{R}_{jl}=R_{jl}+\nabla^{2}_{jl}f+\frac{A}{2}g_{jl}\left(\Delta
f-|\nabla f|^{2}\right),$ (1.8)
$\widetilde{R}_{\beta\gamma}=R_{\beta\gamma}+\frac{B}{2}e^{(A-B)f}h_{\beta\gamma}\left(\Delta
f-|\nabla f|^{2}\right)\,.$ (1.9)
Then, the scalar curvature of $\widetilde{g}$ becomes
$\widetilde{R}=e^{Af}R^{M}+e^{Bf}R^{N}+e^{Af}\left(\Delta f(A+2)-|\nabla
f|^{2}(A+1)\right)\,.$ (1.10)
From this last formula, it follows immediately the relation between the
Einstein–Hilbert action functional ${{\mathcal{S}}}$ on $\widetilde{M}$ and
the Perelman’s ${\mathcal{F}}$–functional, see [2],
$\mathcal{F}(g,f)=\int_{M}(R^{M}+|\nabla f|^{2})e^{-f}\,d\mu\,.$
###### Theorem 1.3.
Let $(M^{m},g)$ and $(N^{n},h)$ be two closed Riemannian manifolds of
dimension $m$ and $n$ respectively, with $m+n>2$ and let
$f:M\rightarrow{{\mathbb{R}}}$ be a smooth function on $M$. On the product
manifold $\widetilde{M}=M\times N$ consider the metric $\widetilde{g}$ of the
form
$\widetilde{g}=e^{-Af}g\oplus e^{-Bf}h\,,$
where $A$ and $B$ are constants satisfying conditions (C1) and (C2).
Then the following formula holds
${{\mathcal{S}}}(\widetilde{g})=\int_{\widetilde{M}}\widetilde{R}\,d\widetilde{\mu}={\mathrm{Vol}}(N,h)\mathcal{F}(g,f)+\left(\int_{M}e^{(B-A-1)f}\,d\mu\right)\int_{N}R^{N}\,d\sigma$
(1.11)
In particular, if $(N,h)$ has zero total scalar curvature and unit volume, we
get ${{\mathcal{S}}}(\widetilde{g})=\mathcal{F}(g,f)$.
###### Proof.
We simply compute
$\displaystyle\int_{\widetilde{M}}\widetilde{R}\,d\widetilde{\mu}=$
$\displaystyle\,\int_{M}\int_{N}e^{-\frac{Am+Bn}{2}f}\widetilde{R}\,d\mu\,d\sigma$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\int_{M}\int_{N}e^{-(1+A)f}\left[e^{Af}R^{M}+e^{Bf}R^{N}+e^{Af}\left(\Delta
f(A+2)-|\nabla f|^{2}(A+1)\right)\right]\,d\mu\,d\sigma$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\int_{M}\int_{N}e^{-(1+A)f}e^{Bf}R^{N}\,d\mu\,d\sigma$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{M}\int_{N}\left[R^{M}+\Delta f(A+2)-|\nabla
f|^{2}(A+1)\right]e^{-f}\,d\mu\,d\sigma$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\left(\int_{M}e^{(B-A-1)f}\,d\mu\right)\int_{N}R^{N}\,d\sigma$
$\displaystyle\,+{\mathrm{Vol}}(N,h)\int_{M}\left[R^{M}+\Delta f(A+2)-|\nabla
f|^{2}(A+1)\right]e^{-f}\,d\mu$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\left(\int_{M}e^{(B-A-1)f}\,d\mu\right)\int_{N}R^{N}\,d\sigma$
$\displaystyle\,+{\mathrm{Vol}}(N,h)\int_{M}\left(R^{M}+|\nabla
f|^{2}\right)e^{-f}\,d\mu$
where in the last passage we integrated by parts the Laplacian term. ∎
## 2\. The Associated Flow
Under assumptions (C1) and (C2), we have
$\widetilde{R}_{jl}=R_{jl}+\nabla^{2}_{jl}f+\frac{A}{2}g_{jl}\left(\Delta
f-|\nabla f|^{2}\right)\,,\qquad\widetilde{R}_{i\alpha}=0\,,$ (2.1)
$\widetilde{R}_{\beta\gamma}=R_{\beta\gamma}+\frac{B}{2}e^{(A-B)f}h_{\beta\gamma}\left(\Delta
f-|\nabla f|^{2}\right)$ (2.2)
and
$\widetilde{R}=e^{Af}R^{M}+e^{Bf}R^{N}+e^{Af}\left(\Delta f(A+2)-|\nabla
f|^{2}(A+1)\right)\,.$ (2.3)
Suppose we have a manifold $\widetilde{M}=M\times N$ with a time dependent
metric $\widetilde{g}(t)$ for $t\in[0,T]$.
If the initial metric is a warped product
$\widetilde{g}=\widehat{g}\oplus\varphi h$ with $\varphi:M\to{{\mathbb{R}}}$ a
smooth function, $(N,h)$ Ricci–flat and of unit volume, we consider the motion
by the gradient of the Einstein–Hilbert action with the constraint that the
measure $\varphi^{-\theta}\widetilde{\mu}$ is fixed, where $\theta$ comes from
condition (C1∗) and $A$, $B$ are the relative constants satisfying conditions
(C1) and (C2) above.
Suppose there exists a unique solution of this flow, preserving the warped
product. We can assume that for every $t\in[0,T]$ we have
$\widetilde{g}(t)=\widehat{g}(t)\oplus\varphi(t)h(t)$ with $(N,h(t))$ always
of volume 1.
Writing down the evolution of $h$ we see that it moves only by multiplication
by a positive factor, as we assumed that $(N,h(t))$ is of unit volume, we then
conclude that the metric $h(t)$ has to be constant equal to the initial $h$.
Setting $f=-\frac{1}{B}\log{\varphi}$ which implies $\varphi=e^{-Bf}$ and
$\varphi^{-\theta}=e^{-Af}$, and we can write $\widetilde{g}=e^{-Af}g\oplus
e^{-Bf}h$ where $g(t)=e^{Af}\widehat{g}(t)$. Clearly, also
$\widetilde{g}=\varphi^{\theta}g\oplus\varphi h$.
Denote with $\delta\widetilde{g}$, $\delta g$ and $\delta f$ the variations of
$\widetilde{g}$, $g$ and $f$ respectively. Then we have,
$\delta\widetilde{g}=e^{-Af}\left(\delta g-Ag\delta f\right)\oplus
e^{-Bf}\left(-Bh\delta f\right)\,.$
and the constraint, in terms of these variations becomes $\delta
f={\mathrm{tr}}_{g}\delta g/2$. Keeping in mind that $(N,h)$ is Ricci–flat, we
get
$\displaystyle\delta\int_{\widetilde{M}}2\widetilde{R}\,d\widetilde{\mu}=$
$\displaystyle\int_{\widetilde{M}}\langle-2\widetilde{Ric}+\widetilde{R}\widetilde{g}\,|\,\delta\widetilde{g}\rangle\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{\widetilde{M}}\langle-2\widetilde{Ric}+\widetilde{R}\widetilde{g}\,|\,e^{-Af}\left(\delta
g-Ag\delta f\right)\oplus e^{-Bf}\left(-Bh\delta
f\right)\rangle\,d\widetilde{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{\widetilde{M}}\langle-2(Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f)\,|\,\delta
g\rangle e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{\widetilde{M}}\left[-A(\Delta f-|\nabla
f|^{2})+(R^{M}+\Delta f(A+2)-|\nabla
f|^{2}(A+1))\right]{\mathrm{tr}}_{g}(\delta g)e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{\widetilde{M}}\Bigl{\langle}-2\Bigl{[}Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f+\frac{A}{2}g(\Delta
f-|\nabla f|^{2})\Bigr{]}\,\Bigl{|}\,-Ag\delta
f\Bigr{\rangle}e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{\widetilde{M}}\left[R^{M}+\Delta f(A+2)-|\nabla
f|^{2}(A+1)\right](-Am\delta f)e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{\widetilde{M}}\left[-B(\Delta f-|\nabla
f|^{2})\right](-Bn\delta f)e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{\widetilde{M}}\left[R^{M}+\Delta f(A+2)-|\nabla
f|^{2}(A+1)\right](-Bn\delta f)e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{\widetilde{M}}\langle-2(Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f)\,|\,\delta
g\rangle e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle\,-\frac{1}{2}\int_{\widetilde{M}}(\Delta f-|\nabla
f|^{2})(ABn+2A-B^{2}n){\mathrm{tr}}_{g}(\delta g)e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{\widetilde{M}}\langle-2(Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f)\,|\,\delta
g\rangle e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-2\int_{{M}}\langle Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f\,|\,\delta g\rangle
e^{-f}\,d\mu\,,$
since, by conditions (C1) and (C2), it follows $ABn+2A-B^{2}n=0$.
Hence, the system
$\begin{cases}\delta g=-2(Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f)\\\ \delta f=-\Delta
f-R^{M}\end{cases}$
represents the constrained gradient of the Einstein–Hilbert action functional.
The associated flow of the metric $\widetilde{g}=e^{-Af}g\oplus e^{-Bf}h$ is
described by
$\begin{cases}\partial_{t}g=-2(Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f)\\\ \partial_{t}h=0\\\
\partial_{t}f=-\Delta f-R^{M}\,,\end{cases}$
that is, $g$ evolves by the “modified” Ricci flow.
Following Perelman [2], modifying the pair $(g,f)$ by a suitable
diffeomorphism, we get a solution of
$\begin{cases}\partial_{t}g=-2Ric^{M}\\\ \partial_{t}f=-\Delta f+|\nabla
f|^{2}-R^{M}\end{cases}$
hence, up to a factor and a diffeomorphism, the spatial part of the metric
$\widetilde{g}$ moves according to the Ricci flow ($g$ is equal to the spatial
part of $\widetilde{g}$ times the factor $e^{Af}$).
## 3\. Other Flows
It is interesting to see what functionals and flows one can get by varying the
constants $A$ and $B$.
Supposing that $(N,h)$ has unit volume and zero total scalar curvature, we
computed,
$\displaystyle\widetilde{R}_{jl}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
R_{jl}+\nabla^{2}_{jl}f\left(\frac{Am+Bn}{2}-A\right)+\frac{A}{2}g_{jl}\left[\Delta
f-|\nabla f|^{2}\left(\frac{Am+Bn}{2}-A\right)\right]$
$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{4}df_{j}df_{l}\left(2ABn+(m-2)A^{2}-B^{2}n\right)$
$\displaystyle\widetilde{R}_{\beta\gamma}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
R_{\beta\gamma}+\frac{B}{2}e^{(A-B)f}h_{\beta\gamma}\left[\Delta f-|\nabla
f|^{2}\left(\frac{Am+Bn}{2}-A\right)\right]$
Assuming the condition $\frac{Am+Bn}{2}-A=1$ we have
$\displaystyle\widetilde{R}_{jl}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
R_{jl}+\nabla^{2}_{jl}f+\frac{A}{2}g_{jl}\left[\Delta f-|\nabla f|^{2}\right]$
$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{4}df_{j}df_{l}\left(2ABn+(m-2)A^{2}-B^{2}n\right)$
$\displaystyle\widetilde{R}_{\beta\gamma}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
R_{\beta\gamma}+\frac{B}{2}e^{(A-B)f}h_{\beta\gamma}\left[\Delta f-|\nabla
f|^{2}\right]$ $\displaystyle\widetilde{R}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
e^{Af}R^{M}+e^{Bf}R^{N}+e^{Af}\Delta f$
$\displaystyle+e^{Af}\left(\frac{Am+Bn}{2}\right)(\Delta f-|\nabla
f|^{2})+\frac{e^{Af}}{4}\left(2ABn+(m-2)A^{2}-B^{2}n\right)|\nabla f|^{2}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle e^{Af}R^{M}+e^{Bf}R^{N}+e^{Af}\Delta f$
$\displaystyle+e^{Af}(A+1)(\Delta f-|\nabla
f|^{2})+\frac{e^{Af}}{4}\left(2ABn+(m-2)A^{2}-B^{2}n\right)|\nabla f|^{2}\,.$
Hence,
$\displaystyle\int_{\widetilde{M}}\widetilde{R}\,d\widetilde{\mu}=$
$\displaystyle\,\int_{M}\int_{N}e^{-\frac{Am+Bn}{2}f}\widetilde{R}\,d\mu\,d\sigma$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\int_{M}\int_{N}e^{-(1+A)f}\left[e^{Af}R^{M}+e^{Bf}R^{N}+e^{Af}\Delta
f\right]\,d\mu\,d\sigma$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{M}\int_{N}e^{-(1+A)f}e^{Af}(A+1)(\Delta f-|\nabla
f|^{2})\,d\mu\,d\sigma$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{M}\int_{N}e^{-(1+A)f}\frac{e^{Af}}{4}\left(2ABn+(m-2)A^{2}-B^{2}n\right)|\nabla
f|^{2}\,d\mu\,d\sigma$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\int_{M}\int_{N}e^{-(1+A)f}e^{Bf}R^{N}\,d\mu\,d\sigma$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{M}\int_{N}\left[R^{M}+\Delta f+\frac{1}{4}|\nabla
f|^{2}(2ABn+(m-2)A^{2}-B^{2}n)\right]e^{-f}\,d\mu\,d\sigma$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\int_{M}\left[R^{M}+|\nabla f|^{2}+\frac{1}{4}|\nabla
f|^{2}(2ABn+(m-2)A^{2}-B^{2}n)\right]e^{-f}\,d\mu$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,\,{\mathcal{F}}(g,f)+Z_{m,n}(A,B)\int_{M}|\nabla
f|^{2}e^{-f}\,d\mu\,,$
with $Z_{m,n}(A,B)=(2ABn+(m-2)A^{2}-B^{2}n)/4$.
We want to see what are the possible values of $Z_{m,n}$, we recall that we
have the constraint $A(m-2)+Bn=2$.
We change variables as $x=A$ and $y=(B-A)$ so the constraint becomes
$(m+n-2)x+ny=2$ and $4Z_{m,n}(A,B)=(m+n-2)x^{2}-ny^{2}$. As $y=[2-x(m+n-2)]/n$
we get (like before we assume $m+n>2$),
$\displaystyle 4Z_{m,n}(A,B)=$
$\displaystyle\,(m+n-2)x^{2}-n\left(\frac{2-x(m+n-2)}{n}\right)^{2}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,(m+n-2)x^{2}-(4+x^{2}(m+n-2)^{2}-4x(m+n-2))/n$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\,x^{2}[(m+n-2)-(m+n-2)^{2}/n]+4x(m+n-2)/n-4/n$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\,-x^{2}\frac{(m+n-2)(m-2)}{n}+x\frac{4(m+n-2)}{n}-\frac{4}{n}\,.$
In the special case $m=2$, we have $B=2/n$ and $A$ “free”, then
$\displaystyle Z_{m,n}(A,B)=\frac{x(m+n-2)-1}{n}=\frac{An-1}{n}=A-1/n$
which can take every real value as $x$ can vary from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$.
If instead, $m>2$ the expression
$Z_{m,n}(A,B)=-A^{2}\frac{(m+n-2)(m-2)}{4n}+A\frac{m+n-2}{n}-\frac{1}{n}\,.$
is a second degree polynomial in $A\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ with negative leading
coefficient, so it can vary only between $-\infty$ and some maximum. By a
straightforward computation one sees that such a maximum is given by
$1/(m-2)$, which is independent of the dimension $n$.
This means that by a suitable choice of the constants $A$ and $B$ one has
${{\mathcal{S}}}(\widetilde{g})=\int_{\widetilde{M}}\widetilde{R}\,d\widetilde{\mu}=\int_{M}(R^{M}+(\lambda+1)|\nabla
f|^{2})e^{-f}\,d\mu\,,$
for every $\lambda\in\left(-\infty,\frac{1}{m-2}\right]$. Notice that (if
$m>2$), with the exception of $\lambda=1/(m-2)$ one has always two possible
choices of pairs of constants $(A,B)$ for every value $\lambda$.
When $\lambda\not=0$ as
$\widetilde{R}_{jl}=R_{jl}+\nabla^{2}_{jl}f+\frac{A}{2}(\Delta f-|\nabla
f|^{2})g_{jl}+\lambda(df\otimes df)_{jl}\,,$
the associated flow is substantially different from the (modified) Ricci flow,
indeed if as before $\delta f=\frac{1}{2}{\mathrm{tr}}_{g}(\delta g)$ and
$(N,h)$ is Ricci–flat, we get
$\displaystyle\delta\int_{\widetilde{M}}2\widetilde{R}\,d\widetilde{\mu}=$
$\displaystyle\int_{\widetilde{M}}\langle-2\widetilde{Ric}+\widetilde{R}\widetilde{g}\,|\,\delta\widetilde{g}\rangle\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{\widetilde{M}}\langle-2\widetilde{Ric}+\widetilde{R}\widetilde{g}\,|\,e^{-Af}\left(\delta
g-Ag\delta f\right)\oplus e^{-Bf}\left(-Bh\delta
f\right)\rangle\,d\widetilde{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{\widetilde{M}}\langle-2(Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f+\lambda
df\otimes df)\,|\,\delta g\rangle e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{\widetilde{M}}\left[-A(\Delta f-|\nabla
f|^{2})+(R^{M}+\Delta f(A+2)-|\nabla
f|^{2}(A+1))\right]{\mathrm{tr}}_{g}(\delta g)e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{\widetilde{M}}\Bigl{\langle}-2\Bigl{[}Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f+\frac{A}{2}g(\Delta
f-|\nabla f|^{2})\Bigr{]}\,\Bigl{|}\,-Ag\delta
f\Bigr{\rangle}e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{\widetilde{M}}\left[R^{M}+\Delta f(A+2)-|\nabla
f|^{2}(A+1)\right](-Am\delta f)e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{\widetilde{M}}\left[-B(\Delta f-|\nabla
f|^{2})\right](-Bn\delta f)e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$
$\displaystyle\,+\int_{\widetilde{M}}\left[R^{M}+\Delta f(A+2)-|\nabla
f|^{2}(A+1)\right](-Bn\delta f)e^{-Af}\,d\widetilde{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-2\int_{{M}}\langle Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f+\lambda df\otimes
df\,|\,\delta g\rangle e^{-f}\,d\mu\,.$
Hence, as before, the system
$\begin{cases}\delta g=-2(Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f+\lambda df\otimes df)\\\ \delta
f=-\Delta f-R^{M}-\lambda|\nabla f|^{2}\end{cases}$
represents the constrained gradient of the Einstein–Hilbert action functional
and the associated flow is
$\begin{cases}\partial_{t}g=-2(Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f+\lambda df\otimes df)\\\
\partial_{t}f=-\Delta f-R^{M}-\lambda|\nabla f|^{2}\,.\end{cases}$
###### Remark 3.1.
Like in the Ricci flow, the flow $\partial_{t}g=-2(Ric+\nabla^{2}f+\lambda
df\otimes df)$ can be modified by a diffeomorphism to the flow
$\partial_{t}g=-2(Ric+\lambda df\otimes df)$. The extra term $df\otimes df$
instead, cannot be “canceled” in this way as $\nabla^{2}f$.
Notice that, as in Perelman’s work, immediately one gets the monotonicity of
the relative ${\mathcal{F}}$–functional along this flow.
$\frac{d\,}{dt}\int_{M}(R^{M}+(\lambda+1)|\nabla
f|^{2})e^{-f}\,d\mu=-2\int_{{M}}|Ric^{M}+\nabla^{2}f+\lambda df\otimes
df|^{2}e^{-f}\,d\mu\,.$
###### Remark 3.2.
Compare the material of this section with the Ph.D Thesis of List [1].
###### Acknowledgments .
The authors are grateful to the CRM of Barcelona for the warm hospitality
during the period this research was carried on.
Z. Djadli is supported by the project ANG ”Flots et Opérateurs Géométriques
ANR-07-BLAN-0251-01”.
A. Magni is partially supported by the ESF Programme ”Methods of Integrable
Systems, Geometry, Applied Mathematics” (MISGAM) and Marie Curie RTN ”European
Network in Geometry, Mathematical Physics and Applications” (ENIGMA).
## References
* [1] B. List, _Evolution of an extended Ricci flow system_ , Ph.D. thesis, Max–Planck–Instituts fur Gravitationsphysik (Albert Einstein Institut), Potsdam, 2005.
* [2] G. Perelman, _The entropy formula for the ricci flow and its geometric applications_ , ArXiv Preprint Server – http://arxiv.org, 2002.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-21T12:56:15 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.866193 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Marco Caldarelli, Giovanni Catino, Zindine Djadli, Annibale Magni and\n Carlo Mantegazza",
"submitter": "Carlo Mantegazza",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3268"
} |
0805.3313 | ]http://www.t12.lanl.gov/lucero
# Molecular-Orbital-Free Algorithm for Excited States
in Time-Dependent Perturbation Theory
Melissa J. Lucero lucero@lanl.gov [ Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 Anders M. N. Niklasson Sergei
Tretiak Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New
Mexico 87545 Matt Challacombe Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545
###### Abstract
A non-linear conjugate gradient optimization scheme is used to obtain
excitation energies within the Random Phase Approximation (RPA). The solutions
to the RPA eigenvalue equation are located through a variational
characterization using a modified Thouless functional, which is based upon an
asymmetric Rayleigh quotient, in an orthogonalized atomic orbital
representation. In this way, the computational bottleneck of calculating
molecular orbitals is avoided. The variational space is reduced to the
physically-relevant transitions by projections. The feasibility of an RPA
implementation scaling linearly with system size, $N$, is investigated by
monitoring convergence behavior with respect to the quality of initial guess
and sensitivity to noise under thresholding, both for well- and ill-
conditioned problems. The molecular-orbital-free algorithm is found to be
robust and computationally efficient providing a first step toward a large-
scale, reduced complexity calculation of time-dependent optical properties and
linear response. The algorithm is extensible to other forms of time-dependent
perturbation theory including, but not limited to, time-dependent Density
Functional theory.
RPA; excited states; linear scaling; nonlinear conjugate gradient;
variational; Thouless functional; asymmetric Rayleigh quotient; electronic
structure; time-dependent perturbation theory; TDHF; TDDFT; reduced
complexity; Liouville matrix
## I Introduction
Matter responds to electromagnetic perturbation in a _time-dependent_ fashion:
incident light induces periodic fluctuations within the electron density of a
molecule that can be described by its excitation spectrum. The excitation
spectrum is of fundamental importance to many fields, ranging from analysis of
interstellar clouds to the molecular basis of disease. Unfortunately, excited
states are difficult to calculate for large complex systems because the
scaling of the computational cost with the number of atoms is prohibitive.
While numerous efforts have been devoted to the development of reduced
complexity algorithms for ground state properties,Goedecker (1999) much less
work has been focused on efficient algorithms for excited state response
properties. The purpose of this paper is to investigate a method for
variational characterization of the excitation spectrum that could potentially
scale linearly with system size. This would allow studies of much larger
systems than currently achievable. The excitation spectrum is described by the
Random Phase Approximation (RPA) within time-dependent Hartree-Fock
theory,Dirac (1930); Frenkel (1934); Heinrichs (1968); Thouless (1972); Ring
and Schuck (1980a); McWeeny (1989); Szabo and Ostlund (1996) but our algorithm
is general and can be applied also to time-dependent Density Functional
Theory.Runge and Gross (1984); Dreuw and Head-Gordon (2005)
### I.1 The RPA Equation
Concomitant to the development of Many Body theory to describe the ground
states of molecules, work to calculate properties of the more elusive excited
states employing the Random Phase Approximation (RPA) began in the early
1950’s. Avoiding the complications of addressing independent particles in a
many electron system, the original, classical mechanical RPA treats the
electron-repulsion terms as part of an ensemble average. The Fourier
transforms of the Coulomb terms have “random phases” that cancel, hence the
name.Bohm and Pines (1951); Pines and Bohm (1952) Recognition of an explicit
quantum mechanical connection to single determinantsNozieres and Pines (1958)
led to the demonstration of equivalence between the RPA and a time-dependent
extension of Hartree-Fock (HF) theory – thus permitting a fully quantum
mechanical treatment of matter under light-induced perturbation.Ehrenreich and
Cohen (1959)
During the 1960’s, three equivalent formalisms developed around application of
the RPA to calculate excited states. While these derivations, based upon
Equations of Motion,Zwanzig (1964); Sawada et al. (1957); Baranger (1960)
Green’s functions,Ferrell and Quinn (1957); Thouless (1961a) and time-
dependent Hartree Fock theoryFerrell (1957); Goldstone and Gottfried (1959);
Rowe (1966) are non-trivial, Ring and Schuck (1980a); McWeeny (1989); Cook
(2005) it is sufficient to note that for electronic transitions, a description
utilizing only the one-body density is valid – provided that the particle
excitation energies are smaller than the Fermi energy and two-body
correlations can be neglected.Ferrell (1957) In this case, electronic
excitations are well-described by the RPA eigenvalue equation,Cook (2005);
Ring and Schuck (1980a) written in the Molecular Orbital, “MO” basis as
$\begin{pmatrix}\bm{A}&\bm{B}\\\
\bm{B}^{*}&\bm{A}^{*}\end{pmatrix}\binom{\vec{X}}{\vec{Y}}=\omega\begin{pmatrix}\bm{I}&0\\\
0&-\bm{I}\end{pmatrix}\binom{\vec{X}}{\vec{Y}}~{}.$ (1)
The resonant frequencies, or excitation energies, are represented by the
eigenvalues, $\omega$. The elements of the matrices $\bm{A}$ and $\bm{B}$ are
given by
$A_{mi,nj}=(\epsilon_{m}-\epsilon_{i})\delta_{ij}\delta_{mn}+V_{mj,in}-V_{mj,ni}\,,$
(2)
and
$B_{mi,nj}=V_{mn,ij}-V_{mn,ji}~{},$ (3)
and the elements of $V_{mn,ij}$ are the conventional two-electron
integrals.Szabo and Ostlund (1996) The $i,j$ indices are from the set of
occupied states while the $m,n$ indices correspond to the virtual orbitals,
while $\epsilon_{m}$ and $\epsilon_{i}$ denote the Fockian eigenenergies.
The matrices $\bm{A}$ and $\bm{B}$ correspond to 4th order tensors of
dimension ($N_{occ}\times N_{virt})\times(N_{virt}\times N_{occ}$) spanning
the Liouville space of transitions between the occupied (_occ_) and virtual
(_virt_) subspaces. These act upon the vectors $\vec{X}$ and $\vec{Y}$,
composed of orbital coefficients, so that particle-hole (_ph_) transitions are
described by $\vec{X}$ while $\vec{Y}$ contains the hole-particle (_hp_)
transitions.
The first term of $\bm{A}$ in Eq. (2) corresponds to the undressed, bare
excitations, i.e., those predicted by Koopman’s theorem. The last two terms,
or $\bm{B}$, add a correlation-based correction to the bare energies of
$\bm{A}$ based upon the Coulomb and exchange interactions. (Setting $Y=0$,
produces the Tamm-DancoffTamm (1991, 1945); Dancoff (1950) approximation.)
Finally, the unitary matrix, $\mathds{N}=(\begin{smallmatrix}\bm{I}&\bm{0}\\\
\bm{0}&-\bm{I}\end{smallmatrix}\bigr{)}$, is a unit diagonal metric tensor,
serving as an orthonormalization constraint,Thouless (1961a, b) defining the
indefinite inner product associated with the space of _ph-hp_ transitions, in
the Molecular Orbital basis.
### I.2 Linear Scaling Approaches to Solving the RPA Equation
The RPA equation was originally derived in the molecular orbital
representation, as in Eq. (1), and the familiarity of “molecular orbitals” in
discussions involving ground states render it a popular basis in which to
work.Appel et al. (2003); Dreuw and Head-Gordon (2005) However, the molecular-
orbital representation requires a full eigenfunction solution of the ground
state problem, which typically requires a computational cost that scales as
${\mathcal{O}}(N^{3})$, where $N$ is the number of basis-functions, assumed to
be proportional to system size. A requirement for any reduction of this
computational ${\mathcal{O}}(N^{3})$ bottleneck is, therefore, to find a
_molecular-orbital-free_ algorithm for the solution of the RPA equation.
Recently, a number of groups Coriani et al. (2007); Izmaylov et al. (2006);
Xiang et al. (2006); Weber et al. (2005); Yam et al. (2003); Larsen et al.
(2000) have achieved a linear scaling computational complexity for the ground
state self-consistent field (SCF) problem in Hartree-Fock (or density
functional theory) using “fast” algorithms for computation of the Fockian
$\bm{F}$ and sparse matrix algebra (dropping of small elements) to exploit
quantum locality of the density matrix $\bm{P}$. If the transition densities
in the time-dependent response equations also demonstrates quantum locality,
then the same fast methods used for the ground state problem are
applicable.Yam et al. (2003); Izmaylov et al. (2006)
Solving the time-dependent quantum response problem in ${\mathcal{O}}(N)$ is
pivotal in studies of large scale systems currently inaccessible to
conventional methods. Perhaps the most successful approach, to date, is to
propagate an electron impulse response through numerical integration in real
time, Nomura et al. (1997); Yokojima and Chen (1999); Iitaka and Ebisuzaki
(2000); Yokojima and GuanHua (2000) and then retrieve the spectra from the
time series through Fourier transformation. More recently, Coriani, et
al.Coriani et al. (2007) have implemented the matrix exponential approach of
Larsen, et al., Larsen et al. (2000) observing an acceleration in computation
of excitation energies for one dimensional systems.
Another reduced complexity approach for time-dependent response calculations
was recently presented by Izmaylov, et al. Izmaylov et al. (2006) and Kussman
and Ochsenfield.Kussmann and Ochsenfeld (2007) It is worth noting that in the
adiabatic zero-frequency limit, when $\omega\rightarrow 0$, the adiabatic
response problem can be solved with surprising efficiency in linear scaling
complexity using adiabatic density matrix perturbation theory based on
purification.Niklasson and Challacombe (2004) Linear scaling density matrix
perturbation theory can be applied to the calculation of response properties
of molecules, both for lower Weber et al. (2004) and higher order
perturbations, Weber et al. (2005) as well as for the crystalline problem,
Xiang et al. (2006) including the electric polarizability.
The reduced complexity approach in this paper is based upon a well-established
variational characterization of the eigenvalue spectrum as applied to the RPA
equation. The key idea is to use an molecular-orbital-free approach, avoiding
the ${\mathcal{O}}(N^{3})$, bottleneck. This is achievable through a
functional optimization of an asymmetric Rayleigh Quotient as formulated by
Thouless more than four decades ago.Thouless (1961a) The intent of this paper
is not to present a linear scaling algorithm, but to analyze and discuss the
limitations and feasibility of a variational optimization of a Thouless
functional in the context of reduced complexity calculations.
## II Molecular-orbital-free time-dependent perturbation theory
To derive a molecular-orbital-free formulation for the RPA equation suitable
to ${\mathcal{O}}(N)$ calculations, we may start from time-dependent Hartree-
Fock theory,Cook (2005); Ring and Schuck (1980a)
$i\frac{\partial\bm{P}}{\partial
t}=[\bm{F},\bm{P}]_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{S}}}=\bm{FPS}-\bm{SPF},$ (4)
where $\bm{S}$ is the overlap matrix, $\bm{P}$ is the single-particle density
matrix of the Hartree-Fock ground state, and $\bm{F}$ is the effective single-
particle Hamiltonian, i.e., the Fockian (or the Kohn-Sham Hamilitonian, in a
generalization to time-dependent Density Functional theory). In an
orthogonalized representation, $\bm{S}$ becomes the identity matrix.
Looking at the first-order response under variation of the density matrix
$\delta\bm{P}$, we find that,
$i\frac{\partial\delta\bm{P}}{\partial
t}=[\bm{F},\delta\bm{P}]_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{S}}}+\left[\bm{G}(\delta\bm{P}),\bm{P}\right]_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{S}}},$
(5)
which, in the frequency domain, gives the RPA linear response eigenvalue
equation,
$[\bm{F},\bm{x}]_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{S}}}+\left[\bm{G}(\bm{x}),\bm{P}\right]_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{S}}}=\omega\bm{x}.$
(6)
Here, $\bm{x}$ is the Fourier transform of $\delta\bm{P}$ and
$\bm{G}(\bm{x})=2\bm{J}[\bm{x}]-\bm{K}[\bm{x}].$ (7)
The left commutator in Eq. (6) gives the zeroth-order approximation
corresponding the bare excitations, and the second commutator with
$\bm{G}(\bm{x})$, includes additional Coulomb, $\bm{J}[\bm{x}]$, and exchange
screening, $\bm{K}[\bm{x}]$. In a generalization to time-dependent DFT, the
exchange screening is replaced by the exchange correlation screening, i.e.,
the second-order functional derivative of the exchange-correlation action.
Hohenberg and Kohn (1964); Kohn and Sham (1965); Runge and Gross (1984);
Petersilka et al. (1996) The RPA excitation spectrum is thus given by the
eigenfrequencies $\omega$ corresponding to _ph,hp_ transitions in Eq. (6).
In a compact form, we can express the RPA equation, Eq. (6) as
$\mathds{L}{\vec{x}}=\omega\vec{x}.$ (8)
The vector ${\vec{x}}$ is dyadic, corresponding to the unrolled $N\times N$
matrix $\bm{x}$, i.e., ${\bm{x}}_{\scriptscriptstyle N\times
N}\Leftrightarrow{\vec{x}}_{\scriptscriptstyle N^{2}\times 1}$, where the
double-headed arrow denotes both equivalence and a tensorial mapping, or
simply a stack operation.Graham (1981) For the matrix transpose $\bm{x}^{T}$,
we use the corresponding unrolled vector notation $\vec{x}^{t}$. In the
following, we employ a mixed super-vector/matrix notation; projection is most
natural for matrices, while the use of a vector notation lends itself to
gradient-based minimization. The action of $\mathds{L}$ onto $\vec{x}$ in
Eq.(8) is thus given by
$\mathds{L}\vec{x}\Leftrightarrow[\bm{F},\bm{x}]_{\bm{\scriptscriptstyle}{S}}+[\bm{G}(\bm{x}),\bm{P}]_{\bm{\scriptscriptstyle}{\bm{S}}}.$
(9)
The general formulation of the RPA equation, as expressed in Eqs. (6) and (8),
is independent of the basis-set representation and can thus be applied in a
molecular-orbital-free approach, avoiding an expensive diagonalization scaling
as $\mathcal{O}(N^{3})$ with system size $N$. In our molecular-orbital-free
algorithm, we employ an orthogonalized atomic orbital basis representation,
with $\bm{S}=\bm{I}$, which can be efficiently constructed with
$\mathcal{O}(N)$ complexity through a congruence transformation,Golub and Van
Loan (1983) e.g., based upon the approximate inverse Cholesky transform.Benzi
and Tuma (2001) While this work involves solution of the RPA eigenvalue
equation, extension to time-dependent Density Functional theory is
straightforward.
## III Non-Linear Conjugate Gradient Optimization of the Thouless Functional
While the Lanczos algorithm has been used to iteratively solve the RPA
equation,Tretiak and Mukamel (2002) severe problems are experienced when
calculating high-lying excitations, e.g., due to orthogonality
constraints.Bertsch and K. (2002); Fabrocini et al. (2002) More importantly,
achieving linear scaling complexity requires sparse linear algebra, which may
preclude the Lanczos algorithm due to numerical instabilities.van den Eshof
and Sleijpen (2004a); Simoncini and Elden (2002); van den Eshof et al. (2005);
Simoncini and Szyld (2007) Our molecular-orbital-free scheme utilizes a non-
linear conjugate gradient optimization of a Rayleigh quotient related to the
method of Muta.Muta et al. (2002) The use of non-linear conjugate gradients
are particularly advantageous in the context of linear scaling algorithms,
because of the ability to remain robust under an incomplete sparse matrix
algebra, as demonstrated in the work of SimonciniSimoncini and Elden (2002)
and Notay.Notay (2003)
The core of our algorithm is a variational characterization of the excitation
spectrum based on the Thouless functional.Thouless (1961a) Thouless
demonstrated the possibility of a variational approach to solving the RPA
equation _via_ iterative optimization of an asymmetric Rayleigh Quotient. This
functional, when expressed in representation-independent form, becomes
$\Omega[\vec{x}]=\frac{{\vec{x}}^{\scriptscriptstyle
t}\cdot\mathds{L}{\vec{x}}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathds{N}}}}{\lvert{\vec{x}}\cdot{\vec{x}}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathds{N}}}\rvert},$
(10)
where it is understood that the numerator is computed as in Eq. (9) and the
denominator is given by the absolute value of the Euclidean vector product
denoted by the dot between $\vec{x}$ and
$\vec{x}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathds{N}}}$. The metric tensor $\mathds{N}$ is
included through
$\vec{x}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\mathds{N}}}=\mathds{N}\vec{x}\Leftrightarrow(\bm{P}-\bm{Q})\bm{x}~{},$
(11)
where the subscript $\mathds{N}$ denotes the action of $\mathds{N}$ onto
$\vec{x}$, $\bm{P}$ is the occupied subspace projector and
$\bm{Q}=\bm{I}-\bm{P}$ is the complimentary projector for the virtual
subspace.
Only stationary solutions to the Thouless functional in Eq. (10),
corresponding to _ph-hp_ transitions between the occupied and virtual
subspaces, are of physical relevance. Rather than impose _ph-hp_ symmetry
explicitly by construction, it is straightforward to reduce the variational
search space to the physically-relevant solutions by the projection. Zwanzig
(1960); Karplus and Kolker (1963); Langhoff et al. (1972); McWeeny (1989)
$\bm{x}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}=\bm{P}\bm{x}\bm{Q}+\bm{Q}\bm{x}\bm{P}$
(12)
or, equivalently,
$\bm{x}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}=[[\bm{x},\bm{P}],\bm{P}]~{}.$ (13)
This projection conforms to the _ph-hp_ formalism of the RPA Equation in the
MO basis, Eq. (1), with removal of non-physical states and reduces the size of
the variational search space considerably.
For large, sparse problems, it is possible to construct the $\bm{P}$ and
$\bm{Q}$ projectors (or density matrices) with linear scaling complexity using
recursive purification methods.McWeeny (1956); Palser and Manolopoulos (1998);
Niklasson (2002) In the general case, the metric tensor $\mathds{N}$, which
occurs implicitly in the Thouless functional, corresponds to the indefinite
scalar product Thouless and Valatin (1962); Ring and Schuck (1980b)
$(\vec{v},\vec{u})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}\Leftrightarrow\mathrm{Tr}\\{\bm{v}^{\scriptscriptstyle{T}}_{\scriptscriptstyle{P}}\,[\bm{u}_{\scriptscriptstyle{p}},\bm{P}]\\}=\mathrm{Tr}\\{\bm{v}^{\scriptscriptstyle{T}}_{\scriptscriptstyle{P}}\bm{(}\bm{P}-\bm{Q})\bm{u}_{\scriptscriptstyle{p}}\\}$
(14)
with the norm
$\lVert\bm{x}\rVert_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}=\lVert\vec{x}\rVert_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}=\sqrt{\lvert(\vec{x},\vec{x})_{\bm{\scriptscriptstyle}{P}}\rvert}~{}.$
(15)
We may now consider optimization of the representation-independent Thouless
functional,
$\Omega[\vec{x}]=\frac{(\vec{x},\mathds{L}\vec{x})\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}{\lVert\bm{x}\rVert_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}^{\scriptscriptstyle{2}}}~{}.$
(16)
This formulation of the Thouless functional implicitly invokes _ph-hp_
symmetry for the excitations, which produces paired eigenvalues,
$\pm\omega_{i}$ as would be associated with the Liouville operator.Antoniou et
al. (1998)
To locate the first transition, $(i=1)$, we minimize Eq. (16),
$\vec{v}_{i}=\operatorname*{argmin}_{\vec{x}}\Omega[\vec{x}]$ (17)
which yields the eigenfrequency
$\pm\omega_{i}=\pm\Omega[\vec{v}_{i}]~{}.$ (18)
The search for subsequent eigenstates requires that lower lying eigenvectors
be either projected out or shifted away, such that they are not rediscovered
by consecutive minimization. We use a Wilkinson shiftWilkinson (1965) of the
interior eigenvalues, shifting $\omega_{j}$ to $\omega_{j}+\sigma$, which is
outside the region of interest, written as the shifted $\mathds{L}\vec{x}$:
$\mathbb{L}\,\vec{x}+\sum_{j}^{i}\left(\omega_{j}+\sigma\right)\left[\vec{v_{j}}(\vec{v}_{j},\vec{x})_{\mathbf{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}}+\vec{v}^{\scriptscriptstyle\,t}_{j}(\vec{v}^{\scriptscriptstyle\,t}_{j},\vec{x})_{\mathbf{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}}\right],$
(19)
where $\\{\vec{v}_{j}\\}$ and $\\{\vec{w}_{j}\\}$ are previously determined
RPA eigenstates and excitation energies, respectively.
Our molecular-orbital-free algorithm utilizes a conventional Polak-Ribière
nonlinear conjugate gradient algorithm,Polak and Ribiere (1969); Polyak (1969)
with restarts, in an orthogonal atomic orbital (e.g., LöwdinLowdin (1950))
basis, as is summarized in Fig. 1. The outer loop runs over the first $M$
interior eigenvalues, while the inner loop iterates over the non-linear
conjugate gradient steps. The projections in Lines 4 and 10 eliminate non-
physical states by imposing _ph, hp_ symmetry, which significantly reduces the
search space. Note: the action of the $\mathds{L}$ operator is performed
through the Fock builds in Eq. (9). The first $\mathds{L}$ operation on Line 7
is used for calculation of the gradient, and the second $\mathds{L}$ operation
occurs at Line 13, which is used in the line search of Line 14.
The Wilkinson shift occurs on Lines 6 and 7 while construction of the Thouless
functional occurs in Line 8. The gradient $\vec{g}$, is defined in Lines 9 and
10 and the the conjugate gradient search directions
$\vec{p}_{\scriptscriptstyle k}$ are given by the subsequent calculations on
Lines 11 and 12. Restarts for $\beta=0$ were not necessary, and did not occur
during our test calculations.
The functional minimum of the line search along the conjugate gradient
directions on Line 14 is given by
$\lambda_{\pm}=\frac{-b\pm\sqrt{b^{2}-4ac}}{2ac}$ (20)
where
$a=(\vec{p},\vec{t})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}\left[(\vec{p},\vec{x})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}+(\vec{x},\vec{p})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}\right]\\\
-(\vec{p},\vec{p})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}\left[(\vec{p},\vec{s})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}+(\vec{x},\vec{t})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}\right]$
(21)
$b=2(\vec{p},\vec{t})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}(\vec{x},\vec{x})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}-2(\vec{x},\vec{s})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}(\vec{p},\vec{p})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}\qquad\qquad\quad~{}$
(22)
$c=(\vec{x},\vec{x})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}\left[(\vec{p},\vec{s})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}+(\vec{x},\vec{t})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}\right]\\\
-(\vec{x},\vec{s})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}\left[(\vec{p},\vec{x})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}+(\vec{x},\vec{p})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}\right].$
(23)
After each inner loop iteration over $k$, the desired $i$th eigenpair composed
of eigenvector the $\vec{v}_{\scriptscriptstyle i}$ and eigenvalue
$\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle i}$, are given on Lines 17 and 18.
Figure 1: The Molecular-Orbital-Free RPA Algorithm.
* (1)for $i=1$$\@ifatmargin\ \mbox{\rm\bf\sf to}\ M$$\@ifatmargin\ \mbox{\rm\bf\sf do}\ $(2)$Generate~{}initial~{}vector,\displaystyle\vec{x}$(3)for $k=1,until~{}convergence$(4)$\displaystyle\bm{x}=\mathbf{P}\bm{x}\mathbf{Q}+\mathbf{Q}\bm{x}\mathbf{P}^{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}_{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}$(5)$\displaystyle\vec{x}=\frac{\vec{x}}{\lVert\vec{x}\rVert_{\mathbf{\scriptscriptstyle P}}}_{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}$(6)$\displaystyle\vec{s}=\sum_{j}^{i-1}\left(\omega_{j}+\sigma)\right)\left[\vec{v_{j}}(\vec{v}_{j},\vec{x})_{\mathbf{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}}+\vec{v}^{\scriptscriptstyle\,t}_{j}(\vec{v}^{\scriptscriptstyle\,t}_{j},\vec{x})_{\mathbf{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}}\right]$(7)$\displaystyle\vec{s}=\mathds{L}\vec{x}+\vec{s}_{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}^{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}$(8)$\displaystyle\Omega=\frac{(\vec{x},\vec{s})_{\scriptscriptstyle\bm{P}}}{\lVert\vec{x}\rVert^{2}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}}_{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}$(9)$\displaystyle\vec{g}_{k}=2\vec{s}-2\Omega\vec{x}^{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}_{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}$(10)$\displaystyle\bm{g}_{k}=\mathbf{P}\bm{g}_{k}\mathbf{Q}+\mathbf{Q}\bm{g}_{k}\mathbf{P}_{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}$(11)$\displaystyle\beta=max\left\\{\frac{(\vec{g}_{\scriptscriptstyle k}-\vec{g}_{\scriptscriptstyle{k-1}},\vec{g}_{\scriptscriptstyle{k}})_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}}{\lVert\vec{g}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{k}-1}}\rVert^{2}_{\scriptscriptstyle{\bm{P}}}},0\right\\}_{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}$(12)$\displaystyle\vec{p}_{\scriptscriptstyle{k}}=\vec{g}_{\scriptscriptstyle{k}}+\beta\vec{p}_{k}$(13)$\displaystyle\vec{t}=\mathds{L}\vec{p}_{k}^{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}$(14)$\displaystyle\lambda_{k}=\operatorname*{argmin}_{\lambda}\Omega[\vec{x}+\lambda\vec{p}_{\scriptscriptstyle{k}}]^{\phantom{\displaystyle\sum}}$(15)$\displaystyle\vec{x}=\vec{x}+\lambda_{\scriptscriptstyle{k}}{\vec{p}_{\scriptscriptstyle{k}}}^{\phantom{\sum}}$(16)$\@ifatmargin\ $end$\@ifatmargin\ \mbox{\rm\bf\sf do}\ $(17)$\displaystyle\vec{v}_{\scriptscriptstyle{i}}=\vec{x}^{\phantom{\sum}}$(18)$\displaystyle\omega_{i}=\Omega[\vec{v}_{i}]$(19)$\@ifatmargin\ $enddo
## IV Performance of the Molecular-Orbital-Free Algorithm
### IV.1 Illustration of the RPA Eigenvalue Spectrum
To illustrate the performance of the molecular-orbital-free solution of the
RPA equation, the properties of the solutions and various relevant concepts, a
schematic picture containing a hypothetical set of spectra is provided in Fig.
2.
The spectrum to the extreme left, labeled (FULL), depicts a complete
eigenvalue spectrum. All eigenvalues, physical and non-physical are included:
no projections have been performed. There are numerous “bands” that might
imply clustering or degeneracies which would slow down a variational search of
the eigenstates.
The next spectrum, to the immediate right, (TRANSITIONS), demonstrates the
effect of the projection in Eq. (12) including only the subspace of _ph,hp_
transitions. The removal of unphysical states significantly reduces the
density of eigenvalues, particularly around zero. This strongly facilitates
the search for eigensolutions of the RPA equation, in particular for low-
lowing excitations of physical interest.Lehoucq and Sorensen (2000); Verhaar
(1960); Sleijpen and van den Eshof (2003); van den Eshof and Sleijpen (2004b);
Li (2004)
Figure 2: Illustration of a set of eigenvalue spectra for the RPA equation.
The entire spectrum, (FULL), is shown on the far-left. Notice the dense
clustering of eigenvalues around zero. Immediately to the right,
(TRANSITIONS), depicts the spectrum containing only physical particle-hole and
hole-particle excitations. The next spectrum, (CALCULATED), is an expansion
emphasizing a few low-lying transitions. The spectrum to the extreme right,
(KOOPMAN’s) contains the corresponding transitions as would be estimated from
Koopman’s theorem.
The third and fourth spectra, on the right, CALCULATED and KOOPMANS, provide
enlargements of the eigenvalue spectrum, in the positive region near zero. The
CALCULATED spectrum, shows low-lying _ph-hp_ transitions, given by the RPA
eigenvalue equation. Note that high energy excitations are not expected to be
well-described by the RPA equation.Brown et al. (1961); Brown (1964); Rowe
(1968); Cook (2005) The Koopman’s spectrum shows the bare excitations, without
Coulomb or exchange screening, and corresponds to the eigenvalue excitation
spectrum of the ground state Fockian. Koopman’s theorem provides only an
approximate spectrum,Szabo and Ostlund (1996) but, as will be shown below,
initial vectors derived from Koopman’s theorem produce good initial guesses
for our non-linear conjugate gradient optimization.
### IV.2 Convergence Behavior
To study the behavior of our molecular orbital-free algorithm, it was
prototyped in an orthogonalized atomic orbital basis employing dense linear
algebra and a conventional $\mathcal{O}(N^{4})$ approach to Hartree-Fock
theory. Our test calculations are thus not performed with any linear scaling
complexity. The present implementation is limited to $s$-type STO-3G basis
functions and is not expected to produce chemically-relevant data. Rather, we
utilize this description to characterize the most important features related
to more accurate representations, as well as consider the problems inherent to
linear scaling implementation. In this manner, we can simulate the influence
of large basis sets, extended periodic systems and complex molecules.
As with more conventional approaches to solving the excitation problem within
time-dependent perturbation theory, the work required to resolve an eigenstate
increases with an increasing condition number, $\kappa$, i.e., the ratio
between the highest and lowest singular value of $\mathbb{L}$. To study
convergence and other properties, we generated test systems using a linear
arrangement of fourteen hydrogen atoms. Progressively smaller inter-atomic
spacings produce correspondingly higher condition numbers, $\kappa$, which
parallels that which could arise as the size of system or basis set increases.
Notice, a variation of the condition number also illustrates the effect of
preconditioning. All condition numbers, $\kappa$, are estimated approximately
in order of their magnitude.
To simulate the effects of an incomplete, sparse matrix algebra – an absolute
necessity for linear scaling capability – we add a random matrix with elements
of amplitude $\pm\tau$ after each application of $\mathds{L}$ to a vector,
i.e., the $\mathbb{L}\vec{x}$ Fock builds. This is equivalent to using a
looser numerical threshold in the case of a vanishing difference density
matrix, which has been shown to yield linear scaling. Challacombe and
Schwegler (1997)
Two types of initial guesses are considered; a random guess, and a “Koopmans’
guess.” The Koopmans’ guess was based on direct diagonalization of the ground
state Fockian. This is an expensive procedure that certainly does not scale
linearly with system size. The purpose is to study the effect of an improved
initial guess. An efficient ${\mathcal{O}}(N)$ construction of an accurate
initial guess remains a very important, yet unsolved problem not discussed in
this article.Goddard et al. (1973); Huzinaga and Hirao (1977); Flindt (2004);
Chassaing (2005)
The convergence is measured in terms of the relative errors of the approximate
RPA eigenvalues, $\epsilon_{n}$, where the error,
$\textrm{Err(n)}=\lvert\frac{{\epsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle{n}}-\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle{ref}}}}{\epsilon_{\scriptscriptstyle{n}}}\rvert,$
(24)
is calculated in each conjugate gradient iteration, $n$. The reference
eigenvalues, $\omega_{\scriptscriptstyle{ref}}$, were obtained from direct
diagonalization of the $\mathds{L}$ matrices using the ZGEEV routine in the
LAPACK library.Lap (2006)
#### IV.2.1 Small $\kappa$, Varied Initial Guess
The convergence behavior for the first 5 eigenvalues,
$\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{5}$, of the system with a condition number
$\kappa=10^{2}$ is depicted in Fig. 3. The algorithm starts with randomly
generated initial vectors for each of the 5 eigenvalues sought. The non-linear
conjugate gradient optimization for each eigenvalue is then allowed to proceed
until $\textrm{Err}(n)<10^{-12}$.
Figure 3: Convergence of the first 5 eigenvalues for a well-conditioned
($\kappa=10^{2}$) matrix using random initial guesses.
Contrast these results with the curves in Fig. 4, which contains the
convergence patterns for the same system, but this time starting with initial
guess vectors based upon Koopman’s theorem. Despite the apparent non-ideality
implied by the hypothetical Koopman’s-based spectrum (KOOPMAN’s) in Fig. 2,
the initial eigenvectors generated by Koopman’s guess provide significant
improvement in the rate of convergence compared to that of the random vectors
used to generate the plots in Fig. 3. For the third eigenvalue, the
convergence is improved by almost an order of magnitude.
Figure 4: Convergence of the first 5 eigenvalues for a well-conditioned
($\kappa=10^{2}$) matrix using initial guesses derived from Koopman’s theorem.
#### IV.2.2 Convergence: Varied $\kappa$, Good Initial Guess
While the behavior of the algorithm for well-conditioned matrices is useful
for proof-of-concept, the performance of any algorithm in the presence of ill-
conditioned matrices is of paramount importance for many problems, especially
in the limit of large basis sets. Figure 5 illustrates the convergence for
condition numbers ranging from $\kappa=10^{1}$ to $10^{4}$. We use initial
vectors based on Koopman’s theorem in each case.
Figure 5: Convergence of the first eigenvalue for matrices with
$\kappa\in[10^{2},10^{4}]$. In each case the Koopmans’ guess was used.
The curves in Fig. 5 depict the convergence behavior for the lowest excitation
energy for each condition number $\kappa$, but similar patterns are observed
for all of the first five eigenvalues in each case. The dashed (black) and
dotted (red) lines show convergence patterns for the more well-conditioned
systems, whereas the solid (green) and dash-dotted (blue) lines represent
convergence for the less well-conditioned systems. The small blip observed at
iteration 8 for the $\kappa=10^{3}$ system is an artifact of the error
calculation because of a sign change relative to the reference value.
The number of iterations required to reach the convergence,
$\textrm{Err}(n)<10^{-12}$, increases by almost an order of magnitude when the
condition number is increased. This also indicates the potential improvement
that could be reached by an efficient preconditioner. For the two better-
conditioned systems, the distribution of the smaller eigenvalues is more even,
resulting in smooth curves and relatively rapid convergence. This pattern for
the first eigenvalue is also observed in the more well-conditioned case in
Figs. 3 and 4.
In going from well- to ill-conditioned matrices, not only does the slope
decrease, extending the number of iterations to convergence, but the
morphology of the curves changes as well. A pronounced step/plateau pattern is
evident, particularly as the optimization proceeds. This behavior is typical
of conjugate gradient schemes with clustered eigenvalues. Luenberger (1984);
Golub and Van Loan (1983); Nocedal and Wright (2006)
### IV.3 Sensitivity to Numerical Error
To probe the robustness of the molecular-orbital-free algorithm, we added
noise of varying levels to a well-conditioned ($\kappa=10^{2}$) system, as
illustrated in Fig. 6. Again, we used a Koopman’s theorem-based initial vector
and observed the convergence behavior for the first eigenvalue.
Figure 6: Convergence of the first eigenvalue for $\kappa\sim 10^{2}$ with
random noise in the range $\tau\in{\scriptstyle{\pm}}[10^{-8},10^{-4}]$, using
initial guesses based upon Koopman’s theorem.
Random noise in the range, $\tau\in{\scriptstyle{\pm}}[10^{-8},10^{-4}]$,
provides a reasonable estimate of the induced errors we encounter in a typical
linear scaling implementation, where small elements below some chosen
numerical tolerance are set to zero. We added this noise to every component of
the newly formed vector ($\mathds{L}\vec{x}$) for each iteration of the inner
conjugate gradient loop (the “’$k$” loop) in order to simulate the
accumulation of numerical error as the calculation proceeds (see Fig. 1).
We find that the algorithm is robust and stable with respect to numerical
noise and that the error at convergence scales approximately linearly with the
level of noise. The same behavior is also observed for more ill-conditioned
systems, as shown in Fig. 7.
Figure 7: Convergence of the first eigenvalue for $\kappa\sim 10^{4}$ for
random noise in the range, $\tau\in{\scriptstyle{\pm}}[10^{-8},10^{-4}]$ using
initial guess vectors derived from Koopman’s theorem.
## V Discussion and Conclusions
We have presented an algorithm for the variational characterization of the RPA
eigenvalue spectrum, based on the Thouless functional and a non-linear
conjugate gradient optimization in a molecular-orbital-free representation. We
have analyzed the convergence with respect to initial guess, condition number
(preconditioning) and numerical noise. This analysis clearly indicates a
potential for reduced complexity calculations of large systems. However, there
remain several open questions: 1) The search space for the excitation spectrum
corresponding to the dimensions of the Liouville operator $\mathds{L}$ in the
RPA eigenvalue problem scales quadratically, $\mathcal{O}(N^{2})$, with system
size. Unless the initial guess is highly accurate, we can expect the number of
iterations required to reach convergence to increase with system size. This
would obviate linear scaling complexity. 2) Unfortunately, the construction of
a highly accurate initial guess is computationally very expensive. For
example, building the Koopman’s guess would typically require a
diagonalization of the Fockian which scales as $\mathcal{O}(N^{3})$. A reduced
complexity technique for finding a good initial guess or accurate
preconditioningBergamaschi et al. (2000); Simoncini and Elden (2002); Notay
(2003); Simoncini (2005); Simoncini and Szyld (2007) remains an unsolved,
important challenge, though many efficient constructions may be possible. 3)
The stability of the Wilkinson shift under sparse linear matrix algebra has
not been fully investigated, though the stability under noisy conditions
indicates that this is not a problem.
In conclusion, the molecular-orbital-free scheme based upon a well-established
variational characterization of the RPA excitation spectrum exhibits most of
the necessary features required for an efficient linear scaling
implementation. While further work remains, we believe this technique will
become highly valuable for determination of large-scale excited state
properties.
## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to express our gratitude to Professor C. J. Tymczak and Drs.
Richard L. Martin, Antonio Redondo, Kimberly W. Thomas, Eddy M. Timmermans and
Valéry Weber for many helpful discussions. M.J.L. gratefully acknowledges the
support of a LANL Director’s Postdoctoral Fellowship. This work was performed
under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy and the Los Alamos
National Laboratory LDRD program.
## References
* Goedecker (1999) S. Goedecker, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1085 (1999).
* Dirac (1930) P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 26, 376 (1930).
* Frenkel (1934) J. Frenkel, _Wave Mechanics, Advanced General Theory_ (Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1934).
* Heinrichs (1968) J. Heinrichs, Chem. Phys. Lett. 2, 315 (1968).
* Thouless (1972) D. J. Thouless, _The Quantum Mechanics of Many-Body Systems_ , vol. 11 of _Pure and Applied Physics_ (Academic Press, New York, 1972), 2nd ed.
* Ring and Schuck (1980a) P. Ring and P. Schuck, _The Nuclear Many-Body Problem_ , vol. xvii of _Texts and Monographs in Physics_ (Springer-Verglag, New York, 1980a).
* McWeeny (1989) R. McWeeny, _Methods of Molecular Quantum Mechanics_ , Theoretical Chemistry (Academic Press, San Diego, 1989), 2nd ed.
* Szabo and Ostlund (1996) A. Szabo and N. Ostlund, _Modern Quantum Chemistry Introduction to Electronc Structure Theory_ (Dover, Mineola, NY, 1996).
* Runge and Gross (1984) E. Runge and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 997 (1984).
* Dreuw and Head-Gordon (2005) A. Dreuw and M. Head-Gordon, Chem. Rev. 105, 4009 (2005).
* Bohm and Pines (1951) D. Bohm and D. Pines, Phys. Rev. 82, 625 (1951).
* Pines and Bohm (1952) D. Pines and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 85, 338 (1952).
* Nozieres and Pines (1958) P. Nozieres and D. Pines, Nuovo Cimento [X]9, 470 (1958).
* Ehrenreich and Cohen (1959) H. Ehrenreich and M. H. Cohen, Phys. Rev. 115, 786 (1959), an excellent discussion and historical overview may be found in Cook’s book, reference 23\.
* Zwanzig (1964) R. Zwanzig, Physica A 30, 1109 (1964).
* Sawada et al. (1957) K. Sawada, K. A. Brueckner, N. Fukuda, and R. Brout, Phys. Rev. 108, 507 (1957).
* Baranger (1960) M. Baranger, Phys. Rev. 120, 957 (1960).
* Ferrell and Quinn (1957) R. A. Ferrell and T. T. Quinn, Phys. Rev. 108, 570 (1957).
* Thouless (1961a) D. J. Thouless, Nucl. Phys. A 22, 78 (1961a).
* Ferrell (1957) R. A. Ferrell, Phys. Rev. 107, 1631 (1957).
* Goldstone and Gottfried (1959) J. Goldstone and K. Gottfried, Nuovo Cimento 13, 849 (1959).
* Rowe (1966) D. J. Rowe, Nucl. Phys. 80, 209 (1966).
* Cook (2005) D. B. Cook, _Handbook of Computational Quantum Chemistry_ (Oxford University Press, New York, 2005).
* Tamm (1991) I. Tamm, in _I. E. Tamm Selected Papers_ , edited by B. M. Bolotovskii and V. Y. Frenkel (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991), pp. 157–173, an English translation of the original paper: I. Tamm, J. Phys. USSR 9, 449 (1945).
* Tamm (1945) I. Tamm, J. Phys. USSR 9, 449 (1945).
* Dancoff (1950) S. M. Dancoff, Phys. Rev. 78, 382 (1950).
* Thouless (1961b) D. J. Thouless, Nucl. Phys. A 22, 85 (1961b).
* Appel et al. (2003) H. Appel, E. K. U. Gross, and K. Burke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 430051 (2003).
* Coriani et al. (2007) S. Coriani, S. Host, B. Jansik, L. Thogersen, J. Olsen, P. Jorgensen, S. Reine, F. Pawlowski, T. Helgaker, and P. Salek, J. Chem. Phys. 126, 154108 (2007).
* Izmaylov et al. (2006) A. F. Izmaylov, E. N. Brothers, and G. E. Scuseria, J. Chem. Phys. 125, 224105 (2006).
* Xiang et al. (2006) H. J. Xiang, J. L. Yang, J. G. Hou, and Q. S. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 266402 (2006).
* Weber et al. (2005) V. Weber, A. M. N. Niklasson, and M. Challacombe, J. Chem. Phys. 123, 44106 (2005).
* Yam et al. (2003) C. Y. Yam, S. Yokojima, and G. Chen, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 8794 (2003).
* Larsen et al. (2000) H. Larsen, P. Jorgensen, J. Olsen, and T. Helgaker, J. Chem. Phys. 113, 8908 (2000).
* Nomura et al. (1997) S. Nomura, T. Iitaka, X. Zhao, T. Sugano, and Y. Aoyagi, Phys. Rev. B 56, R4348 (1997).
* Yokojima and Chen (1999) S. Yokojima and G. H. Chen, Chem. Phys. Lett. 300, 540 (1999).
* Iitaka and Ebisuzaki (2000) T. Iitaka and T. Ebisuzaki, Phys. Rev. E 61, R3314 (2000).
* Yokojima and GuanHua (2000) S. Yokojima and C. GuanHua, RIKEN Rev. pp. 77–9 (2000).
* Kussmann and Ochsenfeld (2007) J. Kussmann and Ochsenfeld, J. Chem. Phys. 127, 204103 (2007).
* Niklasson and Challacombe (2004) A. M. N. Niklasson and M. Challacombe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 193001 (2004).
* Weber et al. (2004) V. Weber, A. M. N. Niklasson, and M. Challacombe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 193002 (2004).
* Hohenberg and Kohn (1964) P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. 136, B:864—B871 (1964).
* Kohn and Sham (1965) W. Kohn and L. J. Sham, Phys. Rev. 140, 1133 (1965).
* Petersilka et al. (1996) M. Petersilka, U. J. Gossmann, and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1212 (1996).
* Graham (1981) A. Graham, _Kroneker Products and Matrix Calculus With Applications_ (Halstead Press, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1981).
* Golub and Van Loan (1983) G. H. Golub and C. F. Van Loan, _Matrix Computations_ (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 1983).
* Benzi and Tuma (2001) M. Benzi and M. Tuma, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 190, 6533 (2001).
* Tretiak and Mukamel (2002) S. Tretiak and S. Mukamel, Chem. Rev. 102, 3171 (2002).
* Bertsch and K. (2002) G. F. Bertsch and Y. K., in _Introduction to Modern Methods of Quantum Many-Body Theory and Their Applications_ , edited by A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni, and E. Ktrotscheck (World Scientific, New Jersey, 2002), vol. 7, pp. 1–48.
* Fabrocini et al. (2002) A. Fabrocini, S. Fantoni, and E. Krotscheck, _Introduction to Modern Methods of Quantum Many-Body Theory and Their Applications_ , vol. 7 of _Series on Advances in Quantum Many-Body Theory_ (World Scientific, New Jersy, 2002).
* van den Eshof and Sleijpen (2004a) J. van den Eshof and G. L. G. Sleijpen, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 26, 125 (2004a).
* Simoncini and Elden (2002) V. Simoncini and L. Elden, BIT 42, 159 (2002).
* van den Eshof et al. (2005) J. van den Eshof, G. L. G. Sleijpen, and M. B. van Gijzen, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 177, 347 (2005).
* Simoncini and Szyld (2007) V. Simoncini and D. B. Szyld, Numer. Lin. Alg. Appl. 14, 1 (2007).
* Muta et al. (2002) A. Muta, J. I. Iwata, Y. Hashimoto, and K. Yabana, Prog. Theor. Phys. 108, 1065 (2002).
* Notay (2003) Y. Notay, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. App. 24, 627 (2003).
* Zwanzig (1960) R. Zwanzig, J. Chem. Phys. 33, 1338 (1960).
* Karplus and Kolker (1963) M. Karplus and H. J. Kolker, J. Chem. Phys. 39, 1493 (1963).
* Langhoff et al. (1972) P. W. Langhoff, S. T. Epstein, and M. Karplus, Rev. Mod. Phys. 44, 602 (1972).
* McWeeny (1956) R. McWeeny, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A-Math 235, 496 (1956).
* Palser and Manolopoulos (1998) A. H. R. Palser and D. E. Manolopoulos, Phys. Rev. B 58, 12704 (1998).
* Niklasson (2002) A. M. N. Niklasson, Phys. Rev. B 66, 155115 (2002).
* Thouless and Valatin (1962) D. J. Thouless and J. G. Valatin, Nucl. Phys. 31, 211 (1962).
* Ring and Schuck (1980b) P. Ring and P. Schuck, _The Nuclear Many-Body Problem_ , vol. xvii of _Texts and Monographs in Physics_ (Springer-Verglag, New York, 1980b), see Appendix D, p. 606\.
* Antoniou et al. (1998) I. Antoniou, M. Gadella, and Z. Suchanecki, Int. J. Theoret. Phys. 37, 1641 (1998).
* Wilkinson (1965) J. H. Wilkinson, _The Algebraic Eigenvalue Problem_ (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1965).
* Polak and Ribiere (1969) E. Polak and G. Ribiere, Revue Francaise d’Informatique et de Recherche Operationnelle 3, 35 (1969).
* Polyak (1969) B. T. Polyak, Zhurnal Vychislitel’noi Matematiki i Matematicheskoi Fiziki 9, 807 (1969).
* Lowdin (1950) P. O. Lowdin, J. Chem. Phys. 18, 365 (1950).
* Lehoucq and Sorensen (2000) R. Lehoucq and D. Sorensen, in _Templates for the Solution of Algebraic Eigenvalue Problems: A Practical Guide_ , edited by Z. Bai, J. Demmel, J. Dongarra, A. Ruhe, and H. v. d. Vorst (SIAM, Philadelphia, 2000), pp. 43–45.
* Verhaar (1960) B. J. Verhaar, Nucl. Phys. A 21, 508 (1960).
* Sleijpen and van den Eshof (2003) G. L. G. Sleijpen and J. van den Eshof, Lin. Alg. Appl. 358, 115 (2003).
* van den Eshof and Sleijpen (2004b) J. van den Eshof and G. L. G. Sleijpen, Appl. Numer. Math. 49, 17 (2004b).
* Li (2004) R.-C. Li, BIT 44, 585 (2004).
* Brown et al. (1961) G. E. Brown, D. J. Thouless, Nordita, and J. A. Evans, Nucl. Phys. 24, 1 (1961).
* Brown (1964) G. E. Brown, _Unified Theory of Nuclear Models_ (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1964).
* Rowe (1968) D. J. Rowe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 40, 153 (1968).
* Challacombe and Schwegler (1997) M. Challacombe and E. Schwegler, J. Chem. Phys. 106, 5526 (1997).
* Goddard et al. (1973) W. A. Goddard, T. H. Dunning, W. J. Hunt, and P. J. Hay, Acc. Chem. Res. 6, 368 (1973).
* Huzinaga and Hirao (1977) S. Huzinaga and K. Hirao, J. Chem. Phys. 66, 2157 (1977).
* Flindt (2004) C. Flindt, Master’s thesis, Technical University of Denmark (2004).
* Chassaing (2005) T. Chassaing, Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Zurich (2005).
* Lap (2006) _Lapack - linear algebra package_ (2006), http://www.netlib.org/lapack.
* Luenberger (1984) D. Luenberger, _Introduction to Linear and Nonlinear Programming_ (Addison-Wesley, 1984), 2nd ed.
* Nocedal and Wright (2006) J. Nocedal and S. Wright, _Numerical Optimization_ , Springer Series in Optimization Research (Springer, New York, 2006), 2nd ed.
* Bergamaschi et al. (2000) L. Bergamaschi, G. Pini, and F. Sartoretto, Num. Lin. Alg. Appl. 7, 99 (2000).
* Simoncini (2005) V. Simoncini, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 43, 1155 (2005).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-21T16:40:38 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.871828 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Melissa J. Lucero, Anders M. N. Niklasson, Sergei Tretiak, Matt\n Challacombe",
"submitter": "Anders Niklasson",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3313"
} |
0805.3378 | # Global well-posedness and scattering for the defocusing
$H^{\frac{1}{2}}$-subcritical Hartree equation in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$
Changxing Miao, Guixiang Xu, and Lifeng Zhao
Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics
P. O. Box 8009, Beijing, China, 100088
(miao_changxing@iapcm.ac.cn, xu_guixiang@iapcm.ac.cn, zhao_lifeng@iapcm.ac.cn
)
###### Abstract
We prove the global well-posedness and scattering for the defocusing
$H^{\frac{1}{2}}$-subcritical (that is, $2<\gamma<3$) Hartree equation with
low regularity data in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, $d\geq 3$. Precisely, we show that a
unique and global solution exists for initial data in the Sobolev space
$H^{s}\big{(}\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}$ with $s>4(\gamma-2)/(3\gamma-4)$, which
also scatters in both time directions. This improves the result in [5], where
the global well-posedness was established for any
$s>\max\big{(}1/2,4(\gamma-2)/(3\gamma-4)\big{)}$. The new ingredients in our
proof are that we make use of an interaction Morawetz estimate for the
smoothed out solution $Iu$, instead of an interaction Morawetz estimate for
the solution $u$, and that we make careful analysis of the monotonicity
property of the multiplier $m(\xi)\cdot\langle\xi\rangle^{p}$. As a byproduct
of our proof, we obtain that the $H^{s}$ norm of the solution obeys the
uniform-in-time bounds.
Key Words: Almost Interaction Morawetz estimate; Well-posedness; Hartree
equation; I-method; Uniform bound.
AMS Classification: 35Q40, 35Q55, 47J35.
## 1 Introduction
In this paper, we study the global well-posedness of the following initial
value problem (IVP) for the defocusing $H^{\frac{1}{2}}$-subcritical (that is,
$2<\gamma<3$) Hartree equation.
$\left\\{\begin{aligned} iu_{t}+\Delta
u&=\big{(}|x|^{-\gamma}*|u|^{2}\big{)}u,\quad d\geq 3,\\\ u(0)&=u_{0}(x)\in
H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{d}),\end{aligned}\right.$ (1.1)
where $H^{s}$ denotes the usual inhomogeneous Sobolev space of order $s$.
We adopt the following standard notion of local well-posedness, that is, we
say that the IVP (1.1) is locally well-posed in $H^{s}$ if for any $u_{0}\in
H^{s}$, there exists a positive time $T=T(\big{\|}u_{0}\big{\|}_{s})$
depending only on the norm of the initial data, such that a solution to the
IVP exists on the time interval $[0,T]$, is unique in a certain Banach space
of functional $X\subset C\big{(}[0,T],H^{s}\big{)}$, and the solution map from
$H^{s}_{x}$ to $C\big{(}[0,T],H^{s}\big{)}$ depends continuously. If $T$ can
be taken arbitrarily large, we say that the IVP (1.1) is globally well-posed.
Local well-posedness for the IVP (1.1) in $H^{s}$ for any
$s>\frac{\gamma}{2}-1$ was established in [18]. A local solution also exists
for $H^{\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}$ initial data, but the time of existence depends
not only on the $H^{\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}$ norm of $u_{0}$, but also on the
profile of $u_{0}$. For more details on local well-posedness see [18].
$L^{2}$ solutions of (1.1) enjoy mass conservation
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u(t,\cdot)\big{\|}_{L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}=\big{\|}u_{0}(\cdot)\big{\|}_{L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}.$
Moreover, $H^{1}$ solutions enjoy energy conservation
$\displaystyle E(u)(t)=\frac{1}{2}$ $\displaystyle\big{\|}\nabla
u(t)\big{\|}^{2}_{L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}+\frac{1}{4}\iint_{\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}}\frac{1}{|x-y|^{\gamma}}|u(t,x)|^{2}|u(t,y)|^{2}\
dxdy=E(u)(0),$
which together with mass conservation and the local theory immediately yields
global well-posedness for (1.1) with initial data in $H^{1}$. A large amount
of works have been devoted to global well-posedness and scattering for the
Hartree equation, see [7]-[11], [13], [15], [17]-[23].
Figure 1: The curve “ABC” is descripted by “$s=\frac{4(\gamma-2)}{3\gamma-4}$”
Existence of global solutions in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ to (1.1) corresponding to
initial data below the energy threshold was recently obtained in [5] by using
the method of “almost conservation laws” or “I-method” (for a detailed
description of this method, see [25] or section 3 below) and the interaction
Morawetz estimate for the solution $u$, where global well-posedness was
obtained in $H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{3})$ with
$s>\max\big{(}1/2,4(\gamma-2)/(3\gamma-4)\big{)}$. Since authors in [5] used
the interaction Morawetz estimate, which involves $\dot{H}^{1/2}$ norm of the
solution, the restriction condition $s\geq\frac{1}{2}$ is prerequisite. In
order to resolve IVP (1.1) in $H^{s}$, $s<\frac{1}{2}$ by still using the
interaction Morawetz estimate, we need return to the interaction Morawetz
estimate for the smoothed out version $Iu$ of the solution, which is initially
used in [2], whereafter in [6].
In this paper, we consider the case $d\geq 3$ and we prove the following
result:
###### Theorem 1.1.
Let $2<\gamma<3\leq d$, the initial value problem (1.1) is globally well-
posedness in $H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ for any
$s>\frac{4(\gamma-2)}{3\gamma-4}$. Moreover the solution satisfies
$\displaystyle\sup_{t\in[0,\infty)}\big{\|}u(t)\big{\|}_{H^{s}\big{(}\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}\leq
C\big{(}\big{\|}u_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{s}}\big{)},$
and there is scattering for these solutions, that is, the wave operators exist
and there is asymptotic completeness on all of $H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$.
###### Remark 1.1.
As for the case $3\leq\gamma<4\leq d$, local well-posedness for the IVP (1.1)
in $H^{s}$ holds for any $s>\frac{\gamma}{2}-1$. Note that in this case, we
have
$\displaystyle\frac{\gamma}{2}-1\geq\frac{1}{2},$
which satisfies the need of the regularity of the interaction Morawetz
estimate. Hence we only combine “I-method” with the interaction Morawetz
estimate for the solution to obtain the low regularity of the IVP (1.1), just
as in [3] .
For the case $d=3$, Theorem 1.1 improves the result
$s>\max\big{(}1/2,4(\gamma-2)/(3\gamma-4)\big{)}$ in [5] (see Figure 1), where
the authors used “I-method” and the interaction Morawetz estimate for the
solution just as in [3]. In general, in order to prove the almost conservation
law, one doesn’t need to use the monotonicity property of the multiplier
$m(\xi)\cdot\langle\xi\rangle^{p}$. In the present paper, we prove Theorem 1.1
by combining I-method with an interaction Morawetz estimate for the smoothed
out version $Iu$ of the solution. Such a Morawetz estimate for an almost
solution is the main novelty of this paper, which can lower the need on the
regularity of the initial data.
Last, we organize this paper as following: In Section 2, we introduce some
notation and state some important propositions that we will used throughout
this paper. In Section 3, we review the I-method, prove the local well-
posedness theory for $Iu$ and obtain an upper bound on the increment of the
modified energy. In Section 4, we prove the “almost interaction Morawetz
estimate” for the smoothed out version $Iu$ of the solution. Finally in
Section 5, we give the details of the proof of the global well-posedness
stated in Theorem 1.1.
## 2 Notation and preliminaries
### 2.1 Notation
In what follows, we use $A\lesssim B$ to denote an estimate of the form $A\leq
CB$ for some constant $C$. If $A\lesssim B$ and $B\lesssim A$, we say that
$A\thickapprox B$. We write $A\ll B$ to denote an estimate of the form $A\leq
cB$ for some small constant $c>0$. In addition $\langle a\rangle:=1+|a|$ and
$a\pm:=a\pm\epsilon$ with $0<\epsilon\ll 1$. The reader also has to be alert
that we sometimes do not explicitly write down constants that depend on the
$L^{2}$ norm of the solution. This is justified by the conservation of the
$L^{2}$ norm.
### 2.2 Definition of spaces
We use $L^{r}_{x}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ to denote the Lebesgue space of functions
$f:\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{C}$ whose norm
$\displaystyle\big{\|}f\big{\|}_{L^{r}_{x}}:=\Big{(}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}\big{|}f(x)\big{|}^{r}dx\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{r}}$
is finite, with the usual modification in the case $r=\infty$. We also use the
space-time Lebesgue spaces $L^{q}_{t}L^{r}_{x}$ which are equipped with the
norm
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{q}_{t}L^{r}_{x}}:=\Big{(}\int_{J}\big{\|}u(t,x)\big{\|}^{q}_{L^{r}_{x}}dt\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{q}}$
for any space-time slab $J\times\mathbb{R}$, with the usual modification when
either $q$ or $r$ are infinity. When $q=r$, we abbreviate $L^{q}_{t}L^{r}_{x}$
by $L^{q}_{t,x}$.
As usual, we define the Fourier transform of $f(x)\in L^{1}_{x}$ by
$\displaystyle\widehat{f}(\xi)=\big{(}2\pi\big{)}^{-\frac{d}{2}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}e^{-ix\xi}f(x)dx.$
We define the fractional differentiation operator $|\nabla_{x}|^{\alpha}$ for
any real $\alpha$ by
$\displaystyle\widehat{|\nabla|^{\alpha}u}(\xi):=|\xi|^{\alpha}\widehat{u}(\xi),$
and analogously
$\displaystyle\widehat{\langle\nabla\rangle^{\alpha}u}(\xi):=\langle\xi\rangle^{\alpha}\widehat{u}(\xi).$
The inhomogeneous Sobolev space $H^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ is given via
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{H^{s}}:=\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle^{s}u\big{\|}_{L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}},$
while the homogeneous Sobolev space $\dot{H}^{s}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ is given via
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{\dot{H}^{s}}:=\big{\|}|\nabla|^{s}u\big{\|}_{L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}.$
Let $S(t)$ denote the solution operator to the linear Schrödinger equation
$\displaystyle iu_{t}+\Delta u=0,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}.$
We denote by $X^{s,b}(\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d})$ the completion of
$\mathcal{S}\big{(}\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}$ with respect to the
following norm
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{X^{s,b}}=\big{\|}S(-t)u\big{\|}_{H^{s}_{x}H^{b}_{t}}=\big{\|}\langle\tau+|\xi|^{2}\rangle^{b}\langle\xi\rangle^{s}\widetilde{u}(\tau,\xi)\big{\|}_{L^{2}_{\tau}L^{2}_{\xi}\big{(}\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}},$
where $\widetilde{u}$ is the space-time Fourier transform
$\displaystyle\widetilde{u}(\tau,\xi)=\big{(}2\pi\big{)}^{-\frac{d+1}{2}}\iint_{\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}}e^{-i(x\cdot\xi+t\tau)}u(t,x)dtdx.$
Furthermore for a given time interval $J$, we define
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{X^{s,b}(J)}=\inf\Big{\\{}\big{\|}v\big{\|}_{X^{s,b}};\
v=u\ \text{on}\ J\Big{\\}}.$
### 2.3 Some known estimates
Now we recall a few known estimates that we shall need. First we state the
following Strichartz estimate [1], [14]. Let $d\geq 3$, we recall that a pair
of exponents $(q,r)$ is called admissible if
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{q}=d(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{r}),\quad 2\leq
q,r\leq\infty.$
###### Proposition 2.1.
Let $d\geq 3$, $(q,r)$ and $(\widetilde{q},\widetilde{r})$ be any two
admissible pairs. Suppose that $u$ is a solution to
$\displaystyle iu_{t}+\Delta u$ $\displaystyle=F(t,x),\ t\in
J,x\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ $\displaystyle u(0)$ $\displaystyle=u_{0}(x).$
Then we have the estimate
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{q}_{t}L^{r}_{x}\big{(}J\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}\lesssim\big{\|}u_{0}\big{\|}_{L^{2}\big{(}\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}+\big{\|}F\big{\|}_{L^{\widetilde{q}^{\prime}}_{t}L^{\widetilde{r}^{\prime}}_{x}\big{(}J\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}},$
where the prime exponents denote Hölder dual exponents.
Let us say that a function $u$ has spatial frequency $N$ if its Fourier
transform is supported on the annulus $\big{\\{}\langle\xi\rangle\thickapprox
N\big{\\}}$. From Strichartz estimate
$\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{q}_{t}L^{r}_{x}}\lesssim\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{X^{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}$
for admissible $(q,r)$ and Sobolev embedding theorem, we have
###### Proposition 2.2.
For $r<\infty,\ 0\leq\frac{2}{q}\leq\min\big{(}\delta(r),1\big{)}$, we have
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{q}_{t}L^{r}_{x}}\lesssim\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{X^{\delta(r)-\frac{2}{q},\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
While for $2\leq q\leq\infty,r=\infty$, we have
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{q}_{t}L^{\infty}_{x}}\lesssim\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{X^{\frac{d}{2}-\frac{2}{q}+,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
## 3 the I-method and the modified local well-posedness
### 3.1 the I-operator and the hierarchy of energies
Let us define the operator $I$. For $s<1$ and a parameter $N\gg 1$, let
$m(\xi)$ be the following smooth monotone multiplier:
$\displaystyle m(\xi):=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}1,&\text{if}\ \ |\xi|<N,\\\
\big{(}\frac{N}{|\xi|}\big{)}^{1-s},&\text{if}\ \ |\xi|>2N.\end{array}\right.$
We define the multiplier operator $I:H^{s}\longrightarrow H^{1}$ by
$\displaystyle\widehat{Iu}(\xi)=m(\xi)\widehat{u}(\xi).$
The operator $I$ is smoothing of order $1-s$ and we have that
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{H^{s_{0}}}\lesssim$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}_{H^{s_{0}+1-s}}\lesssim
N^{1-s}\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{H^{s_{0}}},$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{X^{s_{0},b_{0}}}\lesssim$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}_{X^{s_{0}+1-s,b_{0}}}\lesssim
N^{1-s}\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{X^{s_{0},b_{0}}}$
for any $s_{0},b_{0}\in\mathbb{R}$.
We set
$\displaystyle\widetilde{E}(u)=E(Iu),$ (3.1)
where
$\displaystyle E(u)(t)=\frac{1}{2}$ $\displaystyle\big{\|}\nabla
u(t)\big{\|}^{2}_{L^{2}}+\frac{1}{4}\int\int\frac{1}{|x-y|^{\gamma}}|u(t,x)|^{2}|u(t,y)|^{2}\
dxdy.$
We call $\widetilde{E}(u)$ the modified energy. Since we will focus on the
analysis of the modified energy, we collect some facts concerning the calculus
of multilinear forms used to define the modified energy.
If $k\geq 2$ is an even integer, we define a spatial multiplier of order $k$
to be the function $M_{k}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\cdots,\xi_{k})$ on
$\displaystyle\Gamma_{k}=\Big{\\{}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\cdots,\xi_{k})\in\big{(}\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}^{k}:\sum^{k}_{j=1}\xi_{j}=0\Big{\\}},$
which we endow with the standard measure
$\delta(\xi_{1}+\xi_{2}+\cdots+\xi_{k})$. If $M_{k}$ is a multiplier of order
$k$, $1\leq j\leq k$ is an index and $l\geq 1$ is an even integer, the
elongation $X^{l}_{j}(M_{k})$ of $M_{k}$ is defined to be the multiplier of
order $k+l$ given by
$\displaystyle
X^{l}_{j}(M_{k})(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\cdots,\xi_{k+l})=M_{k}(\xi_{1},\cdots,\xi_{j-1},\xi_{j}+\cdots+\xi_{j+l},\xi_{j+l+1},\cdots,\xi_{k+l}).$
Also if $M_{k}$ is a multiplier of order $k$ and $u_{1},u_{2},\cdots,u_{k}$
are functions on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, we define the $k-$linear functional
$\displaystyle\Lambda_{k}\big{(}M_{k};u_{1},u_{2},\cdots
u_{k}\big{)}=\text{Re}\int_{\Gamma_{k}}M_{k}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\cdots,\xi_{k})\prod^{k}_{j=1}\widehat{u}_{j}(\xi_{j})$
and we adopt the notation
$\Lambda_{k}\big{(}M_{k};u\big{)}=\Lambda_{k}\big{(}M_{k};u,\overline{u},\cdots,u,\overline{u}\big{)}$.
We observe that the quantity $\Lambda_{k}\big{(}M_{k};u\big{)}$ is invariant
1. $(1)$
if one permutes the even arguments $\xi_{2},\xi_{4},\cdots,\xi_{k}$ of
$M_{k}$;
2. $(2)$
if one permutes the odd arguments $\xi_{1},\xi_{3},\cdots,\xi_{k-1}$ of
$M_{k}$;
3. $(3)$
if one makes the change of
$\displaystyle M_{k}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\cdots,\xi_{k-1},\xi_{k})\mapsto
M_{k}(-\xi_{2},-\xi_{1},\cdots,-\xi_{k},-\xi_{k-1}).$
If $u$ is a solution of (1.1), the following differentiation law holds for the
multiplier forms $\Lambda_{k}\big{(}M_{k};u\big{)}$
$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\Lambda_{k}\big{(}$ $\displaystyle M_{k};u\big{)}$
(3.2) $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Lambda_{k}\big{(}iM_{k}\sum^{k}_{j=1}(-1)^{j}|\xi_{j}|^{2};u\big{)}+\Lambda_{k+2}\big{(}i\sum^{k}_{j=1}(-1)^{j}|\xi_{j+1,j+2}|^{-(d-\gamma)}X^{2}_{j}(M_{k});u\big{)}$
where we use the notational convention $\xi_{a,b}=\xi_{a}+\xi_{b}$,
$\xi_{a,b,c}=\xi_{a}+\xi_{b}+\xi_{c}$, etc.
Using the above notation, the modified energy (3.1) can be written as follows:
$\displaystyle\widetilde{E}(u)=\Lambda_{2}\big{(}-\frac{1}{2}\xi_{1}m_{1}\cdot\xi_{2}m_{2};u\big{)}+\Lambda_{4}\big{(}\frac{1}{4}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}m_{1}m_{2}m_{3}m_{4};u\big{)}$
where we abbreviate $m(\xi_{j})$ as $m_{j}$.
Together with the the differentiation rules (3.2) and the symmetry properties
of k-linear functional $\Lambda_{k}\big{(}M_{k};u\big{)}$, we obtain
$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\Lambda_{2}\big{(}-\frac{1}{2}\xi_{1}m_{1}\cdot\xi_{2}m_{2};u\big{)}$
$\displaystyle=\Lambda_{2}\big{(}-\frac{i}{2}\xi_{1}m_{1}\cdot\xi_{2}m_{2}\sum^{2}_{j=1}(-1)^{j}|\xi_{j}|^{2};u\big{)}$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\Lambda_{4}\big{(}-\frac{i}{2}\sum^{2}_{j=1}(-1)^{j}|\xi_{j+1,j+2}|^{-(d-\gamma)}X^{2}_{j}\big{(}\xi_{1}m_{1}\cdot\xi_{2}m_{2}\big{)};u\big{)}$
$\displaystyle=\Lambda_{4}\big{(}i|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}m^{2}_{1}|\xi_{1}|^{2};u\big{)},$
and
$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\Lambda_{4}\big{(}\frac{1}{4}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}$
$\displaystyle m_{1}m_{2}m_{3}m_{4};u\big{)}$
$\displaystyle=\Lambda_{4}\big{(}\frac{i}{4}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}m_{1}m_{2}m_{3}m_{4}\sum^{4}_{j=1}(-1)^{j}|\xi_{j}|^{2};u\big{)}$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\Lambda_{6}\big{(}\frac{i}{4}\sum^{4}_{j=1}(-1)^{j}|\xi_{j+1,j+2}|^{-(d-\gamma)}X^{2}_{j}\big{(}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}m_{1}m_{2}m_{3}m_{4}\big{)};u\big{)}$
$\displaystyle=-\Lambda_{4}\big{(}i|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}|\xi_{1}|^{2}m_{1}m_{2}m_{3}m_{4};u\big{)}$
$\displaystyle\qquad-\Lambda_{6}\big{(}i|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}|\xi_{4,5}|^{-(d-\gamma)}m_{1,2,3}m_{4}m_{5}m_{6};u\big{)}$
$\displaystyle=-\Lambda_{4}\big{(}i|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}|\xi_{1}|^{2}m_{1}m_{2}m_{3}m_{4};u\big{)}$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\Lambda_{6}\big{(}i|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}|\xi_{4,5}|^{-(d-\gamma)}m_{1,2,3}\big{(}m_{1,2,3}-m_{4}m_{5}m_{6}\big{)};u\big{)}.$
The fundamental theorem of calculus together with these estimates implies the
following proposition, which will be used to prove that $\widetilde{E}$ is
almost conserved.
###### Proposition 3.1.
Let $u$ be an $H^{1}$ solution to (1.1). Then for any $T\in\mathbb{R}$ and
$\delta>0$, we have
$\displaystyle\widetilde{E}(u)(T+\delta)-\widetilde{E}(u)(T)=\int^{T+\delta}_{T}\Lambda_{4}\big{(}M_{4};u\big{)}\
dt+\int^{T+\delta}_{T}\Lambda_{6}\big{(}M_{6};u\big{)}\ dt$
with
$\displaystyle M_{4}$
$\displaystyle=i\big{|}\xi_{2,3}\big{|}^{-(d-\gamma)}\big{|}\xi_{1}\big{|}^{2}m_{1}\big{(}m_{1}-m_{2}m_{3}m_{4}\big{)};$
$\displaystyle M_{6}$
$\displaystyle=i\big{|}\xi_{2,3}\big{|}^{-(d-\gamma)}\big{|}\xi_{4,5}\big{|}^{-(d-\gamma)}m_{1,2,3}\big{(}m_{1,2,3}-m_{4}m_{5}m_{6}\big{)}.$
Furthermore if $|\xi_{j}|\ll N$ for all $j$, then the multipliers $M_{4}$ and
$M_{6}$ vanish on $\Gamma_{4}$ and $\Gamma_{6}$, respectively.
### 3.2 Modified local well-posedness
In this subsection, we shall prove a local well-posedness result for the
modified solution $Iu$ and some a priori estimates for it.
Let $J=[t_{0},t_{1}]$ be an interval of time. We denote by $Z_{I}(J)$ the
following space:
$\displaystyle Z_{I}(J)=S_{I}(J)\cap X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}_{I}(J)$
where
$\displaystyle S_{I}(J)$ $\displaystyle=\Big{\\{}u;\sup_{(q,r)\
\text{admissible}}\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle
Iu\big{\|}_{L^{q}_{t}L^{r}_{x}(J\times\mathbb{R}^{d})}<\infty\Big{\\}},$
$\displaystyle
X^{1,b}_{I}(J)=\Big{\\{}u;\quad\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}(J\times\mathbb{R}^{d})}<\infty\Big{\\}}.$
###### Proposition 3.2.
Let $2<\gamma<3\leq d$, $s>\frac{\gamma}{2}-1$, and consider the IVP
$\displaystyle iIu_{t}+\Delta Iu$
$\displaystyle=I\big{(}|x|^{-\gamma}*|u|^{2}u\big{)},\ x\in\mathbb{R}^{d},\
t\in\mathbb{R}$ (3.3) $\displaystyle Iu(t_{0},x)$ $\displaystyle=Iu_{0}(x)\in
H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{d}).$
Then for any $u_{0}\in H^{s}$, there exists a time interval
$J=[t_{0},t_{0}+\delta]$, $\delta=\delta(\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}})$ and
there exists a unique $u\in Z_{I}(J)$ solution to (3.3). Moreover there is
continuity with respect to the initial data.
Proof: The proof of this proposition proceeds by the usual fixed point method
on the space $Z_{I}(J)$. Since the estimates are very similar to the ones we
provide in the proof of Proposition 3.3 below, in particular (3.9) and (3.10)
, we omit the details.
###### Proposition 3.3.
Let $2<\gamma<3\leq d$ and $s>\frac{\gamma}{2}-1$. If $u$ is a solution to the
IVP (3.3) on the interval $J=[t_{0},t_{1}]$, which satisfies the following a
priori bound
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}^{4}_{L^{4}_{t}\dot{H}^{-\frac{d-3}{4},4}_{x}\big{(}J\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}<\mu,$
where $\mu$ is a small universal constant, then
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{Z_{I}(J)}\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}.$
Proof: We start by obtaining a control of the Strichartz norms. Applying
$\langle\nabla\rangle$ to (3.3) and using the Strichartz estimate in
Proposition 2.1. For any pair of admissible exponents $(q,r)$, we obtain
$\displaystyle\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle
Iu\big{\|}_{L^{q}_{t}L^{r}_{x}}\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}+\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle
I\big{(}(|x|^{-\gamma}*|u|^{2})u\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{2}}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4}}_{x}}.$
(3.4)
Now we notice that the multiplier $\langle\nabla\rangle I$ has symbol which is
increasing as a function of $|\xi|$ for any $s\geq\frac{\gamma}{2}-1$. Using
this fact one can modify the proof of the Leibnitz rule for fractional
derivatives and prove its validity for $\langle\nabla\rangle I$. See also
Principle A.5 in the appendix of [25]. This remark combined with (3.4) implies
that
$\displaystyle\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle Iu\big{\|}_{L^{q}_{t}L^{r}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}+\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle
I\big{(}(|x|^{-\gamma}*|u|^{2})u\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{2}}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4}}_{x}}$
(3.5)
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}+\big{\|}|x|^{-\gamma}*\langle\nabla\rangle
I(|u|^{2})\big{\|}_{L^{2}_{t}L^{\frac{2d}{\gamma}}_{x}}\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\quad+\big{\|}|x|^{-\gamma}*|u|^{2}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{3d}{4}}_{x}}\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle
Iu\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}+\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle
Iu\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u\big{\|}^{2}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}}_{x}}$
where we used Hölder’s inequality and Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev’s inequaltiy.
In order to obtain an upper bound on
$\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}}_{x}}$, we perform a
Littlewood-Paley decomposition along the following lines. We note that a
similar approach was used in [3]. We write
$\displaystyle u=u_{N_{0}}+\sum^{\infty}_{j=1}u_{N_{j}},$ (3.6)
where $u_{N_{0}}$ has spatial frequency support for $\langle\xi\rangle\leq N$,
while $u_{N_{j}}$ is such that its spatial Fourier support transform is
supported for $\langle\xi\rangle\thickapprox N_{j}=2^{h_{j}}$ with
$h_{j}\gtrsim\log N$ and $j=1,2,\cdots$. By the triangle inequality and
Hölder’s inequality, we have
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}}_{x}}\lesssim$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u_{N_{0}}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}}_{x}}+\sum^{\infty}_{j=1}\big{\|}u_{N_{j}}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}}_{x}}$
(3.7) $\displaystyle\lesssim$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u_{N_{0}}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}}_{x}}+\sum^{\infty}_{j=1}\big{\|}u_{N_{j}}\big{\|}^{2-\frac{\gamma}{2}}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-2}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{N_{j}}\big{\|}^{\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-8}}_{x}}.$
On the other hand, by using the definition of the operator $I$, the defintion
of the $u_{N_{j}}$’s and the Marcinkiewicz multiplier theorem, we observe that
for some $0<\theta_{i}<1,i=1,\cdots,4,\sum^{4}_{j=1}\theta_{i}=1$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u_{N_{0}}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}u_{N_{0}}\big{\|}^{\theta_{1}}_{L^{4}_{t}\dot{H}^{-\frac{d-3}{4},4}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{N_{0}}\big{\|}^{\theta_{2}}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-8}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{N_{0}}\big{\|}^{\theta_{3}}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-2}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{N_{0}}\big{\|}^{\theta_{4}}_{L^{\infty}_{t}L^{2}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{N_{0}}\big{\|}^{\theta_{1}}_{L^{4}_{t}\dot{H}^{-\frac{d-3}{4},4}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{N_{0}}\big{\|}^{1-\theta_{1}}_{Z_{I}(J)}.$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle
Iu_{N_{j}}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-2}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\thickapprox
N_{j}\big{(}\frac{N}{N_{j}}\big{)}^{1-s}\big{\|}u_{N_{j}}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-2}}_{x}},\quad
j=1,2,\cdots.$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu_{N_{j}}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-8}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\thickapprox\big{(}\frac{N}{N_{j}}\big{)}^{1-s}\big{\|}u_{N_{j}}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-8}}_{x}},j=1,2,\cdots.$
Now we use these estimates to obtain the following upper bound on (3.7)
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}}_{x}}\lesssim$
$\displaystyle\
\big{\|}Iu_{N_{0}}\big{\|}^{\theta_{1}}_{L^{4}_{t}\dot{H}^{-\frac{d-3}{4},4}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{N_{0}}\big{\|}^{1-\theta_{1}}_{Z_{I}(J)}$
(3.8) $\displaystyle\ \
+\sum^{\infty}_{j=1}\Big{(}\frac{1}{N_{j}}\big{(}\frac{N_{j}}{N}\big{)}^{1-s}\big{\|}u_{N_{j}}\big{\|}_{Z_{I}(J)}\Big{)}^{2-\frac{\gamma}{2}}\Big{(}\big{(}\frac{N_{j}}{N}\big{)}^{1-2}\big{\|}u_{N_{j}}\big{\|}_{Z_{I}(J)}\Big{)}^{\frac{\gamma}{2}-1}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle\
\mu^{\frac{\theta_{1}}{4}}\big{\|}u\big{\|}^{1-\theta_{1}}_{Z_{I}(J)}+N^{-(2-\frac{\gamma}{2})}\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{Z_{I}(J)},$
which together with (3.5) implies that
$\displaystyle\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle Iu\big{\|}_{L^{q}_{t}L^{r}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}+\mu^{\frac{\theta_{1}}{2}}\big{\|}u\big{\|}^{3-2\theta_{1}}_{Z_{I}(J)}+N^{-(4-\gamma)}\big{\|}u\big{\|}^{3}_{Z_{I}(J)}.$
(3.9)
Now we shall obtain a control of the $X^{s,b}$ norm. We use Duhamel’s formula
and the theory of $X^{s,b}$ spaces [12], [25] to obtain
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}+\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle
I\big{(}(|x|^{-\gamma}*|u|^{2})u\big{)}\big{\|}_{X^{0,-\frac{1}{2}+}}$ (3.10)
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}+\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle
I\big{(}(|x|^{-\gamma}*|u|^{2})u\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{\frac{3}{2}+}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4}+}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}+\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle
Iu\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}}_{x}}\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{6+}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}+}_{x}}.$
An upper bound on
$\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}}_{x}}$ is given by
(3.8). In order to obtain an upper bound on
$\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{L^{6+}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}+}_{x}}$, we proceed
as follows. First we perform a dyadic decomposition and write $u$ as (3.6).
The triangle inequality applied on (3.6) gives for any
$0<\delta<\frac{\gamma}{2}-1$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}_{L^{6+}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}+}_{x}}$ (3.11)
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}u_{N_{0}}\big{\|}_{L^{6+}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}+}_{x}}+\sum^{\infty}_{j=1}\big{\|}u_{N_{j}}\big{\|}_{L^{6+}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}+}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle=\big{\|}Iu_{N_{0}}\big{\|}_{L^{6+}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}+}_{x}}+\sum^{\infty}_{j=1}N^{\delta-s}_{j}N^{s-1}\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle^{1-\delta}Iu_{N_{j}}\big{\|}_{L^{6+}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}+}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}_{L^{6+}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}+}_{x}}+\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle^{1-\delta}Iu\big{\|}_{L^{6+}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+4-3\gamma}+}_{x}}\lesssim\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}},$
where we use Proposition 2.2. By applying the inequalities (3.8) and (3.11) to
bound the right hand side of (3.10), we obtain
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}+\mu^{\frac{\theta_{1}}{4}}\big{\|}u\big{\|}^{3-\theta_{1}}_{Z_{I}(J)}+N^{-(2-\frac{\gamma}{2})}\big{\|}u\big{\|}^{3}_{Z_{I}(J)}.$
(3.12)
The desired bound follows from (3.9) and (3.12) by choosing $N$ sufficiently
large.
### 3.3 An upper bound on the increment of $\widetilde{E}(u)$
Decomposition remark. Our approach to prove a decay for the increment of the
modified energy is based on obtaining certain multilinear estimates in
appropriate functional spaces which are $L^{2}$-based. Hence, whenever we
perform a Littlewood-Paley decomposition of a function we shall assume that
the Fourier transforms of the Littlewood-Paley pieces are positive. Moreover,
we will ignore the presence of conjugates. At the end we will always keep a
decay factor $C(N_{1},N_{2},\cdots)$ in order to perform the summations.
Now we proceed to prove the almost conservation law of the modified energy. In
Proposition 3.1, we prove that an increment of the modified energy can be
expressed as
$\displaystyle\widetilde{E}(u)(T+\delta)-\widetilde{E}(u)(T)=\int^{T+\delta}_{T}\Lambda_{4}\big{(}M_{4};u\big{)}\
dt+\int^{T+\delta}_{T}\Lambda_{6}\big{(}M_{6};u\big{)}\ dt$
with
$\displaystyle M_{4}$
$\displaystyle=i|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}|\xi_{1}|^{2}m_{1}\big{(}m_{1}-m_{2}m_{3}m_{4}\big{)};$
$\displaystyle M_{6}$
$\displaystyle=i|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}|\xi_{4,5}|^{-(d-\gamma)}m_{1,2,3}\big{(}m_{1,2,3}-m_{4}m_{5}m_{6}\big{)}.$
Hence in order to control the increment of the modified energy, we shall find
an upper bound on the $\Lambda_{4}\big{(}M_{4};u\big{)}$ and
$\Lambda_{6}\big{(}M_{6};u\big{)}$ forms, which we do in the following
propositions. First we give the quadrilinear estimate.
###### Proposition 3.4.
For any Schwartz function $u$, and any $\delta\thickapprox 1$ just as in
Proposition 3.2, we have that
$\displaystyle\Big{|}\int^{T+\delta}_{T}\Lambda_{4}\big{(}M_{4};u\big{)}\
dt\Big{|}\lesssim N^{-1+}\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}^{4}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}},$ (3.13)
for $s>\frac{\gamma}{2}-1$.
Proof: By Plancherel theorem, we aim to prove that
$\displaystyle\Big{|}\int^{T+\delta}_{T}\int_{\Gamma_{4}}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}|\xi_{1}|^{2}m_{1}\big{(}m_{1}-$
$\displaystyle
m_{2}m_{3}m_{4}\big{)}\widehat{u}_{1}(t,\xi_{1})\widehat{\overline{u}}_{2}(t,\xi_{2})\widehat{u}_{3}(t,\xi_{3})\widehat{\overline{u}}_{4}(t,\xi_{4})\Big{|}$
(3.14) $\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle\
N^{-1+}C(N_{1},N_{2},N_{3},N_{4})\prod^{4}_{j=1}\big{\|}Iu_{j}\big{\|}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}},$
where $C(N_{1},N_{2},N_{3},N_{4})$ is a decay just as the remark above, and it
allows us to sum over all dyadic shells. The analysis which follows will not
rely on the complex conjugate structure in $\Lambda_{4}\big{(}M_{4};u\big{)}$.
Thus, by symmetry, we may assume that $N_{2}\geq N_{3}\geq N_{4}$.
Case 1: $N\gg N_{2}$. According to the definition of $m(\xi)$, the multiplier
$\displaystyle|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}m_{1}\big{(}m_{1}-m_{2}m_{3}m_{4}\big{)}$
is identically 0, the bound (3.13) holds trivially.
Case 2: $N_{2}\gtrsim N\gg N_{3}\geq N_{4}$. Since
$\displaystyle\sum^{4}_{j=1}\xi_{j}=0$, we have $N_{1}\thickapprox N_{2}$. We
aim for (3.14) with a decay factor
$\displaystyle C(N_{1},N_{2},N_{3},N_{4})=N^{0-}_{2}.$
By the mean value theorem, we have the following pointwise bound
$\displaystyle\big{|}m_{1}\big{(}m_{1}-m_{2}m_{3}m_{4}\big{)}\big{|}$
$\displaystyle=\big{|}m_{1}\big{(}m_{2,3,4}-m_{2}m_{3}m_{4}\big{)}\big{|}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim m_{1}|\nabla
m(\xi)\cdot(\xi_{3}+\xi_{4})|\quad\text{where}\quad|\xi|\backsim|\xi_{2}|$
$\displaystyle\lesssim m_{1}m_{2}\frac{N_{3}}{N_{2}}.$
Hence by Hölder’s inequality and Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev’s inequality and
Proposition 2.2, we obtain
$\displaystyle\text{LHS of}\ (\ref{goal1})$ $\displaystyle\lesssim
N^{2}_{1}m_{1}m_{2}\frac{N_{3}}{N_{2}}\Big{|}\int^{T+\delta}_{T}\int_{\Gamma_{4}}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\widehat{u}_{1}(t,\xi_{1})\widehat{\overline{u}}_{2}(t,\xi_{2})\widehat{u}_{3}(t,\xi_{3})\widehat{\overline{u}}_{4}(t,\xi_{4})\Big{|}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim
N^{2}_{1}m_{1}m_{2}\frac{N_{3}}{N_{2}}\big{\|}u_{1}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{2}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{3}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-2}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{4}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+10-6\gamma}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim
N^{2}_{1}m_{1}m_{2}\frac{N_{3}}{N_{2}}N^{\gamma-2}_{4}\prod^{4}_{j=1}\big{\|}u_{j}\big{\|}_{X^{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
It suffices to show that
$\displaystyle N^{2}_{1}m_{1}m_{2}\frac{N_{3}}{N_{2}}N^{\gamma-2}_{4}\lesssim
N^{-1+}N^{0-}_{2}\ m_{1}N_{1}m_{2}N_{2}\langle N_{3}\rangle\langle
N_{4}\rangle.$
We reduce to show that
$\displaystyle N^{1-}N^{0+}_{2}\lesssim N_{2}\ \langle N_{3}\rangle
N^{-1}_{3}\ \langle N_{4}\rangle N^{2-\gamma}_{4}.$
This is true since
$\displaystyle N_{2}\gtrsim$ $\displaystyle N^{1-}N^{0+}_{2};$
$\displaystyle\langle N_{3}\rangle N^{-1}_{3}\gtrsim 1;$
$\displaystyle\quad\langle N_{4}\rangle N^{2-\gamma}_{4}\gtrsim 1.$
Case 3: $N_{2}\geq N_{3}\gtrsim N$. In this case, we use the trivial pointwise
bound
$\displaystyle\big{|}m_{1}\big{(}m_{1}-m_{2}m_{3}m_{4}\big{)}\big{|}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim m^{2}_{1}.$
The frequency interactions fall into two subcategories, depending on which
frequency is comparable to $N_{2}$.
Case 3a: $N_{1}\thickapprox N_{2}\geq N_{3}\gtrsim N$. In this case, we prove
the decay factor
$\displaystyle C(N_{1},N_{2},N_{3},N_{4})=N^{0-}_{3}.$
in (3.14). This allows us to directly sum in $N_{3}$ and $N_{4}$, and sum in
$N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$ after applying Cauchy-Schwarz to those factors.
By Hölder’s inequality and Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev’s inequality and
Proposition 2.2, we obtain
$\displaystyle\text{LHS of}\ (\ref{goal1})$ $\displaystyle\lesssim
N^{2}_{1}m^{2}_{1}\Big{|}\int^{T+\delta}_{T}\int_{\Gamma_{4}}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\widehat{u}_{1}(t,\xi_{1})\widehat{\overline{u}}_{2}(t,\xi_{2})\widehat{u}_{3}(t,\xi_{3})\widehat{\overline{u}}_{4}(t,\xi_{4})\Big{|}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim
N^{2}_{1}m^{2}_{1}\big{\|}u_{1}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{2}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{3}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-2}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{4}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+10-6\gamma}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim
N^{2}_{1}m^{2}_{1}N^{\gamma-2}_{4}\prod^{4}_{j=1}\big{\|}u_{j}\big{\|}_{X^{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
It suffices to show that
$\displaystyle N^{2}_{1}m^{2}_{1}N^{\gamma-2}_{4}\lesssim N^{-1+}N^{0-}_{3}\
m_{1}N_{1}m_{2}N_{2}m_{3}N_{3}\langle N_{4}\rangle.$
We reduce to show that
$\displaystyle N^{1-}N^{0+}_{3}\lesssim m_{3}N_{3}\ m_{4}\langle N_{4}\rangle
N^{2-\gamma}_{4}.$
This is true since for $s\geq\gamma-2$, we have
$\displaystyle m_{3}N_{3}\ m_{4}\langle N_{4}\rangle N^{2-\gamma}_{4}$
$\displaystyle\geq m_{3}N_{3}\ m_{4}\langle N_{4}\rangle^{3-\gamma}$
$\displaystyle\gtrsim m_{3}N_{3}\gtrsim N^{1-}N^{0+}_{3},$
where we used the fact that $m(\xi)\langle\xi\rangle^{p}$ is monotone non-
decreasing if $s+p\geq 1$. While for $\frac{\gamma}{2}-1<s<\gamma-2$, we have
$\displaystyle m_{3}N_{3}\ m_{4}\langle N_{4}\rangle N^{2-\gamma}_{4}$
$\displaystyle\gtrsim m_{3}N_{3}\ m_{3}N^{3-\gamma}_{3}$ $\displaystyle\gtrsim
N^{4-\gamma-}N^{0+}_{3}\gtrsim N^{1-}N^{0+}_{3},$
where we used the fact that $m(\xi)\langle\xi\rangle^{p}$ is monotone non-
increasing if $s+p<1$.
Case 3b: $N_{2}\thickapprox N_{3}\gtrsim N,N_{2}\gtrsim N_{1}$. In this case,
we prove the decay factor
$\displaystyle C(N_{1},N_{2},N_{3},N_{4})=N^{0-}_{2}.$
in (3.14). This will allow us to directly sum in all the $N_{i}$.
By Hölder’s inequality and Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev’s inequality and
Proposition 2.2 once again, we obtain
$\displaystyle\text{LHS of}\ (\ref{goal1})$ $\displaystyle\lesssim
N^{2}_{1}m^{2}_{1}\Big{|}\int^{T+\delta}_{T}\int_{\Gamma_{4}}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\widehat{u}_{1}(t,\xi_{1})\widehat{\overline{u}}_{2}(t,\xi_{2})\widehat{u}_{3}(t,\xi_{3})\widehat{\overline{u}}_{4}(t,\xi_{4})\Big{|}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim
N^{2}_{1}m^{2}_{1}\big{\|}u_{1}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{2}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{3}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-2}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{4}\big{\|}_{L^{6}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+10-6\gamma}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim
N^{2}_{1}m^{2}_{1}N^{\gamma-2}_{4}\prod^{4}_{j=1}\big{\|}u_{j}\big{\|}_{X^{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
It suffices to show that
$\displaystyle N^{2}_{1}m^{2}_{1}N^{\gamma-2}_{4}\lesssim N^{-1+}N^{0-}_{2}\
m_{1}N_{1}m_{2}N_{2}m_{3}N_{3}\langle N_{4}\rangle.$
Note that
$\displaystyle N^{2}_{1}m^{2}_{1}\lesssim m_{1}N_{1}m_{2}N_{2}.$
We reduce to show that
$\displaystyle N^{1-}N^{0+}_{2}\lesssim m_{3}N_{3}\ m_{4}\langle N_{4}\rangle
N^{2-\gamma}_{4}.$
This is true since for $s\geq\gamma-2$, we have
$\displaystyle m_{3}N_{3}\ m_{4}\langle N_{4}\rangle N^{2-\gamma}_{4}$
$\displaystyle\geq m_{3}N_{3}\ m_{4}\langle N_{4}\rangle^{3-\gamma}$
$\displaystyle\gtrsim m_{3}N_{3}\approx m_{2}N_{2}\gtrsim N^{1-}N^{0+}_{2},$
where we used the fact that $m(\xi)\langle\xi\rangle^{p}$ is monotone non-
decreasing if $s+p\geq 1$. While for $\frac{\gamma}{2}-1<s<\gamma-2$, we have
$\displaystyle m_{3}N_{3}\ m_{4}\langle N_{4}\rangle N^{2-\gamma}_{4}$
$\displaystyle\gtrsim m_{3}N_{3}\ m_{3}N^{3-\gamma}_{3}\approx
m^{2}_{2}N^{4-\gamma}_{2}$ $\displaystyle\gtrsim
N^{4-\gamma-}N^{0+}_{3}\gtrsim N^{1-}N^{0+}_{3},$
where we used the fact that $m(\xi)\langle\xi\rangle^{p}$ is monotone non-
increasing if $s+p<1$. This completes the proof.
In order to make use of quadrilinar estimate (Proposition 3.4) to obtain
sextilinear estimate, we first give a lemma
###### Lemma 3.1.
Assume $u$, $\delta$ are as in Proposition 3.2, and $P_{N_{1,2,3}}$ the
Littlewood-Paley projection onto the $N_{1,2,3}$ frequency shell. Then
$\displaystyle\big{\|}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\lesssim
N_{1,2,3}\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}^{3}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
Proof: We write $u=u_{L}+u_{H}$ where
$\displaystyle\text{supp}\ \widehat{u}_{l}(t,\xi)$
$\displaystyle\subseteq\big{\\{}|\xi|<2\big{\\}},$ $\displaystyle\text{supp}\
\widehat{u}_{H}(t,\xi)$ $\displaystyle\subseteq\big{\\{}|\xi|>1\big{\\}}.$
Hence,
$\displaystyle\big{\|}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle\quad\
\big{\|}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{L}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{L}|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}+\big{\|}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{H}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{H}|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle+\big{\|}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{L}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{H}|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}+\big{\|}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{H}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{L}|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle+\big{\|}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{L}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}\overline{u}_{L}u_{H}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}+\big{\|}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{L}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}u_{L}\overline{u}_{H}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle+\big{\|}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{H}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}\overline{u}_{L}u_{H}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}+\big{\|}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{H}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}u_{L}\overline{u}_{H}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
Consider the first term. By Hölder’s inequality, Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev’s
inequality and Proposition 2.2, we have
$\displaystyle\big{\|}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{L}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{L}|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}u_{L}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{L}|^{2}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}u_{L}\big{\|}^{3}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-6\gamma-4}}_{x}}=\big{\|}Iu_{L}\big{\|}^{3}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-6\gamma-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu_{L}\big{\|}^{3}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}}\leq
N_{1,2,3}\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}^{3}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}}$
since
$\displaystyle N_{1,2,3}\geq 1,\quad\text{and}\quad 0\leq
d\times\big{(}\frac{1}{2}-\frac{9d-6\gamma-4}{18d}\big{)}-\frac{2}{9}=\frac{\gamma}{3}\leq
1.$
We estimate the second term. By Sobolev’s inequality and using the Leibniz
rule for the operator $|\nabla|^{2-\frac{\gamma}{2}}I$ and Proposition 2.2, we
have
$\displaystyle\big{\|}\frac{1}{N_{1,2,3}}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I$
$\displaystyle\big{(}u_{H}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{H}|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}|\nabla|^{-1}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{H}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{H}|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}|\nabla|^{2-\frac{\gamma}{2}}I\big{(}u_{H}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{H}|^{2}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-3\gamma+14}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}|\nabla|^{2-\frac{\gamma}{2}}Iu_{H}\big{\|}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-9\gamma+14}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{H}\big{\|}^{2}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-9\gamma+14}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}|\nabla|^{2-\frac{\gamma}{2}}Iu_{H}\big{\|}^{3}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-9\gamma+14}}_{x}}\lesssim\big{\|}|\nabla|Iu_{H}\big{\|}^{3}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-4}}_{x}}\leq\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}^{3}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
As for the third term. By Sobolev’s inequality and using the Leibniz rule for
the operator $|\nabla|^{2-\frac{\gamma}{2}}I$ and Proposition 2.2 again, we
have
$\displaystyle\big{\|}\frac{1}{N_{1,2,3}}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I$
$\displaystyle\big{(}u_{L}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{H}|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}|\nabla|^{-1}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{L}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{H}|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}|\nabla|^{2-\frac{\gamma}{2}}I\big{(}u_{L}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{H}|^{2}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-3\gamma+14}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}|\nabla|^{2-\frac{\gamma}{2}}Iu_{H}\big{\|}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-9\gamma+14}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{H}\big{\|}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{L}\big{\|}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-18\gamma+32}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\big{\|}u_{H}\big{\|}^{2}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-9\gamma+14}}_{x}}\big{\|}|\nabla|^{2-\frac{\gamma}{2}}Iu_{L}\big{\|}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-9\gamma+14}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}|\nabla|Iu_{H}\big{\|}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}|\nabla|Iu_{H}\big{\|}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}|\nabla|^{\gamma-2}Iu_{L}\big{\|}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\big{\|}|\nabla|Iu_{H}\big{\|}^{2}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}|\nabla|Iu_{L}\big{\|}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-4}}_{x}}\lesssim\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}^{3}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
Now we estimate the fourth term. By Sobolev’s inequality and Hölder’s
inequality, we obtain
$\displaystyle\big{\|}\frac{1}{N_{1,2,3}}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{H}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}$
$\displaystyle|u_{L}|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}|\nabla|^{-1}P_{N_{1,2,3}}\big{(}I\big{(}u_{H}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{L}|^{2}\big{)}\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}u_{H}|\nabla|^{-(d-\gamma)}|u_{L}|^{2}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d+2}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}u_{H}\big{\|}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{L}\big{\|}^{2}_{L^{9}_{t}L^{\frac{18d}{9d-9\gamma+5}}_{x}}\lesssim\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}^{3}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
The remainder terms are similar to the third and fourth terms because we can
ignore the complex conjugates. This completes the proof.
Now we proceed to prove the sextilinear estimate. Note that in the treatment
of the quadrilinear form as in Proposition 3.4, we always took the $\Delta
u_{1}$ factor in $L^{3}_{t}L^{6d/(3d-4)}_{x}$, estimating this by
$N_{1}\big{\|}Iu_{1}\big{\|}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}}$. Together with Proposition
3.4 and Lemma 3.1, we can obtain the following estimate.
###### Proposition 3.5.
For any Schwartz function $u$, and any $\delta\thickapprox 1$ as in
Proposition 3.2, we have that
$\displaystyle\Big{|}\int^{T+\delta}_{T}\Lambda_{6}\big{(}M_{6};u\big{)}\
dt\Big{|}\lesssim N^{-1+}\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}^{6}_{X^{1,\frac{1}{2}+}}$
for $s>\frac{\gamma}{2}-1$.
## 4 Almost Interaction Morawetz estimate
In this section, we aim to prove the interaction Morawetz estimate for the
smoothed out solution $Iu$, that is, “almost Morawetz estimate”. For this, we
consider
$a(x_{1},x_{2})=|x_{1}-x_{2}|:\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$,
a convex and locally integrable function of polynomial growth. In all of our
arguments, we will work with the Schwarz solutions. This will simplify the
calculations and will enable us to justify the steps in the subsequent proofs.
Then we approximate the $H^{s}$ solutions by the schwarz solutions.
###### Theorem 4.1.
Let $u$ be a Schwarz solution to
$\displaystyle iu_{t}+\Delta u$ $\displaystyle=\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u),\
(x,t)\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\times[0,T],$
where $\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)=\big{(}|x|^{-\gamma}*|u|^{2}\big{)}u$. Let
$Iu$ be a solution to
$\displaystyle iIu_{t}+\Delta Iu$
$\displaystyle=I\big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)\big{)},\
(x,t)\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\times[0,T].$ (4.1)
Then
$\displaystyle\big{\|}|\nabla|^{-\frac{d-3}{4}}Iu\big{\|}^{4}_{L^{4}_{T}L^{4}_{x}}\lesssim\big{\|}Iu$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}_{L^{\infty}_{T}\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}^{3}_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{2}_{x}}$
(4.2) $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\int^{T}_{0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}}\nabla
a\cdot\big{\\{}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{bad},Iu(t,x_{1})Iu(t,x_{2})\big{\\}}_{p}dx_{1}dx_{2}dt.$
with $\big{\\{}\cdot,\cdot\big{\\}}_{p}$ is the momentum bracket defined by
$\displaystyle\big{\\{}f,g\big{\\}}_{p}=\text{Re}\big{(}f\nabla\overline{g}-g\nabla\overline{f}\big{)},$
and
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{bad}=\sum^{2}_{i=1}\big{(}I\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{i}(u_{i})-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{i}(Iu_{i})\big{)}\prod^{2}_{j=1,j\not=i}Iu_{j},$
where $u_{i}$ is a solution to
$\displaystyle iu_{t}+\Delta u$ $\displaystyle=\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u),\
(x_{i},t)\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R},\quad d\geq 3,$ (4.3)
here $x_{i}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, not a coordinate. In particular, on a time
interval $J_{k}$ where the local well-posedness Proposition 3.2 holds, we have
that
$\displaystyle\int_{J_{k}}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}}\nabla
a\cdot\big{\\{}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{bad},Iu(t,x_{1})Iu(t,x_{2})\big{\\}}_{p}dx_{1}dx_{2}dt\lesssim\frac{1}{N^{1-}}\big{\|}u\big{\|}^{6}_{Z_{I}(J_{k})}.$
Toward this goal, we recall the idea of the proof of the interaction Morawetz
estimate for the defocusing nonlinear cubic Schrödinger equation in three
space dimensions [3]. We present the result using a tensor of Schrödinger
solutions that emerged in [2], [6]. We first recall the generalized Virial
identity [2], [16].
###### Proposition 4.1.
Let $a:\mathbb{R}^{d}\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be convex and $u$ be a smooth
solution to the solution
$\displaystyle iu_{t}+\Delta u$
$\displaystyle=\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u),\quad(t,x)\in[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{d}.$
(4.4)
Then the following inequality holds
$\displaystyle\int^{T}_{0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}\big{(}-\Delta\Delta
a\big{)}\big{|}u(t,x)\big{|}^{2}dxdt+2\int^{T}_{0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}\nabla
a\cdot\big{\\{}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}},u\big{\\}}_{p}dxdt\lesssim\big{|}M_{a}(T)-M_{a}(0)\big{|}$
where $M_{a}(t)$ is the Morawetz action corresponding to $u$ and is given by
$\displaystyle M_{a}(t)=2\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}}\nabla
a(x)\cdot\text{Im}\big{(}\overline{u}(x)\nabla u(x)\big{)}dx.$
Proof of Theorem 4.1: Now we rewrite the equation (4.1) as
$\displaystyle iIu_{t}+\Delta Iu$
$\displaystyle=\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)+\big{(}I\big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)\big{)}-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)\big{)},$
then by symmetry, the term $\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)$ will create a
positive term that we can ignore, which is the same to the case in [20]. While
the commutator
$I\big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)\big{)}-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)$ will
introduce an error term. Thus by Proposition 4.1, we have
$\displaystyle\int^{T}_{0}\int\big{(}-\Delta\Delta
a\big{)}\big{|}Iu(t,x)\big{|}^{2}dxdt\lesssim\sup_{t\in[0,T]}$
$\displaystyle\Big{|}\int\nabla
a(x)\cdot\text{Im}\big{(}\overline{Iu}(x)\nabla Iu(x)\big{)}dx\Big{|}$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle\Big{|}\int^{T}_{0}\int\nabla
a\cdot\big{\\{}I\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu),Iu\big{\\}}_{p}dxdt\Big{|}.$
The second term on the right hand side of this inequality is what we call an
error. We now turn to the details. The conjugation will play no crucial role
in the forthcoming argument.
Now define the tensor product $u:=\big{(}u_{1}\otimes u_{2}\big{)}(t,x)$ for
$x$ in
$\displaystyle\mathbb{R}^{d+d}=\big{\\{}x=(x_{1},x_{2}):x_{1}\in\mathbb{R}^{d},x_{2}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{\\}}$
by the formula
$\displaystyle\big{(}u_{1}\otimes
u_{2}\big{)}(t,x)=u_{1}(t,x_{1})u_{2}(t,x_{2}).$
let us set
$\displaystyle IU(t,x)=\prod^{2}_{j=1}Iu(t,x_{j}).$
If $u$ solves (4.4) for $d$ dimensions, then $IU$ solves (4.4) for $2d$
dimensions, with right hand side $\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{I}$ given by
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{I}=\sum^{2}_{i=1}\Big{(}I\big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{i}(u_{i})\big{)}\prod^{2}_{j=1,j\not=i}Iu_{j}\Big{)}.$
Now let us decompose
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{I}$
$\displaystyle=\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{good}+\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{bad}$
$\displaystyle\triangleq\sum^{2}_{i=1}\Big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{i}(Iu_{i})\prod^{2}_{j=1,j\not=i}Iu_{j}\Big{)}+\sum^{2}_{i=1}\Big{(}\big{(}I(\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{i}(u_{i}))-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{i}(Iu_{i})\big{)}\prod^{2}_{j=1,j\not=i}Iu_{j}\Big{)}.$
The first term summand creates a positive term that we can ignore again. The
term we call $\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{bad}$ produces the error term. Now we
pick $a(x)=a(x_{1},x_{2})=|x_{1}-x_{2}|$ where
$(x_{1},x_{2})\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$. Hence we have
$\displaystyle\big{\|}|\nabla|^{-\frac{d-3}{4}}Iu\big{\|}^{4}_{L^{4}_{T}L^{4}_{x}}\lesssim\big{\|}Iu$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}_{L^{\infty}_{T}\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}^{3}_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{2}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\Big{|}\int^{T}_{0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}}\nabla
a\cdot\big{\\{}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{bad},Iu(t,x_{1})Iu(t,x_{2})\big{\\}}_{p}dx_{1}dx_{2}dt\Big{|}.$
Note that the second term of the right hand side comes from the momentum
bracket term in the proof of Proposition 4.1. Following with the same
calculations in [2], we deduce that
$\displaystyle\mathcal{E}:$
$\displaystyle=\Big{|}\int^{T}_{0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}}\nabla
a\cdot\big{\\{}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{bad},Iu(t,x_{1})Iu(t,x_{2})\big{\\}}_{p}dx_{1}dx_{2}dt\Big{|}$
(4.5)
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{(}\big{\|}I\big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)\big{)}-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)\big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{x}}+\big{\|}\nabla_{x}\big{(}I\big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)\big{)}-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{x}}\big{)}\big{\|}u\big{\|}^{3}_{Z_{I}(J)}.$
Now we proceed to estimate
$\big{\|}\nabla_{x}\big{(}I\big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)\big{)}-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{x}}$,
which is the harder term. The term
$\big{\|}I\big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)\big{)}-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)\big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{x}}$
can be estimated in the same way. Note that
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)=\big{(}|x|^{-\gamma}*|u|^{2}\big{)}u,$
we have
$\displaystyle\mathcal{F}_{x}\Big{(}\nabla_{x}\big{(}$ $\displaystyle
I\big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)\big{)}-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)\big{)}\Big{)}(\xi)$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{\xi=\sum^{3}_{j=1}\xi_{j}}i\xi|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\big{(}m(\xi)-m(\xi_{1})m(\xi_{2})m(\xi_{3})\big{)}\widehat{u}(\xi_{1})\widehat{\overline{u}}(\xi_{2})\widehat{u}(\xi_{3})d\xi_{1}d\xi_{2}d\xi_{3}.$
We decompose $u$ into a sum of dyadic pieces $u_{j}$ localized around $N_{j}$,
then
$\displaystyle\
\big{\|}\nabla_{x}\big{(}I\big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)\big{)}-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\
\big{\|}\mathcal{F}_{x}\Big{(}\nabla_{x}\big{(}I\big{(}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)\big{)}-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)\big{)}\Big{)}(\xi)\big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{\xi}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle\
\sum_{N_{1},N_{2},N_{3}}\Big{\|}\int_{|\xi_{j}|\thickapprox
N_{j},\atop\xi=\sum^{3}_{j=1}\xi_{j}}\big{|}\xi\big{|}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\big{|}m(\xi)-m(\xi_{1})m(\xi_{2})m(\xi_{3})\big{|}$
$\displaystyle\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\times\widehat{u}(\xi_{1})\widehat{\overline{u}}(\xi_{2})\widehat{u}(\xi_{3})d\xi_{1}d\xi_{2}d\xi_{3}\Big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{\xi}}.$
Since the conjugation plays no crucial role here, without loss of generality,
we assume that
$\displaystyle N_{1}\geq N_{2}\geq N_{3}.$
Set
$\displaystyle\sigma(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})=\big{|}\xi_{1}+\xi_{2}+\xi_{3}\big{|}\big{|}m(\xi_{1}+\xi_{2}+\xi_{3})-m(\xi_{1})m(\xi_{2})m(\xi_{3})\big{|},$
then
$\displaystyle\sigma(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})$
$\displaystyle=\sum^{4}_{j=1}\chi_{j}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})\sigma(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})$
$\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle=\sum^{4}_{j=1}\sigma_{j}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3}),$
where $\chi_{j}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})$ is a smooth characteristic function
of the set $\Omega_{j}$ defined as follows:
1. $\bullet$
$\Omega_{1}=\big{\\{}|\xi_{i}|\thickapprox N_{i},i=1,2,3;N\gg N_{1}\big{\\}};$
2. $\bullet$
$\Omega_{2}=\big{\\{}|\xi_{i}|\thickapprox N_{i},i=1,2,3;N_{1}\gtrsim N\gg
N_{2}\big{\\}};$
3. $\bullet$
$\Omega_{3}=\big{\\{}|\xi_{i}|\thickapprox N_{i},i=1,2,3;N_{1}\geq
N_{2}\gtrsim N\gg N_{3}\big{\\}};$
4. $\bullet$
$\Omega_{4}=\big{\\{}|\xi_{i}|\thickapprox N_{i},i=1,2,3;N_{1}\geq N_{2}\geq
N_{3}\gtrsim N\big{\\}}.$
Hence, we have
$\displaystyle\big{\|}\nabla_{x}\big{(}I\big{(}$
$\displaystyle\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(u)\big{)}-\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}(Iu)\big{)}\big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$
$\displaystyle\sum_{N_{1},N_{2},N_{3}}\sum^{4}_{j=1}\Big{\|}\int_{|\xi_{j}|\thickapprox
N_{j},\atop\xi=\sum^{3}_{j=1}\xi_{j}}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\sigma_{j}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})\widehat{u}(\xi_{1})\widehat{\overline{u}}(\xi_{2})\widehat{u}(\xi_{3})d\xi_{1}d\xi_{2}d\xi_{3}\Big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{\xi}}$
$\displaystyle:=$ $\displaystyle\sum_{N_{1},N_{2},N_{3}}\sum^{4}_{j=1}L_{j}.$
Contribution of $L_{1}.$ Since $\sigma_{1}$ is identically zero when $N\geq
4N_{1}$, $L_{1}$ gives no contribution to the sum above.
Contribution of $L_{2}.$ By the mean value theorem, we have the pointwise
bound
$\displaystyle\sigma_{2}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})\lesssim N_{1}\cdot
m_{1}\frac{N_{2}}{N_{1}}=m_{1}N_{2}.$
Hence, by Hölder’s inequality and Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev’s inequality, we
obtain
$\displaystyle L_{2}=$ $\displaystyle\Big{\|}\int_{|\xi_{j}|\thickapprox
N_{j},\atop\xi=\sum^{3}_{j=1}\xi_{j}}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\sigma_{2}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})\widehat{u}(\xi_{1})\widehat{u}(\xi_{2})\widehat{u}(\xi_{3})d\xi_{1}d\xi_{2}d\xi_{3}\Big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{\xi}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle
m_{1}N_{2}\Big{\|}\int_{|\xi_{j}|\thickapprox
N_{j},\atop\xi=\sum^{3}_{j=1}\xi_{j}}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\widehat{u}(\xi_{1})\widehat{u}(\xi_{2})\widehat{u}(\xi_{3})d\xi_{1}d\xi_{2}d\xi_{3}\Big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{\xi}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle
m_{1}N_{2}\big{\|}u_{1}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{2}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{3}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-6\gamma+8}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle
m_{1}N_{2}N^{\gamma-2}_{3}\prod^{3}_{J=1}\big{\|}u_{j}\big{\|}_{X^{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
It suffices to show that
$\displaystyle m_{1}N_{2}N^{\gamma-2}_{3}\lesssim
N^{-1+}N^{0-}_{1}m_{1}N_{1}\langle N_{2}\rangle\langle N_{3}\rangle.$
We reduce to show that
$\displaystyle N^{1-}N^{0+}_{1}\lesssim N_{1}\langle N_{2}\rangle
N^{-1}_{2}\langle N_{3}\rangle N^{2-\gamma}_{3}.$
This is true since
$\displaystyle N_{1}\gtrsim$ $\displaystyle N^{1-}N^{0+}_{1};$
$\displaystyle\langle N_{2}\rangle N^{-1}_{2}\gtrsim 1;$
$\displaystyle\quad\langle N_{3}\rangle N^{2-\gamma}_{3}\gtrsim 1.$
Contribution of $L_{3}.$ Note that
$\displaystyle\sigma_{3}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})\lesssim
N_{1}m_{1}+N_{1}m_{1}m_{2}\lesssim N_{1}m_{1}.$
Hence, by Hölder’s inequality and Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev’s inequality, we
have
$\displaystyle L_{3}=$ $\displaystyle\Big{\|}\int_{|\xi_{j}|\thickapprox
N_{j},\atop\xi=\sum^{3}_{j=1}\xi_{j}}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\sigma_{3}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})\widehat{u}(\xi_{1})\widehat{u}(\xi_{2})\widehat{u}(\xi_{3})d\xi_{1}d\xi_{2}d\xi_{3}\Big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{\xi}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle
m_{1}N_{1}\Big{\|}\int_{|\xi_{j}|\thickapprox
N_{j},\atop\xi=\sum^{3}_{j=1}\xi_{j}}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\widehat{u}(\xi_{1})\widehat{u}(\xi_{2})\widehat{u}(\xi_{3})d\xi_{1}d\xi_{2}d\xi_{3}\Big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{\xi}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle
m_{1}N_{1}\big{\|}u_{1}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{2}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{3}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-6\gamma+8}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle
m_{1}N_{1}N^{\gamma-2}_{3}\prod^{3}_{J=1}\big{\|}u_{j}\big{\|}_{X^{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
It suffices to show that
$\displaystyle m_{1}N_{1}N^{\gamma-2}_{3}\lesssim
N^{-1+}N^{0-}_{2}m_{1}N_{1}m_{2}N_{2}\langle N_{3}\rangle.$
We reduce to show that
$\displaystyle N^{1-}N^{0+}_{2}\lesssim m_{2}N_{2}\langle N_{3}\rangle
N^{2-\gamma}_{3}.$
This is true since
$\displaystyle m_{2}N_{2}\gtrsim N^{1-}N^{0+}_{2};\quad\langle N_{3}\rangle
N^{2-\gamma}_{3}\gtrsim 1.$
Contribution of $L_{4}.$ Note that
$\displaystyle\sigma_{4}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})\lesssim
N_{1}m_{1}+N_{1}m_{1}m_{2}\lesssim N_{1}m_{1}.$
Hence, by Hölder’s inequality and Hardy-Littlewood-Sobolev’s inequality, we
obtain
$\displaystyle L_{4}=$ $\displaystyle\Big{\|}\int_{|\xi_{j}|\thickapprox
N_{j},\atop\xi=\sum^{3}_{j=1}\xi_{j}}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\sigma_{4}(\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\xi_{3})\widehat{u}(\xi_{1})\widehat{u}(\xi_{2})\widehat{u}(\xi_{3})d\xi_{1}d\xi_{2}d\xi_{3}\Big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{\xi}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle
m_{1}N_{1}\Big{\|}\int_{|\xi_{j}|\thickapprox
N_{j},\atop\xi=\sum^{3}_{j=1}\xi_{j}}|\xi_{2,3}|^{-(d-\gamma)}\widehat{u}(\xi_{1})\widehat{u}(\xi_{2})\widehat{u}(\xi_{3})d\xi_{1}d\xi_{2}d\xi_{3}\Big{\|}_{L^{1}_{t}L^{2}_{\xi}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle
m_{1}N_{1}\big{\|}u_{1}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{2}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-4}}_{x}}\big{\|}u_{3}\big{\|}_{L^{3}_{t}L^{\frac{6d}{3d-6\gamma+8}}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim$ $\displaystyle
m_{1}N_{1}N^{\gamma-2}_{3}\prod^{3}_{J=1}\big{\|}u_{j}\big{\|}_{X^{0,\frac{1}{2}+}}.$
It suffices to show that
$\displaystyle m_{1}N_{1}N^{\gamma-2}_{3}\lesssim
N^{-1+}N^{0-}_{2}m_{1}N_{1}m_{2}N_{2}m_{3}N_{3}.$
We reduce to show that
$\displaystyle N^{1-}N^{0+}_{2}\lesssim m_{2}N_{2}m_{3}N_{3}N^{2-\gamma}_{3}.$
This is true since for $s\geq\gamma-2$, we have
$\displaystyle m_{2}N_{2}\ m_{3}N^{3-\gamma}_{3}$ $\displaystyle\gtrsim
m_{2}N_{2}\gtrsim N^{1-}N^{0+}_{2}$
where we used the fact that $m(\xi)\langle\xi\rangle^{p}$ is monotone non-
decreasing if $s+p\geq 1$. While for $\frac{\gamma}{2}-1<s<\gamma-2$, we have
$\displaystyle m_{2}N_{2}\ m_{3}N^{3-\gamma}_{3}$ $\displaystyle\gtrsim
m_{2}N_{2}\ m_{2}N^{3-\gamma}_{2}$ $\displaystyle\gtrsim
N^{4-\gamma-}N^{0+}_{2}\gtrsim N^{1-}N^{0+}_{2}$
where we used the fact that $m(\xi)\langle\xi\rangle^{p}$ is monotone non-
increasing if $s+p<1$.
## 5 Proof of Theorem 1.1
We first scale the solution. Suppose that $u(t,x)$ is a global in time
solution to (1.1) with initial data $u_{0}\in
C^{\infty}_{0}\big{(}\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}.$ Setting
$\displaystyle
u^{\lambda}(t,x)=\lambda^{-\frac{n+2-\gamma}{2}}u(\frac{t}{\lambda^{2}},\frac{x}{\lambda}),$
we choose a parameter $\lambda$ so that
$\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}=O(1)$, that is
$\displaystyle\lambda\approx N^{\frac{1-s}{s-\frac{\gamma}{2}+1}}.$ (5.1)
Next, let us define
$\displaystyle S:=\big{\\{}0\leq
t<\infty:\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}\big{\|}_{L^{4}\dot{H}^{-\frac{d-3}{4},4}\big{(}[0,t]\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}\leq
K\lambda^{\frac{3}{4}(\frac{\gamma}{2}-1)}\big{\\}},$
with $K$ a constant to be chosen later. We claim that $S$ is the whole
interval $[0,\infty)$. Indeed, assume by contradiction that it is not so, then
since
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}\big{\|}_{L^{4}\dot{H}^{-\frac{d-3}{4},4}\big{(}[0,t]\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}$
is a continuous function of time, there exists a time $T\in[0,\infty)$ such
that
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}\big{\|}_{L^{4}\dot{H}^{-\frac{d-3}{4},4}\big{(}[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}$
$\displaystyle>$ $\displaystyle K\lambda^{\frac{3}{4}(\frac{\gamma}{2}-1)},$
(5.2)
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}\big{\|}_{L^{4}\dot{H}^{-\frac{d-3}{4},4}\big{(}[0,T]\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}$
$\displaystyle\leq$ $\displaystyle
2K\lambda^{\frac{3}{4}(\frac{\gamma}{2}-1)}.$ (5.3)
We now split the interval $[0,T]$ into subintervals $J_{k},k=1,\cdots,L$ in
such a way that
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}\big{\|}^{4}_{L^{4}\dot{H}^{-\frac{d-3}{4},4}\big{(}J_{k}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}\leq\mu,$
with $\mu$ as in Proposition 3.3. This is possible because of (5.3). Then, the
number $L$ of possible subintervals must satisfy
$\displaystyle
L\approx\frac{\big{(}2K\lambda^{\frac{3}{4}(\frac{\gamma}{2}-1)}\big{)}^{4}}{\mu}\approx\frac{\big{(}2K\big{)}^{4}\lambda^{3(\frac{\gamma}{2}-1)}}{\mu}.$
(5.4)
From Proposition 3.2 and Proposition 3.3, we know that
$\displaystyle\sup_{t\in[0,T]}E\big{(}Iu^{\lambda}(t)\big{)}\lesssim
E\big{(}Iu^{\lambda}_{0}\big{)}+\frac{L}{N^{1-}}$
and by our choice (5.1) of $\lambda$, $E\big{(}Iu^{\lambda}_{0}\big{)}\lesssim
1$. Hence, in order to guarantee that
$\displaystyle E\big{(}Iu^{\lambda}(t)\big{)}\lesssim 1$
holds for all $t\in[0,T]$, we need to require that
$\displaystyle L\lesssim N^{1-}.$
According to (5.4), this is fulfilled as long as
$\displaystyle\frac{\big{(}2K\big{)}^{4}\lambda^{3(\frac{\gamma}{2}-1)}}{\mu}\lesssim
N^{1-}.$ (5.5)
From our choice of $\lambda$, the expression (5.5) implies that
$\displaystyle\frac{\big{(}2K\big{)}^{4}}{\mu}\lesssim
N^{1-\frac{1-s}{s-\frac{\gamma}{2}+1}3(\frac{\gamma}{2}-1)-}.$
Thus this is possible for $s>\frac{4(\gamma-2)}{3\gamma-4}$ and a large number
$N$.
Now recall the a priori estimate (4.2)
$\displaystyle\big{\|}|\nabla|^{-\frac{d-3}{4}}Iu^{\lambda}\big{\|}^{4}_{L^{4}_{T}L^{4}_{x}}\lesssim\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}$
$\displaystyle\big{\|}_{L^{\infty}_{T}\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}\big{\|}^{3}_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{2}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\int^{T}_{0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}}\nabla
a\cdot\big{\\{}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{bad},Iu^{\lambda}(t,x_{1})Iu^{\lambda}(t,x_{2})\big{\\}}_{p}dx_{1}dx_{2}dt.$
Set
$\displaystyle Error(t):=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}}\nabla
a\cdot\big{\\{}\widetilde{\mathcal{N}}_{bad},Iu^{\lambda}(t,x_{1})Iu^{\lambda}(t,x_{2})\big{\\}}_{p}dx_{1}dx_{2}.$
By Theorem 4.1 and Proposition 3.3 on each interval $J_{k}$, we have that
$\displaystyle\Big{|}\int_{J_{k}}Error(t)dt\Big{|}\lesssim\frac{1}{N^{1-}}\big{\|}u^{\lambda}\big{\|}^{6}_{Z_{I}(J_{k})}\lesssim\frac{1}{N^{1-}}.$
Summing all the $J_{k}$’s, we have that
$\displaystyle\Big{|}\int^{T}_{0}Error(t)dt\Big{|}\lesssim\frac{L}{N^{1-}}\lesssim
N^{0+}.$
Therefore, by our choice (5.1) of $\lambda$, we obtain
$\displaystyle\big{\|}|\nabla|^{-\frac{d-3}{4}}Iu^{\lambda}\big{\|}^{4}_{L^{4}_{T}L^{4}_{x}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}\big{\|}_{L^{\infty}_{T}\dot{H}^{1}_{x}}\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}\big{\|}^{3}_{L^{\infty}_{T}L^{2}_{x}}+N^{0+}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim C\lambda^{3(\frac{\gamma}{2}-1)}.$
This estimate contradicts (5.2) for an appropriate choice of $K$. Hence
$S=[0,\infty)$. In addition, let $T_{0}$ be chosen arbitrarily, we have also
proved that for $s>\frac{4(\gamma-2)}{3\gamma-4}$,
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}(\lambda^{2}T_{0})\big{\|}_{H^{1}_{x}}=O(1).$
Then
$\displaystyle\big{\|}u(T_{0})\big{\|}_{H^{s}}$
$\displaystyle=\big{\|}u(T_{0})\big{\|}_{L^{2}}+\big{\|}u(T_{0})\big{\|}_{\dot{H}^{s}}$
$\displaystyle=\big{\|}u_{0}\big{\|}_{L^{2}}+\lambda^{s-\frac{\gamma}{2}+1}\big{\|}u^{\lambda}(\lambda^{2}T_{0})\big{\|}_{\dot{H}^{s}}$
$\displaystyle\lesssim\lambda^{s-\frac{\gamma}{2}+1}\big{\|}Iu^{\lambda}(\lambda^{2}T_{0})\big{\|}_{H^{1}}\lesssim\lambda^{s-\frac{\gamma}{2}+1}\approx
N^{1-s}.$
Since $T_{0}$ is arbitrarily large, the a priori bound on the $H^{s}$ norm
concludes the global well-posednes of the Cauchy problem (1.1).
Note that we have obtained that
$\displaystyle\big{\|}Iu\big{\|}_{L^{4}\dot{H}^{-\frac{d-3}{4},4}\big{(}[0,+\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}\leq
C(\big{\|}u_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{s}}),$
this together with Proposition 2.2, Proposition 3.3 and the property of the
operator $I$ implies that
$\displaystyle\sup_{(q,r)\;admissible}\big{\|}\langle\nabla\rangle^{s}u\big{\|}_{L^{q}L^{r}\big{(}[0,+\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\big{)}}\leq\big{\|}u\big{\|}_{Z_{I}([0,+\infty))}\lesssim
C\big{(}\big{\|}Iu_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{1}}\big{)}\lesssim
C\big{(}\big{\|}u_{0}\big{\|}_{H^{s}}\big{)},$
then we can prove scattering by using the well-known standard argument [1],
[3] etc.. This completes the proof.
Acknowledgements: C. Miao and G.Xu were partly supported by the NSF of China
(No.10725102, No.10726053), and L.Zhao was supported by China postdoctoral
science foundation project. The second author would like to thank Nikolaos
Tzirakis for helpful communications.
## References
* [1] T. Cazenave, Semilinear Schrödinger equations. Courant Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 10. New York: New York University Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, 2003.
* [2] J. Colliander, M. Grillakis and N. Tzirakis, Improved interaction Morawetz inequalities for the cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equation on $\mathbb{R}^{2}$. to appear in IMRN.
* [3] J. Colliander, M. Keel, G. Staffilani, H. Takaoka and T. Tao, Global existence and scattering for rough solutions to a nonlinear Schrödinger equations on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 57:8(2004), 987-1014.
* [4] J. Colliander, M. Keel, G. Staffilani, H. Takaoka and T. Tao, Improved interaction Morawetz inequalities for the cubic nonlinear Schrödinger equation on $\mathbb{R}^{2}$. IMRN.
* [5] M. Chae, S. Hong, J. Kim and C. W. Yang. Scattering theory below energy for a class of Hartree type euqations. Comm. PDEs. 33(2008), 321-348.
* [6] D. De Silva, N. Pavlovic, G. Staffilani and N. Tzirakis, Global well-posedness and polynomial bounds for the defocusing $L^{2}$-critical nonlinear Schrödinger equation in $\mathbb{R}$. Preprint.
* [7] J. Ginibre and T. Ozawa, Long range scattering for nonlinear Schrödinger and Hartree equations in space dimension $n\geq 2$. Comm. Math. Phys., 151(1993), 619-645.
* [8] J. Ginibre and G. Velo, Scattering theory in the energy space for a class of Hartree equations. Nonlinear wave equations (Providence, RI, 1998), 29-60, Contemp. Math., 263, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000.
* [9] J. Ginibre and G. Velo, Long range scattering and modified wave operators for some Hartree type equations. Rev. Math. Phys., 12:3(2000), 361-429.
* [10] J. Ginibre and G. Velo, Long range scattering and modified wave operators for some Hartree type equations II. Ann. Henri Poincaré 1:4(2000), 753-800.
* [11] J. Ginibre and G. Velo, Long range scattering and modified wave operators for some Hartree type equations. III: Gevrey spaces and low dimensions. J. Diff. Equat. 175:2(2001), 415-501.
* [12] A. Grünrock, New applications of the Fourier restriction norm method to wellposedness problems for nonlinear evolution equations. Dissertation Univ. Wuppertal, 2002.
* [13] N. Hayashi and Y. Tsutsumi, Scattering theory for the Hartree equations. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Phys. Theorique 61(1987), 187-213.
* [14] M. Keel and T. Tao, Endpoint Strichartz estimates. Amer. J. Math. 120:5(1998), 955-980.
* [15] D. Li, C. Miao and X. Zhang, The focusing energy-critical Hartree equation. Preprint.
* [16] J. E. Lin and W. A. Strauss, Decay and scattering of solutions of a nonlinear Schrödinger equation, J. Funct. Anal., 30:2(1978), 245-263.
* [17] C. Miao, $H^{m}$-modified wave operator for nonlinear Hartree equation in the space dimensions $n\geq 2$. Acta Mathematica Sinica, 13:2(1997), 247-268.
* [18] C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao, The Cauchy problem of the Hartree equation. Dedicated to Professor Li Daqian on the occasion of seventieth birthday. J. PDEs, 21(2008), 22-44.
* [19] C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao, Global well-posedness and scattering for the energy-critical, defocusing Hartree equation for radial data. J. Funct. Anal., 253(2007), 605-627.
* [20] C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao, Global well-posedness and scattering for the energy-critical, defocusing Hartree equation in $\mathbb{R}^{1+n}$. Preprint.
* [21] C. Miao, G. Xu and L. Zhao, Global well-posedness and scattering for the mass-critical Hartree equation with radial data. Preprint.
* [22] K. Nakanishi, Energy scattering for Hartree equations. Math. Res. Lett., 6(1999), 107-118.
* [23] H. Nawa and T. Ozawa, Nonlinear scattering with nonlocal interactions. Comm. Math. Phys. 146(1992), 259-275.
* [24] T. Tao, Multilinear weighted convolution of $L^{2}$ functions, and applications to non-linear dispersive equations. Amer. J. Math., 123(2001), 839-908.
* [25] T. Tao, Nonlinear Dispersive Equations. Local and Global Analysis. CBMS 106, Eds: AMS, 2006.
* [26] http://tosio.math.toronto.edu/wiki/index.php/Main_Page.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-22T00:58:22 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.878388 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Changxing Miao, Guixiang Xu, and Lifeng Zhao",
"submitter": "Changxing Miao",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3378"
} |
0805.3456 | # Synchronization in Networks of Identical Linear Systems
Luca Scardovi and Rodolphe Sepulchre Luca Scardovi is with the Department of
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, USA.
scardovi@princeton.edu. The work is supported in part by ONR grants
N00014–02–1–0826 and N00014–04–1–0534.Rodolphe Sepulchre is with the
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of
Liège, Belgium. r.sepulchre@ulg.ac.be. This paper presents research results of
the Belgian Network DYSCO (Dynamical Systems, Control, and Optimization),
funded by the Interuniversity Attraction Poles Programme, initiated by the
Belgian State, Science Policy Office. The scientific responsibility rests with
its authors.
###### Abstract
The paper investigates the synchronization of a network of identical linear
state-space models under a possibly time-varying and directed interconnection
structure. The main result is the construction of a dynamic output feedback
coupling that achieves synchronization if the decoupled systems have no
exponentially unstable mode and if the communication graph is uniformly
connected. The result can be interpreted as a generalization of classical
consensus algorithms. Stronger conditions are shown to be sufficient – but to
some extent, also necessary – to ensure synchronization with the diffusive
static output coupling often considered in the literature.
## 1 Introduction
In these last years, consensus, coordination and synchronization problems have
been popular subjects in systems and control, motivated by many applications
in physics, biology, and engineering. These problems arise in multi-agent
systems with the collective objective of reaching agreement about some
variables of interest.
In the consensus literature, the emphasis is on the communication constraints
rather than on the individual dynamics: the agents exchange information
according to a communication graph that is not necessarily complete, nor even
symmetric or time-invariant, but, in the absence of communication, the
agreement variables usually have no dynamics. It is the exchange of
information only that determines the time-evolution of the variables, aiming
at asymptotic synchronization to a common value. The convergence of such
consensus algorithms has attracted much attention in the recent years. It only
requires a weak form of connectivity for the communication graph [1, 2, 3, 4,
5].
In the synchronization literature, the emphasis is on the individual dynamics
rather than on the communication limitations: the communication graph is often
assumed to be complete (or all-to-all), but in the absence of communication,
the time-evolution of the systems’ variables can be oscillatory or even
chaotic. The system dynamics can be modified through the information exchange,
and, as in the consensus problem, the goal of the interconnection is to reach
synchronization to a common solution of the individual dynamics [6, 7, 8, 9].
Coordination problems encountered in the engineering world can often be
rephrased as consensus or synchronization problems in which both the
individual dynamics and the limited communication aspects play an important
role. Designing interconnection control laws that can ensure synchronization
of relevant variables is therefore a control problem that has attracted quite
some attention in the recent years [10, 11, 12, 13, 14].
The present paper deals with a fairly general solution of the synchronization
problem in the linear case. Assuming $N$ identical individual agents dynamics
each described by the linear state-space model $(A,B,C)$, the main result is
the construction of a dynamic output feedback controller that ensures
exponential synchronization to a solution of the linear system $\dot{x}=Ax$
under the following assumptions: (i) $A$ has no exponentially unstable mode,
(ii) $(A,B)$ is stabilizable and $(A,C)$ is detectable, and (iii) the
communication graph is uniformly connected. The result can be interpreted as a
generalization of classical consensus algorithms, studied recently,
corresponding to the particular case $A=0$ [1, 2]. The generalization includes
the non-trivial examples of synchronizing harmonic oscillators or chains of
integrators.
The proposed dynamic controller structure proposed in this paper differs from
the static diffusive coupling often considered in the synchronization
literature, which requires more stringent assumptions on the communication
graph. For instance, the results in the recent paper [15] assume a time-
invariant topology. The paper also provides sufficient conditions for
synchronization by static diffusive coupling and illustrates on simple
examples that synchronization may fail under diffusive coupling when the
stronger assumptions on the communication graph are not satisfied.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the notation used throughout
the paper is summarized, some preliminary results are reviewed and the
synchronization problem is introduced and defined. In Section 3 the linear
case is studied when state coupling among the systems is allowed while in
Section 4 the output coupling case is considered. In Section 5 we extend the
main results to discrete-time linear systems and to periodic time-varying
linear systems. Finally, in Section 6, two-dimensional examples are reported
to illustrate the role of the proposed dynamic controller in situations where
static diffusive coupling fails to achieve synchronization.
## 2 Preliminaries
### 2.1 Notation and Terminology
Throughout the paper we will use the following notation. Given $N$ vectors
$x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{N}$ we indicate with $x$ the stacking of the vectors,
i.e. $x=[x_{1}^{T},x_{2}^{T},\ldots,x_{N}^{T}]^{T}$. We denote with $I_{N}$
the diagonal matrix of dimension $N\times N$ and we define
$1_{N}\triangleq[1,1,\ldots,1]^{T}\in\mathbb{R}^{N}$. Given two matrices $A$
and $B$ we denote their Kronecker product with $A\otimes B$. For notational
convenience, we use the convention $\tilde{A}_{N}=I_{N}\otimes A$ and
$\hat{A}_{N}=A\otimes I_{N}$. We recall some properties of the Kronecker
product that will be used throughout the paper
$\displaystyle A\otimes B\otimes C=A\otimes(B\otimes C)=(A\otimes B)\otimes C$
(1a) $\displaystyle A\otimes(B+C)=A\otimes B+A\otimes C$ (1b) $\displaystyle
AB\otimes CD=(A\otimes C)(B\otimes D)$ (1c) $\displaystyle A\otimes
B=(A\otimes I_{p})(I_{n}\otimes B)=(I_{m}\otimes B)(A\otimes I_{q})$ (1d)
$\displaystyle AB\otimes I_{n}=(A\otimes I_{n})(B\otimes I_{n})$ (1e)
where $\,A\in M^{mn},\;B\in M^{pq}$.
### 2.2 Communication Graphs
Given a set of interconnected systems the communication topology is encoded
through a _communication graph_. The convention is that system $j$ receives
information from system $i$ iff there is a directed link from node $j$ to node
$i$ in the communication graph. Let
${\mathcal{G}}(t)=({\mathcal{V}},{\mathcal{E}}(t),A_{d}(t))$ be a time-varying
weighted digraph (directed graph) where
${\mathcal{V}}=\\{v_{1},\ldots,v_{N}\\}$ is the set of nodes,
${\mathcal{E}}(t)\subseteq{\mathcal{V}}\times{\mathcal{V}}$ is the set of
edges, and ${A}_{d}(t)$ is a weighted adjacency matrix with nonnegative
elements $a_{kj}(t)$. In the following we assume that $A_{d}(t)$ is piece-wise
continuous and bounded and
$a_{kj}(t)\in\\{0\\}\cup[\eta,\gamma],\forall\,k,j,\,$ for some finite scalars
$0<\eta\leq\gamma$ and for all $t\geq 0$. Furthermore
$\\{v_{k},v_{j}\\}\in{\mathcal{E}}(t)$ if and only if $a_{kj}(t)\geq\eta$. The
set of neighbors of node $v_{k}$ at time $t$ is denoted by
${\mathcal{N}}_{k}(t)\triangleq\\{v_{j}\in{\mathcal{V}}:a_{kj}(t)\geq\eta\\}$.
A path is a sequence of vertices such that for each of its vertices $v_{k}$
the next vertex in the sequence is a neighbor of $v_{k}$. Assume that there
are no self-cycles i.e. $a_{kk}(t)=0,\,k=1,2,\ldots,N$, and for any $t$.
The Laplacian matrix $L(t)$ associated to the graph ${\mathcal{G}}(t)$ is
defined as
$l_{kj}(t)=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N}a_{ki}(t),&j=k\\\
-a_{kj}(t),&j\neq k.\end{array}\right.$
The in-degree (respectively out-degree) of node $v_{k}$ is defined as
$d_{k}^{in}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}$ (respectively
$d_{k}^{out}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{jk}$). The digraph ${\mathcal{G}}(t)$ is said to
be balanced at time $t$ if the in-degree and the out-degree of each node are
equal, that is,
$\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{jk},\quad\quad k=1,\ldots,N.$
Balanced graphs have the particular property that the symmetric part of their
Laplacian matrix is nonnegative: $L+L^{T}\geq 0$ [16]. We recall some
definitions that characterize the concept of connectivity for time-varying
graphs.
###### Definition 1
The digraph ${\mathcal{G}}(t)$ is connected at time $t$ if there exists a node
$v_{k}$ such that all the other nodes of the graph are connected to $v_{k}$
via a path that follows the direction of the edges of the digraph.
###### Definition 2
Consider a graph ${\mathcal{G}}(t)$. A node $v_{k}$ is said to be connected to
node $v_{j}$ ($v_{j}\neq v_{i}$) in the interval $I=[t_{a},t_{b}]$ if there is
a path from $v_{k}$ to $v_{j}$ which respects the orientation of the edges for
the directed graph $({\mathcal{V}},\cup_{t\in
I}{\mathcal{E}}(t),\int_{I}A_{d}(\tau)d\tau)$.
###### Definition 3
${\mathcal{G}}(t)$ is said to be uniformly connected if there exists a time
horizon $T>0$ and an index $k$ such that for all $t$ all the nodes $v_{j}$
($j\neq k$) are connected to node $v_{k}$ across $[t,t+T]$.
### 2.3 Convergence of consensus algorithms
Consider $N$ agents exchanging information about their state vector $x_{k}$,
$k=1,\ldots,N$, according to a communication graph $\mathcal{G}(t)$. A
classical consensus protocol in continuous-time is
$\dot{x}_{k}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(x_{j}-x_{k}),\quad\quad k=1,\ldots,N.$
(2)
In discrete-time the analogous dynamics write
$x_{k}(t+1)=x_{k}(t)-\epsilon_{k}\sum_{j=1}^{N}l_{kj}(t)x_{j}(t),\quad\quad
k=1,\ldots,N$ (3)
where $\epsilon_{k}\in(0,1/d_{k}^{in})$. Using the Laplacian matrix, (2) and
(3) can be equivalently expressed as
$\dot{x}=-\hat{L}_{n}(t)\,x.$ (4)
and
$x(t+1)=\left(I_{nN}-\hat{\epsilon}\,\hat{L}_{n}(t)\right)\,x(t),$ (5)
where $\hat{\epsilon}=\epsilon\otimes I_{n}$ and
$\epsilon=\mbox{diag}(\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2},\ldots,\epsilon_{N})$.
Algorithms (4) and (5) have been widely studied in the literature and
asymptotic convergence to a consensus value holds under mild assumptions on
the communication topology. The following theorem summarizes the main results
in [1] and [2].
###### Theorem 1
Let $x_{k},\,k=1,2,\ldots,N$, belong to a finite-dimensional Euclidean space
$W$. Let ${\mathcal{G}}(t)$ be a uniformly connected digraph and $L(t)$ the
corresponding Laplacian matrix bounded and piecewise continuous in time. Then
the equilibrium sets of consensus states of (4) and (5) are uniformly
exponentially stable. Furthermore the solutions of (4) and and (5)
asymptotically converge to a consensus value $1_{N}\otimes\beta$ for some
$\beta\in W$. $\square$
A general proof for Theorem 1 is based on the property that the convex hull of
vectors $x_{k}\in W$ is non expanding along the solutions.
### 2.4 The Synchronization Problem
Consider $N$ identical dynamical systems
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle f(t,x_{k},u_{k})$
(6a) $\displaystyle y_{k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle h(x_{k}),$ (6b)
for $k=1,2,\ldots,N$, where $x_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the state of the
system, $u_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ is the control and $y_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{p}$
is the output. We assume that the coupling among the systems involves only the
output differences $y_{k}-y_{j}$ and the controller state differences
$\,\xi_{k}-\xi_{j}$. According to the graph-theoretic description of the
communication topology, two systems are coupled at time $t$ if there exists an
edge connecting them in the associated (time-varying) communication graph
${\mathcal{G}}(t)$ at time $t$. We will call a control law _dynamic_ if it
depends on an internal (controller) state, otherwise it is called _static_.
For the systems to be synchronized, the control action (that will depend on
the coupling) must vanish asymptotically and must force the solutions of the
closed-loop systems to asymptotically converge to a common solution of the
individual systems. This leads to the formulation of the following problem:
_Synchronization Problem:_ Given $N$ identical systems described by the model
(6) and a communication graph ${\mathcal{G}}(t)$, find a (distributed) control
law such that the solutions of (6) asymptotically synchronize to a solution of
the open-loop system $\,\dot{x}_{0}=f(t,x_{0},0)$. $\square$
In the present paper we focus the attention on synchronization of linear time-
invariant systems. Generalizations will be the subject of future work.
## 3 Synchronization of linear systems with state feedback
Consider $N$ identical linear systems, each described by the linear model
$\dot{x}_{k}=Ax_{k}+Bu_{k},\quad\quad k=1,2,\ldots,N,$ (7)
where $x_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the state of the system and
$u_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ is the control vector. For notational convenience it
is possible to rewrite (7) in compact form as
$\begin{array}[]{rcl}\dot{x}&=&\tilde{A}_{N}x+\tilde{B}_{N}u.\end{array}$
Theorem 1 can be interpreted as a synchronization result for linear systems
with $A=0$ and $B=I$. A straightforward generalization is as follows.
###### Lemma 1
Consider the linear systems (7). Let $B$ be a $n\times n$ nonsingular matrix
and assume that all the eigenvalues of $A$ belong to the imaginary axis.
Assume that the communication graph $G(t)$ is uniformly connected and the
corresponding Laplacian matrix $L(t)$ piecewise continuous and bounded. Then
the control law
$u_{k}=B^{{-1}}\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(x_{j}-x_{k}),\quad k=1,2,\ldots,N,$
exponentially synchronizes all the solutions of (7) to a solution of the
system $\dot{x}_{0}=Ax_{0}$. $\square$
_Proof:_ Consider the closed-loop system
$\dot{x}_{k}=Ax_{k}+\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(x_{j}-x_{k}),\quad\quad
k=1,2,\ldots,N.$
The change of variable
$z_{k}=e^{-A(t-t_{0})}x_{k},\quad\quad k=1,2,\ldots,N,$
leads to
$\dot{z}_{k}=-Ae^{-A(t-t_{0})}x_{k}+e^{-A(t-t_{0})}Ax_{k}+e^{-A(t-t_{0})}\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(x_{j}-x_{k})=\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(z_{j}-z_{k})$
or, in a compact form,
$\dot{z}=-\hat{L}_{n}(t)\,z.$
From Theorem 1 the solutions $z_{k}(t),\,k=1,2,\ldots,N$, exponentially
converge to a common value $x_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ as $t\rightarrow\infty$,
that is, there exist constants $\delta_{1}>0$ and $\delta_{2}>0$ such that for
all $t_{0}$,
$\left|\left|z_{k}(t)-x_{0}\right|\right|\leq\delta_{1}e^{-\delta_{2}(t-t_{0})}\left|\left|z_{k}(t_{0})-x_{0}\right|\right|,\quad\quad\forall
t>t_{0}.$
In the original coordinates, this means
$\left|\left|x_{k}(t)-e^{A(t-t_{0})}x_{0}\right|\right|\leq\delta_{1}\left|\left|e^{A(t-t_{0})}\right|\right|e^{-\delta_{2}(t-t_{0})}\left|\left|x_{k}(t_{0})-x_{0}\right|\right|,$
for every $t>t_{0}$. Because all the eigenvalues of the matrix $A$ lie on the
imaginary axis, there exists a constant $\delta_{3}>0$ such that
$\left|\left|x_{k}(t)-e^{A(t-t_{0})}x_{0}\right|\right|\leq\delta_{1}e^{-\delta_{3}(t-t_{0})}\left|\left|x_{k}(t_{0})-x_{0}\right|\right|,$
for every $t>t_{0}$, which proves that all solutions exponentially synchronize
to a solution of the open loop system. $\blacksquare$
###### Remark 1
The result is of course unchanged if $A$ also possesses eigenvalues with a
negative real part. Exponentially stable modes synchronize to zero, even in
the absence of coupling. In contrast, the situation of systems with some
eigenvalues with a positive real part can be addressed is a similar way but it
requires that the graph connectivity is sufficiently strong to dominate the
instability of the system. This is clear from the last part of the proof of
Lemma 1 where the exponential synchronization in the $z$ coordinates must
dominate the divergence of the unstable modes of $A$.
The assumption of a square (nonsingular) matrix $B$ in Lemma 1 is now weakened
to a stabilizability assumption on the pair $(A,B)$. For an arbitrary
stabilizing feedback matrix $K$, consider the (dynamic) control law
$\begin{array}[]{rcl}\dot{\eta}_{k}&=&\left(A+BK\right)\eta_{k}+\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)\left(\eta_{j}-\eta_{k}+x_{k}-x_{j}\right),\\\
u_{k}&=&K\eta_{k},\end{array}$ (8)
for $k=1,2,\ldots,N$, which leads to the closed-loop system
$\displaystyle\dot{x}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\tilde{A}_{N}x+\tilde{B}_{N}\tilde{K}_{N}\eta$ (9a)
$\displaystyle\dot{\eta}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(\tilde{A}_{N}+\tilde{B}_{N}\tilde{K}_{N}\right)\eta+\hat{L}_{n}(t)(x-\eta).$
(9b)
###### Theorem 2
Consider the system (7). Assume that all the eigenvalues of $A$ belong to the
closed left-half complex plane. Assume that the pair $(A,B)$ stabilizable and
let $K$ be a stabilizing matrix such that $A+BK$ is Hurwitz. Assume that the
graph is uniformly connected and that the Laplacian matrix is piecewise
continuous and bounded. Then the solutions of (9) exponentially synchronize to
a solution of the open loop system $\dot{x}_{0}=Ax_{0}$. $\square$
_Proof:_ With the change of variable $s_{k}=x_{k}-\eta_{k}$ we can rewrite
(9b) as
$\dot{s}=\tilde{A}_{N}s-\hat{L}_{n}(t)s,$
and the closed-loop dynamics write
$\displaystyle\dot{x}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(\tilde{A}_{N}+\tilde{B}_{N}\tilde{K}_{N}\right)x+\tilde{B}_{N}\tilde{K}_{N}s$
(10a) $\displaystyle\dot{s}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\tilde{A}_{N}s-\hat{L}_{n}(t)s.$ (10b)
Observe that the two systems (10a) and (10b) are decoupled. Since the
assumptions of Lemma 1 are satisfied for the sub-system (10b), its solutions
exponentially synchronize to a solution of $\dot{s}_{0}=As_{0}$. The subsystem
(9b) is therefore an exponentially stable system driven by an input
$\hat{L}_{n}(t)s(t)$ that exponentially converges to zero. As a consequence,
its solution $\eta(t)$ exponentially converges to zero, which implies that the
solutions of (9a) exponentially synchronize to a solution of
$\dot{x}_{0}=Ax_{0}$. $\blacksquare$
## 4 Synchronization of linear systems with output feedback
Consider a group of $N$ identical linear systems described by the linear model
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle Ax_{k}+Bu_{k},$
(11a) $\displaystyle y_{k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle Cx_{k}$ (11b)
for $k=1,2,\ldots,N$, where $x_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the state of the
system, $u_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ is the control vector, and
$y_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{p}$ is the output.
The state feedback controller of Theorem 2 is easily extended to an output
feedback controller if we additionally assume that the pair $(A,C)$ is
detectable. Pick an observer matrix $H$ such that $A+HC$ is Hurwitz and
consider the output feedback controller
$\displaystyle\dot{\eta}_{k}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(A+BK\right)\eta_{k}+\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)\left(\eta_{j}-\eta_{k}+\hat{x}_{k}-\hat{x}_{j}\right)$
(12a) $\displaystyle\dot{\hat{x}}_{k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
A\hat{x}_{k}+Bu_{k}+H(\hat{y}_{k}-y_{k})$ (12b) $\displaystyle u_{k}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle K\eta_{k}$ (12c) $\displaystyle\hat{y}_{k}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle C\hat{x}_{k},$ (12d)
for $k=1,2,\ldots,N$, where detectability is assumed and $H$ is a suitable
observer matrix. The convergence analysis is similar to the one for Theorem 2
and is mainly based on the observation that the estimation error is decoupled
from the consensus dynamics.
###### Theorem 3
Assume that the system (11) is stabilizable and detectable and that all the
eigenvalues of $A$ belong to the closed left-half complex plane. Assume that
the communication graph is uniformly connected and the Laplacian matrix is
piecewise continuous and bounded. Then for any gain matrices $K$ and $H$ such
that $A+BK$ and $A+HC$ are Hurwitz, the solutions of (11) with the dynamic
controller (12) exponentially synchronize to a solution of
$\,\dot{x}_{0}=Ax_{0}$.
_Proof:_ Define $s_{k}=\hat{x}_{k}-\eta_{k}$ and $e_{k}=x_{k}-\hat{x}_{k}$,
and rewrite the closed loop system as
$\displaystyle\dot{x}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(\tilde{A}_{N}+\tilde{B}_{N}\tilde{K}_{N}\right)x+\tilde{B}_{N}\tilde{K}_{N}\left(e+s\right)$
$\displaystyle\dot{s}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\tilde{A}_{N}s-\hat{L}_{n}s$ $\displaystyle\dot{e}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(\tilde{A}_{N}+\tilde{H}_{N}\tilde{C}_{N}\right)e.$
This system is the cascade of the closed-loop system analyzed in the proof of
Theorem 2 with an exponentially stable estimation error dynamics, which proves
the result. $\blacksquare$
Theorem 3 provides a general synchronization result for linear systems but the
solution requires a dynamic controller. For the sake of comparison, we provide
a set of sufficient conditions to prove synchronization under a simple static
output feedback (diffusive) interconnection. These sufficient conditions
require stronger assumptions on the interconnection and assume a passivity
property for the system $(A,B,C)$, that is, the existence of a symmetric
positive definite matrix $P>0$ that verifies
$PA+A^{T}P\leq 0,\quad B^{T}P=C.$ (13)
Passity conditions have been considered previously in [17] (where it is
assumed that the communication topology is bidirectional and strongly
connected) and in [8] (where synchronization is studied for a class of
(nonlinear) oscillators assuming that the communication topology is time-
invariant and balanced). Assumptions A1 and A2 below lead to a time-varying
extension of the results in [8] and [17] in the special case of linear
systems.
###### Theorem 4
Consider system (11) with the static output feedback control laws
$u_{k}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(y_{j}-y_{k}),\quad\quad k=1,2,\ldots,N.$
Let the graph Laplacian matrix $L(t)$ be piecewise continuous and bounded.
Then exponential synchronization to a solution of $\dot{x}_{0}=Ax_{0}$ is
achieved under either one of the following assumptions:
A1. The system $(A,B,C)$ is passive and observable, the communication graph is
connected and balanced at each time;
A2. The system $(A,B,C)$ is passive and observable, the communication graph is
symmetric, i.e. the Laplacian matrix can be factorized as $L=DD^{T}(t)$, and
the pair $(\tilde{A}_{N},\hat{D}_{p}^{T}(t)\tilde{C}_{N})$ is uniformly
observable. $\square$
_Proof:_ Supppose that assumption A1 holds and consider the matrix $P$
solution of (13).
Consider the Lyapunov function
$V(x)=\frac{1}{2}(\hat{\Pi}_{n}x)^{T}\tilde{P}_{N}(\hat{\Pi}_{n}x),$ (14)
the derivative along the solutions of the closed loop system is
$\dot{V}(x)=\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}^{T}\hat{\Pi}_{n}\tilde{P}_{N}\hat{\Pi}_{n}\tilde{A}_{N}x+\frac{1}{2}x^{T}\hat{\Pi}_{n}\tilde{P}_{N}\hat{\Pi}_{n}\tilde{A}_{N}\dot{x}.$
By using the commutation property (1d) of Kronecker product and the passivity
relation (13) we obtain
$\begin{array}[]{rcl}\dot{V}(x)&=&\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}x^{T}\hat{\Pi}_{n}(\tilde{P}_{N}\tilde{A}_{N}+\tilde{A}_{N}^{T}\tilde{P}_{N})\hat{\Pi}_{n}x-x^{T}\tilde{C}^{T}_{N}\Pi_{p}\hat{L}^{{\footnotesize\mbox{sym}}}_{p}(t)\hat{\Pi}_{p}y\\\
&\leq&-y^{T}\hat{\Pi}_{p}\hat{L}^{{\footnotesize\mbox{sym}}}_{p}(t)\hat{\Pi}_{p}y.\end{array}$
(15)
Because the graph is balanced, the matrix $L^{\mbox{\footnotesize
sym}}(t)\triangleq(L(t)+L^{T}(t))/2$ is positive semi-definite for each $t$
and
$(\hat{\Pi}_{p}y)^{T}\hat{L}^{{\mbox{\footnotesize
sym}}}_{p}(t)\hat{\Pi}_{p}y\geq\lambda^{*}_{2}\left|\left|\hat{\Pi}_{p}y\right|\right|^{2},$
where $\lambda^{*}_{2}=\inf_{t}\lambda_{2}(t)$, and $\lambda_{2}(t)$ is the
algebraic connectivity of the graph at time $t$. Note that $\lambda^{*}_{2}>0$
because the graph is connected at each time $t$ and the values of the
adjacency matrix related to the connected components are assumed to be bounded
away from zero (see Section 2). This allows to rewrite (15) as
$\dot{V}(x)\leq-\lambda^{*}_{2}\left|\left|\hat{\Pi}_{p}y\right|\right|^{2},\quad\lambda^{*}_{2}>0.$
(16)
Integrating (16) over the interval $[t_{0},t_{0}+T]$ where $T>0$ is arbitrary,
we obtain
$\displaystyle\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+T}\dot{V}dt\leq-\lambda^{*}_{2}\displaystyle\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+T}\left|\left|\hat{\Pi}_{p}y\right|\right|^{2}dt\leq-\gamma\lambda^{*}_{2}\left|\left|\hat{\Pi}_{n}x(t_{0})\right|\right|^{2},\quad\gamma>0,$
for all $x(t_{0})$, where the last inequality follows from the observability
condition of the pair $(A,C)$. We conclude from a standard Lyapunov argument
that the solutions exponentially converge to the invariant subspace
$\left\\{x\in
R^{nN}:\;x_{k}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^{N}x_{j},\;k=1,2,\ldots,N\right\\},$ (17)
and therefore they exponentially synchronize. To prove that they actually
synchronize to a solution of the open-loop system it is sufficient to observe
that the coupling vanishes in (17). This implies that the solutions converge
to the $\omega$-limit sets of the uncoupled system that belong to (17),
concluding the first part of the proof.
Assume that assumption A2 holds. First observe that from the symmetry of the
communication graph the Laplacian matrix can be factorized as
$L(t)=DD^{T}(t)$. Uniform observability of the pair
$(\tilde{A}_{N},\hat{D}_{p}^{T}\tilde{C}_{N})$ means that for all $t_{0}>0$
there exist positive constants $T$ and $\alpha$ (independent from $t_{0}$)
such that
$\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+T}\tilde{\Phi}_{N}(t,t_{0})^{T}\tilde{C}_{N}^{T}\hat{D}_{p}\hat{D}_{p}^{T}(\tau)\tilde{C}_{N}\tilde{\Phi}_{N}(t,t_{0})dt\geq\alpha
I_{nN},$
where $\Phi(t,\tau)$ is the transition matrix. This implies that the system
$\displaystyle\dot{x}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\tilde{A}_{N}x$ (18a)
$\displaystyle z$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\hat{D}_{p}^{T}(t)\tilde{C}_{N}x,$ (18b)
is uniformly observable. Applying output injection to system (18) we obtain
$\displaystyle\dot{x}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\tilde{A}_{N}x-K(t)\tilde{D}_{p}^{T}\tilde{C}_{N}x$
$\displaystyle z$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\hat{D}_{p}^{T}(t)\tilde{C}_{N}x.$
Choose $K(t)\triangleq\tilde{P}_{N}^{-1}\tilde{C}_{N}^{T}\hat{D}_{p}^{T}(t)$
and observe that, since $L(t)$ is bounded, $K(t)$ belongs to $L_{2}(t,t+T)$.
Then output injection preserves observability (see [18] and references
therein) and the system
$\displaystyle\dot{x}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\tilde{A}x-\tilde{B}_{N}\hat{D}_{p}^{T}\hat{D}_{p}(t)\tilde{C}_{N}x$
$\displaystyle z$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\hat{D}_{p}^{T}(t)\tilde{C}_{N}x$
is still uniformly observable (here we have also used the passivity condition
$\tilde{C}_{N}=\tilde{B}_{N}^{T}\tilde{P}_{N}$). Therefore for all $t_{0}>0$
there exist positive constants $T$ and $\beta$ (independent from $t_{0}$) such
that for every $x(0)\neq 0$
$\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+T}\left|\left|z\right|\right|^{2}dt=\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+T}y(t)^{T}\hat{D}_{p}\hat{D}_{p}^{T}(t)y(t)dt\geq\beta.$
Consider the Lyapunov function (14). Integrating its time derivative over the
interval $[t_{0},t_{0}+T]$ where $T>0$ is arbitrary we obtain
$\displaystyle\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+T}\dot{V}dt\leq-\displaystyle\int_{t_{0}}^{t_{0}+T}\left|\left|\hat{\Pi}_{p}\hat{D}_{p}\hat{D}_{p}^{T}(t)y\right|\right|^{2}dt\leq-\sigma\left|\left|\hat{\Pi}_{n}x(t_{0})\right|\right|^{2},\quad\sigma>0.$
We conclude from standard Lyapunov results that the solutions asymptotically
synchronize. The rest of the proof is equivalent to the end of the proof under
Assumption A1. $\blacksquare$
## 5 Extensions and Generalizations
In the previous sections the results have been presented for _time-invariant_
linear systems in _continuous time_. For the sake of completeness, we briefly
discuss straightforward extensions to discrete-time systems and periodic
systems.
### 5.1 Discrete-Time Linear Systems
The first step is to provide a discrete-time counterpart of Lemma 1. Consider
the discrete-time linear system
$x_{k}(t+1)=Ax_{k}(t)+Bu_{k},\quad\quad t=1,2\ldots,\quad k=1,\ldots,N.$ (19)
From Theorem 1 we know that the solutions of the system
$z_{k}(t+1)=z_{k}(t)-\epsilon_{k}\sum_{j=1}^{N}l_{kj}(t)z_{j}(t),\quad\quad
k=1,\ldots,N$
where $\epsilon_{k}\in(0,1/d_{k}^{in})$, asymptotically converge to a
consensus value if the assumptions of Theorem 1 are satisfied. With the change
of variable $x_{k}=A^{(t-t_{0})}z_{k},\,t>t_{0},$ we obtain
$x_{k}(t+1)=A^{(t+1-t_{0})}z_{k}(t+1)=Ax_{k}(t)+\epsilon_{k}A\sum_{j=1}^{N}l_{kj}(t)x_{j}(t),\quad\quad
k=1,\ldots,N.$ (20)
Identifying (19) and (20) results in the control law
$u_{k}=\epsilon_{k}\,B^{-1}A\sum_{j=1}^{N}l_{kj}(t)x_{j}(t),$ (21)
where we assumed that $B$ is invertible. Assume now that the eigenvalues of
$A$ belong to the unit circle (in the complex plane). Then there exist
$\gamma>0$ and $0<q<1$ such that for all $t_{0}$
$\left|\left|x_{k}-A^{(t-t_{0})}x_{0}\right|\right|\leq\left|\left|A^{(t-t_{0})}\right|\right|\left|\left|z_{k}-x_{0}\right|\right|\leq\gamma\,q^{(t-t_{0})}\left|\left|x_{k}(t_{0})-x_{0}\right|\right|,\quad\quad
k=1,\ldots,N,\quad t>t_{0}.$
This shows that the solutions of system (19) equipped with (21) synchronize to
a solution of the open-loop system $x_{0}(t+1)=Ax_{0}(t)$. This result is
summarized in the following theorem.
###### Lemma 2
Consider the system (19). Let $B$ be a $n\times n$ nonsingular matrix and
assume that all the eigenvalues of $A$ belong to the boundary of the unitary
closed disk (in the complex plane). Assume that the communication graph
${\mathcal{G}}(t)$ is uniformly connected and the corresponding Laplacian
matrix $L(t)$ piecewise continuous and bounded. Then the control law
$u_{k}=\epsilon_{k}B^{-1}A\sum_{j=1}^{N}l_{kj}(t)x_{j}(t),\quad\quad
k=1,2,\ldots,N,\quad\epsilon_{k}\in(0,1/d_{k}^{in}),$
exponentially synchronizes all the solutions of (19) to a solution of the
system $x_{0}(t+1)=Ax_{0}(t)$. $\square$
Thanks to Lemma 2, we can recast Theorem 2 and Theorem 3 in a discrete-time
setting. For the sake of compactness we only report the output-feedback case
(the state feedback case is just a particular case that can be easily derived
by the reader).
Consider the system
$\displaystyle x_{k}(t+1)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
Ax_{k}(t)+Bu_{k}(t),$ (22a) $\displaystyle y_{k}(t)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle Cx_{k}(t),$ (22b)
for $k=1,2,\ldots,N$, and the discrete-time version of (12)
$\displaystyle\eta_{k}(t+1)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(A+BK\right)\eta_{k}(t)+\epsilon_{k}A\sum_{j=1}^{N}l_{kj}(t)\left(\hat{x}_{j}(t)-\eta_{j}(t)\right),$
(23a) $\displaystyle\hat{x}_{k}(t+1)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
A\hat{x}_{k}(t)+H\left(y_{k}(t)-\hat{y}_{k}(t)\right),$ (23b)
for $k=1,2,\ldots,N$, where $\hat{y}_{k}(t)=C\hat{x}_{k}(t)$.
###### Theorem 5
Assume that the system (22) is stabilizable and detectable and that all the
eigenvalues of $A$ belong to the the closed unitary disk in the complex plane.
Assume that the communication graph ${\mathcal{G}}(t)$ is uniformly connected
and the Laplacian matrix is piecewise continuous and bounded. Then for any
gain matrices $K$ and $H$ such that $A+BK$ and $A+HC$ are Schur matrices, the
solutions of (22) with the dynamic controller (23) exponentially synchronize
to a solution of $x_{0}(t+1)=Ax_{0}(t)$. $\square$
The proof of Theorem 5 is straightforward adaptation of the continuous-time
counterpart and is therefore omitted.
### 5.2 Periodic Linear systems
Periodic linear systems, naturally arise in a number of contexts in
engineering, physics, and biology [19]. Periodic models are of large interest
also in time-series analysis, economy and finance, and in all other cases when
seasonal phenomena has to be taken in account. Furthermore they arise when
linearization of a nonlinear system along a periodic solution is analyzed.
Therefore it is not difficult to figure out possible applications when
synchronization of such models can be of interest. The results presented in
this section follow from the well-known Floquet theory, where the properties
of linear periodically time-varying systems are studied via a state
transformation into a new coordinate system in which the system matrix becomes
time-invariant. The eigenvalues of this matrix are called the _characteristic
exponents_ of the original time-varying system matrix. In the following the
continuous-time case is analyzed, the discrete-time case follows the same
lines and is omitted for the sake of brevity. Consider the time-varying
extension of (7)
$\dot{x}_{k}=A(t)x_{k}+Bu_{k},\quad\quad k=1,2,\ldots,N,$ (24)
where $x_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the state of the system and
$u_{k}\in\mathbb{R}^{m}$ is the control vector. The following Theorem
generalizes Lemma 1 to periodic linear systems.
###### Lemma 3
Consider the linear systems (24) where $A(\cdot)$ is periodic of period $T$
and let $B$ be a $n\times n$ nonsingular matrix. Assume that the
_characteristic exponents_ of $A(\cdot)$ belong to the closed left half
complex plane. Assume that the communication graph $\mathcal{G}(t)$ is
uniformly connected and the corresponding Laplacian matrix $L(t)$ piecewise
continuous and bounded. Then the control law
$u_{k}=B^{{-1}}\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(x_{j}-x_{k}),\quad k=1,2,\ldots,N,$
exponentially synchronizes all the solutions of (24) to a solution of the
system $\dot{x}_{0}=A(t)x_{0}$. $\square$
_Proof:_ By using Floquet Theory (see for instance [20]), there exists a time
varying linear transformation
$s_{0}(t)=Q^{-1}(t)x_{0}(t)$
where $Q(t)$ is continuous, non-singular and periodic of period $T$, such that
the linear-time varying system
$\dot{x}_{0}=A(t)x_{0}$
reduces to the linear time-invariant system
$\dot{s}_{0}=\Omega s_{0},$
where $\Omega$ is a constant matrix and its eigenvalues are the characteristic
exponents of the original system. Moreover the transition matrix can be
written as
$\Phi(t,t_{0})=Q(t-t_{0})e^{\Omega(t-t_{0})}.$
At this point, following the same lines of the proof of Lemma 1, we observe
that with the linear transformation $z_{k}=\Phi(t_{0},t)x_{k}$ the solutions
(in the $z$ coordinates) asymptotically converge to a consensus state $x_{0}$.
It follows that there exist constants $\delta_{1}>0$ and $\delta_{2}>0$ such
that for all $t_{0}$
$\left|\left|x_{k}(t)-Q(t-t_{0})e^{\Omega(t-t_{0})}x_{0}\right|\right|\leq\delta_{1}\left|\left|e^{\Omega(t-t_{0})}\right|\right|\left|\left|Q(t-t_{0})\right|\right|e^{-\delta_{2}(t-t_{0})}\left|\left|x_{k}(t_{0})-x_{0}\right|\right|,\quad\quad\forall
t>t_{0}.$
Since $Q(t)$ is continuous and periodic it is also bounded. Moreover the
eigenvalues of $\Omega$ (the characteristic exponents of $A(\cdot)\ $) are in
the close left half complex plane and therefore there are no exponentially
unstable modes. We conclude that there exist constants $\delta_{3}>0$ and
$\delta_{4}>0$ such that for all $t_{0}$
$\left|\left|x_{k}(t)-Q(t-t_{0})e^{B(t-t_{0})}x_{0}\right|\right|\leq\delta_{3}e^{-\delta_{4}(t-t_{0})}\left|\left|x_{k}(t_{0})-x_{0}\right|\right|,\quad\quad\forall
t>t_{0},$
and therefore the solutions exponentially synchronize to a solution of the
system $\dot{x}_{0}=A(t)x_{0}$. $\blacksquare$
Following the same steps as in Section 3, it is straightforward to translate
the results of Theorem 2 and Theorem 3 to the periodic case. We leave the
extension to the interested reader.
## 6 Examples
The conditions of Theorem 4 are only sufficient conditions for exponential
synchronization under diffusive coupling. We provide two simple examples to
illustrate that these conditions are not far from being necessary when
considering time-varying and directed graphs and that the internal model of
the dynamic controller (8) plays an important role in such situations.
_Example 1: Synchronization of harmonic oscillators_
Figure 1: The time-varying communication topology used in Example 1 and
Example 2.
Consider a group of $N$ harmonic oscillators
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{1k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle x_{2k}$
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{2k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-x_{1k}+u_{k},$
for $k=1,2,\ldots,N$, which corresponds to system (7) with
$A=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}0&1\\\
-1&0\end{array}\right),\;B=\left(\begin{array}[]{c}0\\\ 1\end{array}\right).$
The assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied: $A$ is Lyapunov stable and $(A,B)$
is stabilizable. Choosing the stabilizing gain $K=(0\;-1)$, the dynamic
control law (8) yields the closed-loop system
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{1k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle x_{2k}$
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{2k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-x_{1k}-\eta_{2k}$
$\displaystyle\dot{\eta}_{1k}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\eta_{2k}+\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(\eta_{1j}-\eta_{1k}+x_{1k}-x_{1j})$
$\displaystyle\dot{\eta}_{2k}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\eta_{1k}-\eta_{2k}+\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(\eta_{2j}-\eta_{2k}+x_{2k}-x_{2j}),$
for $k=1,2,\ldots,N$.
|
---|---
Figure 2: First component of the solutions of the closed loop harmonic
oscillators by using the dynamic control law (to the left) and the static
control law (25) (to the right). The dynamic control ensures exponential
synchronization. In contrast, synchronization is not observed with the
diffusive interconnection.
Theorem 2 ensures exponential synchronization of the oscillators to a solution
of the harmonic oscillator if the graph is uniformly connected. Fig. 2
illustrates the simulation of a group of $4$ oscillators coupled according to
the time-varying communication topology shown in Fig. 1 (the period $T$ is set
to $7$ sec). The dynamic control ensures exponential synchronization. In
contrast, synchronization is not observed with the diffusive interconnection
$u_{k}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(x_{2j}-x_{2k}).$ (25)
The system $(A,B,-K)$ is nevertheless passive, meaning that stronger
assumptions on the communication graph would ensure synchronization with the
diffusive coupling (25). We mention the recent result [15] that proves (in
discrete-time) synchronization of harmonic oscillators with diffusive coupling
under the assumption that the graph is time-invariant and connected. The
following example illustrates an analog scenario with unstable dynamics.
_Example 2: Consensus for double integrators_
Consider a group of $N$ double integrators
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{1k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle x_{2k}$
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{2k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle u_{k},$
for $k=1,2,\ldots,N$, which corresponds to system (7) with
$A=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}0&1\\\
0&0\end{array}\right),\;B=\left(\begin{array}[]{c}0\\\ 1\end{array}\right).$
The assumptions of Theorem 2 are satisfied: the two eigenvalues of $A$ are
zero and $(A,B)$ is stabilizable. Choosing the stabilizing gain $K=(-1\;-1)$,
the dynamic control law (8) yields closed-loop system
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{1k}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle x_{2k}$
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{2k}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\eta_{1k}-\eta_{2k}$ $\displaystyle\dot{\eta}_{1k}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\eta_{2k}+\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(\eta_{1j}-\eta_{1k}+x_{1k}-x_{1j})$
$\displaystyle\dot{\eta}_{2k}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\eta_{1k}-\eta_{2k}+\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(\eta_{2j}-\eta_{2k}+x_{2k}-x_{2j}),$
for $k=1,2,\ldots,N$.
|
---|---
Figure 3: First component of the solutions of the closed loop double
integrators by using the dynamic control law (to the left) and the static
control law (26) (to the right). The dynamic control ensures exponential
synchronization. In contrast synchronization is not observed with the
diffusive interconnection.
Theorem 2 ensures exponential synchronization to a solution of the double
integrator if the graph is uniformly connected. Fig. 3 illustrates the
simulation of a group of $4$ double integrators coupled according to the time-
varying communication topology shown in Fig. 1 (the period $T$ is set to $2$
sec). The dynamic control ensures exponential synchronization. In contrast,
synchronization is not observed with the diffusive interconnection
$u_{k}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}a_{kj}(t)(y_{j}-y_{k}),\quad\quad y_{k}=x_{1k}+x_{2k}.$
(26)
The matrix $A-\alpha BC$ is nevertheless stable for every $\alpha>0$,
suggesting that stronger assumptions on the communication graph would ensure
synchronization.
## 7 Conclusion and future work
In this paper the problem of synchronizing a network of identical linear
systems described by the state-space model $(A,B,C)$ under general
interconnection topologies has been addressed. A dynamic controller ensuring
exponential convergence of the solutions to a synchronized solution of the
decoupled systems is provided assuming that (i) $A$ has no exponentially
unstable mode, (ii) $(A,B)$ is stabilizable and $(A,C)$ is detectable, and
(iii) the communication graph is uniformly connected. Stronger conditions are
shown to be sufficient (and, to some extent, also necessary) to ensure
synchronization with the often considered static diffusive output coupling.
The extension of the proposed technique for synchronization of nonlinear
systems is the subject of ongoing work.
## References
* [1] L. Moreau, “Stability of multi-agent systems with time-dependent communication links,” _IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control_ , vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 169–182, 2005.
* [2] ——, “Stability of continuous-time distributed consensus algorithms,” in _Proceedings of the 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control_ , Paradise Island, Bahamas, 2004, pp. 3998–4003.
* [3] V. D. Blondel, J. M. Hendrickx, A. Olshevsky, and J. N. Tsitsiklis, “Convergence in multiagent coordination, consensus, and flocking,” in _Proceedings of the 44nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control and European Control Conference_ , Seville, Spain, 2005, pp. 2996–3000.
* [4] A. Jadbabaie, J. Lin, and S. Morse, “Coordination of groups of mobile autonomous agents using nearest neighbor rules,” _IEEE Tran. on Automatic Control_ , vol. 48, pp. 988–1001, 2003.
* [5] R. Olfati-Saber and R. Murray, “Consensus problems in networks of agents with switching topology and time-delays,” _IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control_ , vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 1520–1533, 2004.
* [6] J. K. Hale, “Diffusive coupling, dissipation, and synchronization,” _Journal of Dynamics and Differential Equations_ , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–52, 1996.
* [7] Q.-C. Pham and J.-J. Slotine, “Stable concurrent synchronization in dynamic system networks,” _Neural Networks_ , vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 62–77, 2007.
* [8] G.-B. Stan and R. Sepulchre, “Analysis of interconnected oscillators by dissipativity theory,” _IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control_ , vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 256–270, 2007.
* [9] A. Pogromsky, “Passivity based design of synchronizing systems,” _Int. J. Bifurcation and Chaos_ , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 295–319, 1998.
* [10] L. Scardovi, A. Sarlette, and R. Sepulchre, “Synchronization and balancing on the ${N}$-torus,” _Systems and control Letters_ , vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 335–341, 2007.
* [11] R. Sepulchre, D. Paley, and N. Leonard, “Stabilization of planar collective motion with limited communication,” _IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control_ , vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 706–719, 2008.
* [12] L. Scardovi, N. Leonard, and R. Sepulchre, “Stabilization of collective motion in three dimensions: A consensus approach,” in _Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control_ , New Orleans, La, 2007, pp. 2931–2936.
* [13] S. Nair and N. Leonard, “Stable synchronization of mechanical system networks,” _SIAM J. Control and Optimization_ , vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 661–683, 2008.
* [14] A. Sarlette, R. Sepulchre, and N. Leonard, “Autonomous rigid body attitude synchronization,” in _Proceedings of the 46th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control_ , New Orleans, La, 2007, pp. 2566–2571.
* [15] E. S. Tuna, “Synchronizing linear systems via partial-state coupling,” _Automatica_ , 2008, in press.
* [16] J. C. Willems, “Lyapunov functions for diagonally dominant systems,” _Automatica J. IFAC_ , vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 519–523, 1976.
* [17] M. Arcak, “Passivity as a design tool for group coordination,” _IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control_ , vol. 52, no. 18, pp. 1380–1390, 2007.
* [18] D. Aeyels, R. Sepulchre, and J. Peuteman, “Asymptotic stability conditions for time-variant systems and its relation to observability,” _Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems_ , vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 1998.
* [19] S. Bittanti and P. Collaneri, Eds., _Periodic control systems 2001_ , Cernobbio-Como, Italy, 2001.
* [20] L. Perko, _Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems_. Springer-Verlag, 2001.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-22T12:59:16 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.885946 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Luca Scardovi, and Rodolphe Sepulchre",
"submitter": "Luca Scardovi",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3456"
} |
0805.3465 | # Global well-posedness of the critical Burgers equation in critical Besov
spaces
Changxing Miao1 and Gang Wu2
1 Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics,
P.O. Box 8009, Beijing 100088, P.R. China.
(miao_changxing@iapcm.ac.cn)
2 The Graduate School of China Academy of Engineering Physics,
P.O. Box 2101, Beijing 100088, P.R. China.
(wugangmaths@yahoo.com.cn)
###### Abstract
We make use of the method of modulus of continuity [12] and Fourier
localization technique [1] to prove the global well-posedness of the critical
Burgers equation $\partial_{t}u+u\partial_{x}u+\Lambda u=0$ in critical Besov
spaces $\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}(\mathbb{R})$ with $p\in[1,\infty)$, where
$\Lambda=\sqrt{-\triangle}$.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification: 35K55, 35Q53
Key words and phrases: Burgers equation; Modulus of continuity; Fourier
localization; Global well-posedness; Besov spaces
## 1 Introduction
We consider the Burgers equation with fractional dissipation in $\mathbb{R}$,
$\begin{cases}\partial_{t}u+u\partial_{x}u+\Lambda^{\alpha}u=0\\\
u(x,0)=u_{0}(x),\end{cases}$ (1.1)
where $0\leq\alpha\leq 2$ and the operator $\Lambda^{\alpha}$ is defined by
Fourier transform
$\mathcal{F}(\Lambda^{\alpha}u)(\xi)=|\xi|^{\alpha}\mathcal{F}u(\xi).$
The Burgers equation (1.1) with $\alpha=0$ and $\alpha=2$ has received an
extensive amount of attention since the studies by Burgers in the 1940s. If
$\alpha=0$, the equation is perhaps the most basic example of a PDE evolution
leading to shocks; if $\alpha=2$, it provides an accessible model for studying
the interaction between nonlinear and dissipative phenomena. Recently, in [12]
for the periodic case authors give a complete study for general
$\alpha\in[0,2]$, see also [2, 9, 11, 14]. In particular, for $\alpha=1$, with
help of the method of modulus of continuity they proved the global well-
posedness of the equation in the critical Hilbert space
$H^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathbb{T}^{1})$.
In this paper, we study the following critical case,
$\begin{cases}\partial_{t}u+u\partial_{x}u+\Lambda u=0\\\
u(x,0)=u_{0}(x).\end{cases}$ (1.2)
We use similar arguments as in [1]. Making use of Fourier localization
technique and the method of modulus of continuity [12], we prove the global
well-posedness of the critical Burgers equation (1.2) in critical Besov spaces
$\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}(\mathbb{R})$ with $p\in[1,\infty)$.
It is well known that $\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}$ is the critical space
under the scaling invariance. That is, if $u(x,t)$ is a solution of (1.2),
then $u_{\lambda}(x,t)=u(\lambda x,\lambda t)$ is also a solution of the same
equation and
$\|u_{\lambda}(\cdot,t)\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\approx\|u(\cdot,\lambda
t)\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}$.
Now we give out our main results. The first main result is the following:
###### Theorem 1.1.
Let $u_{0}\in\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}(\mathbb{R})$ with $p\in[1,\infty)$,
then the critical Burgers equation (1.2) has a unique global solution $u$ such
that
$u\in\mathcal{C}(\mathbb{R}^{+};\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1})\cap
L^{1}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{+};\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}).$
###### Remark 1.1.
Because of the restriction of the smooth index $s$ stemming from the _a
priori_ estimate for the transport-diffusion equation (see Theorem 1.2), we
can not get the result for the limit case $p=\infty$.
###### Remark 1.2.
The corresponding question for the quasi-geostrophic equation has been a focus
of significant effort (see e.g. [1, 4, 5, 8, 13, 18, 19]) and the critical Q-G
equation has been recently resolved in [13] for periodic case. Based on [13],
Abidi-Hmidi in [1] and Dong-Du in [8] give the corresponding result for Cauchy
problem of the critical Q-G equation in the framework of Besov space and
Sobolev space, respectively. After the present paper is completed, Prof. J.Wu
and H.Dong informed us that the authors in [9] gave the global well-posedness
for the critical fractal Burgers equation in inhomogeneous space
$H^{\frac{1}{2}}$ by similar argument in [8].
In order to prove this theorem, we first prove the local well-posedness which
is the major part of this paper. Next we make use of the modulus of continuity
[12] to get the global well-posedness. We mention that the property allowing
us to remove the periodicity is the spatial decay of the solution.
The key of proving the local well-posedness is an optimal _a priori_ estimate
for the following transport-diffusion equation in $\mathbb{R}^{N}$:
$\begin{cases}\partial_{t}u+v\cdot\nabla u+\nu\Lambda^{\alpha}u=f\\\
u(x,0)=u_{0}(x),\end{cases}$ $None$
where $v$ is a given vector field which needs not to be divergence free,
$u_{0}$ is the initial data, $f$ is a given external force term, $\nu\geq 0$
is a constant, $0\leq\alpha\leq 2$. Our second main result is the following:
###### Theorem 1.2.
Let $1\leq\rho_{1}\leq\rho\leq\infty$, $1\leq p\leq p_{1}\leq\infty$ and
$1\leq r\leq\infty$. Let $s\in\mathbb{R}$ satisfy the following
$\displaystyle s<1+\frac{N}{p_{1}}\;\Big{(}\text{or}\;s\leq
1+\frac{N}{p_{1}}\;\text{if}\;r=1\Big{)},$ $\displaystyle
s>-N\min\Big{(}\frac{1}{p_{1}},\frac{1}{p^{\prime}}\Big{)}\;\bigg{(}\text{or}\;s>-1-N\min\Big{(}\frac{1}{p_{1}},\frac{1}{p^{\prime}}\Big{)}\;\text{if}\;\operatorname{div}v=0\bigg{)}.$
There exists a constant $C>0$ depending only on $N$, $\alpha$, $s$, $p$,
$p_{1}$ and $r$, such that for any smooth solution $u$ of $(TD)_{\nu,\alpha}$
with $\nu\geq 0$, we have the following a priori estimate:
$\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}\dot{B}^{s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho}}_{p,r}}\leq
Ce^{CZ(T)}\Big{(}\|u_{0}\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}+\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho_{1}}-1}\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho_{1}}_{T}\dot{B}^{s-\alpha+\frac{\alpha}{\rho_{1}}}_{p,r}}\Big{)}$
(1.3)
with $Z(T):=\int_{0}^{T}\|\nabla
v(t)\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{N}{p_{1}}}_{p_{1},\infty}\cap
L^{\infty}}\operatorname{d}t$.
Besides if $u=v$, then for all $s>0$($s>-1$ if $\operatorname{div}v=0$), the
estimate (1.3) holds with $Z(T)=\int_{0}^{T}\|\nabla
v(t)\|_{L^{\infty}}\operatorname{d}t$.
###### Remark 1.3.
When $\alpha=2$, the above a priori estimate has been proved by R.Danchin in
[6]. In this paper, we extend Danchin’s results to the general case
$\alpha\in[0,2]$. The proof’s key is the use of Lagrangian coordinates
transformation together with an important commutator estimate.
The rest of this paper is arranged as follows:
In Section 2, we recall some definitions and properties about homogeneous
Besov spaces, and we will also list some useful lemmas. In Section 3, we prove
Theorem 1.2. In Section 4, we prove the local well-posedness. In Section 5, we
give the blow-up criterion. In Section 6, we complete the proof of the global
well-posedness.
### Notation:
Throughout the paper, $C$ stands for a constant which may be different in each
occurrence. We shall sometimes use the notation $A\lesssim B$ instead of
$A\leq CB$ and $A\approx B$ means that $A\lesssim B$ and $B\lesssim A$.
## 2 Preliminaries
Let us first recall the Littlewood-Paley Theory. Let $\chi$ and $\varphi$ be a
couple of smooth radial functions valued in $[0,1]$ such that $\chi$ is
supported in the ball
$\big{\\{}\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\big{|}|\xi|\leq\frac{4}{3}\big{\\}}$, $\varphi$
is supported in the shell
$\big{\\{}\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\big{|}\frac{3}{4}\leq|\xi|\leq\frac{8}{3}\big{\\}}$
and
$\displaystyle\chi(\xi)+\sum_{q\in\mathbb{N}}\varphi(2^{-q}\xi)=1,\quad\forall\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{N};$
$\displaystyle\sum_{q\in\mathbb{Z}}\varphi(2^{-q}\xi)=1,\quad\forall\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\backslash\\{0\\}.$
Denoting $\varphi_{q}(\xi)=\varphi(2^{-q}\xi)$ and
$h_{q}=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\varphi_{q}$, we define the homogeneous dyadic blocks
as
$\dot{\Delta}_{q}u:=\varphi(2^{-q}D)u=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}h_{q}(y)u(x-y)\operatorname{d}y,\quad\forall
q\in\mathbb{Z}.$
We can also define the following low-frequency cut-off:
$\dot{S}_{q}u:=\sum_{j\leq q-1}\dot{\Delta}_{j}u.$
###### Definition 2.1.
Let $\mathcal{S}_{h}^{\prime}$ be the space of temperate distributions $u$
such that
$\lim_{q\rightarrow-\infty}\dot{S}_{q}u=0,\quad\text{in}\quad\mathcal{S}^{\prime}.$
The formal equality
$u=\sum_{q\in\mathbb{Z}}\dot{\Delta}_{q}u$
holds in $\mathcal{S}_{h}^{\prime}$ and is called the _homogeneous Littlewood-
Paley decomposition_. It has nice properties of quasi-orthogonality:
$\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\equiv
0\quad\text{if}\quad|q^{\prime}-q|\geq
2\quad\text{and}\quad\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}(\dot{S}_{q-1}u\dot{\Delta}_{q}v)\equiv
0\quad\text{if}\quad|q^{\prime}-q|\geq 5.$ (2.1)
Let us now define the homogeneous Besov spaces:
###### Definition 2.2.
For $s\in\mathbb{R}$, $(p,r)\in[1,\infty]^{2}$ and
$u\in\mathcal{S}_{h}^{\prime}$, we set
$\|u\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}:=\Big{(}\sum_{q\in\mathbb{Z}}2^{qsr}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\|_{L^{p}}^{r}\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{r}}\quad\text{if}\quad
r<\infty$
and
$\|u\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,\infty}}:=\sup_{q\in\mathbb{Z}}2^{qs}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\|_{L^{p}}.$
We then define the _homogeneous Besov spaces_ as
$\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}:=\big{\\{}u\in\mathcal{S}_{h}^{\prime}\big{|}\|u\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}<\infty\big{\\}}.$
The above definition does not depend on the choice of the couple
$(\chi,\varphi)$. Remark that if $s<\frac{N}{p}$ or $s=\frac{N}{p}$ and $r=1$,
then $\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}$ is a Banach space.
We now recall some basic properties of the homogeneous Besov spaces.
###### Proposition 2.1.
The following properties hold true(cf. [15, 16]):
1. 1.
Generalized derivatives: Let $\sigma\in\mathbb{R}$, then the operator
$\Lambda^{\sigma}$ is an isomorphism from $\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}$ to
$\dot{B}^{s-\sigma}_{p,r}$.
2. 2.
Sobolev embedding: If $p_{1}\leq p_{2}$ and $r_{1}\leq r_{2}$, then
$\dot{B}^{s}_{p_{1},r_{1}}\hookrightarrow\dot{B}^{s-N(\frac{1}{p_{1}}-\frac{1}{p_{2}})}_{p_{2},r_{2}}$.
3. 3.
If $(p,r)\in[1,\infty]^{2}$ and $s>0$, there exists a positive constant
$C=C(N,s)$ such that
$\|uv\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\leq
C(\|u\|_{L^{\infty}}\|v\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}+\|v\|_{L^{\infty}}\|u\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}).$
In our next study we require two kinds of coupled space-time Besov spaces. The
first one is defined by the following manner: for $T>0$ and
$\rho\in[1,\infty]$, we denote by $L^{\rho}_{T}\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}$ the set of
all tempered distribution $u$ satisfying
$\|u\|_{L^{\rho}_{T}\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}:=\bigg{\|}\Big{(}\sum_{q\in\mathbb{Z}}2^{qsr}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\|_{L^{p}}^{r}\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{r}}\bigg{\|}_{L^{\rho}_{T}}<\infty.$
The second mixed space is $\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}$ which is
the set of all tempered distribution $u$ satisfying
$\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}:=\Big{(}\sum_{q\in\mathbb{Z}}2^{qsr}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\|_{L^{\rho}_{T}L^{p}}^{r}\Big{)}^{\frac{1}{r}}<\infty.$
Let us remark that, by virtue of the Minkowski inequality, we have
$\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\leq\|u\|_{L^{\rho}_{T}\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\quad\text{if}\quad\rho\leq
r,$
and
$\|u\|_{L^{\rho}_{T}\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\leq\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\quad\text{if}\quad\rho\geq
r.$
Now we give some useful lemmas.
###### Lemma 2.1.
(cf. [10, 17]) Let $\phi$ be a smooth function supported in the shell
$\big{\\{}\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{N}\big{|}R_{1}\leq|\xi|\leq
R_{2},0<R_{1}<R_{2}\big{\\}}$. There exist two positive constants $\kappa$ and
$C$ depending only on $\phi$ such that for all $1\leq p\leq\infty$, $\tau\geq
0$ and $\lambda>0$, we have
$\|\phi(\lambda^{-1}D)e^{-\tau\Lambda^{\alpha}}u\|_{L^{p}}\leq
Ce^{-\kappa\tau\lambda^{\alpha}}\|\phi(\lambda^{-1}D)u\|_{L^{p}}.$
###### Lemma 2.2.
(cf. [6]) Let $v$ be a smooth vector field. Let $\psi_{t}$ be the solution to
$\psi_{t}(x)=x+\int_{0}^{t}v(\tau,\psi_{\tau}(x))\operatorname{d}\tau.$
Then for all $t\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$, the flow $\psi_{t}$ is a $C^{1}$
diffeomorphism over $\mathbb{R}^{N}$ and one has
$\displaystyle\|\nabla\psi_{t}^{\pm 1}\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq e^{V(t)},$
$\displaystyle\|\nabla\psi_{t}^{\pm 1}-{\rm Id}\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq
e^{V(t)}-1,$ $\displaystyle\|\nabla^{2}\psi_{t}^{\pm 1}\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq
e^{V(t)}\int_{0}^{t}\|\nabla^{2}v(\tau)\|_{L^{\infty}}e^{V(\tau)}\operatorname{d}\tau,$
where $V(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\|\nabla v(\tau)\|_{L^{\infty}}\operatorname{d}\tau$.
###### Lemma 2.3.
(cf. [3]) Let $v$ be a given vector field belonging to
$L^{1}_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^{+};\operatorname{Lip})$. For $q\in\mathbb{Z}$ we set
$u_{q}:=\dot{\Delta}_{q}u$ and denote by $\psi_{q}$ the flow of the
regularized vector field $\dot{S}_{q-1}v$. Then for
$u\in\dot{B}^{\alpha}_{p,\infty}$ with $\alpha\in[0,2)$ and $p\in[1,\infty]$
we have
$\|\Lambda^{\alpha}(u_{q}\circ\psi_{q})-(\Lambda^{\alpha}u_{q})\circ\psi_{q}\|_{L^{p}}\leq
Ce^{CV(t)}V^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}(t)2^{q\alpha}\|u_{q}\|_{L^{p}},$
where $V(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\|\nabla v(\tau)\|_{L^{\infty}}\operatorname{d}\tau$
and $C=C(\alpha,p)>0$ is a constant.
###### Lemma 2.4.
Let $\sigma\in\mathbb{R}$ and $1\leq p\leq p_{1}\leq\infty$,
$p_{2}:=(1/p-1/p_{1})^{-1}$. Let
$R_{q}:=(\dot{S}_{q-1}v-v)\cdot\nabla\dot{\Delta}_{q}u-[\dot{\Delta}_{q},v\cdot\nabla]u$.
There exists a constant $C=C(N,\sigma)$ such that
$\begin{split}2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}\|_{L^{p}}&\leq
C\bigg{(}\sum_{|q^{\prime}-q|\leq 4}\|\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}\nabla
v\|_{L^{\infty}}2^{q^{\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+\sum_{q^{\prime}\geq
q-3}2^{q-q^{\prime}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{\infty}}2^{q\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}|q^{\prime}-q|\leq 4\\\ q^{\prime\prime}\leq
q^{\prime}-2\end{subarray}}2^{(q-q^{\prime\prime})(\sigma-1-\frac{N}{p_{1}})}2^{q^{\prime}\frac{N}{p_{1}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}2^{q^{\prime\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}\geq q-3\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}2^{(q-q^{\prime})\big{(}\sigma+N\min(\frac{1}{p_{1}},\frac{1}{p^{\prime}})\big{)}}\\\
&\qquad\times
2^{q^{\prime}\frac{N}{p_{1}}}\big{(}2^{q-q^{\prime}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}+\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\operatorname{div}v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}\big{)}2^{q^{\prime\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}\bigg{)},\end{split}$
and the third term in the right-hand side may be replaced by
$C\sum_{|q^{\prime}-q|\leq
4}2^{q^{\prime}(\sigma-1)}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}\|\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}\partial_{j}u\|_{L^{p_{2}}}.$
Besides if $u=v$, the following estimate holds true:
$\begin{split}2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}\|_{L^{p}}&\leq
C\bigg{(}\sum_{|q^{\prime}-q|\leq 4}\|\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}\nabla
u\|_{L^{\infty}}2^{q^{\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+\sum_{q^{\prime}\geq
q-3}2^{q-q^{\prime}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
u\|_{L^{\infty}}2^{q\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}\geq q-3\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq 1\end{subarray}}2^{(q-q^{\prime})\sigma}\\\
&\qquad\times\big{(}2^{q-q^{\prime}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
u\|_{L^{\infty}}+\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\operatorname{div}u\|_{L^{\infty}}\big{)}2^{q^{\prime\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}\bigg{)}.\end{split}$
R.Dancin in [7] gave the proof for the nonhomogeneous case. For the
convenience of the reader, we will give the proof for the homogeneous case in
the appendix.
## 3 Proof of Theorem 1.2
###### Proof of Theorem 1.2.
Here we only prove the case $\alpha\in[0,2)$ (for the case $\alpha=2$, see
[6]).
Let $u_{q}:=\dot{\Delta}_{q}u$ and $f_{q}:=\dot{\Delta}_{q}f$. Applying
$\dot{\Delta}_{q}$ to $(TD)_{\nu,\alpha}$ yields
$\partial_{t}u_{q}+\dot{S}_{q-1}v\cdot\nabla
u_{q}+\nu\Lambda^{\alpha}u_{q}=f_{q}+R_{q}$
with $R_{q}:=(\dot{S}_{q-1}v-v)\cdot\nabla
u_{q}-[\dot{\Delta}_{q},v\cdot\nabla]u$.
Let $\psi_{q}$ be the flow of the regularized vector field $\dot{S}_{q-1}v$.
Denote $\bar{u}_{q}:=u_{q}\circ\psi_{q}$, $\bar{f}_{q}:=f_{q}\circ\psi_{q}$
and $\bar{R}_{q}:=R_{q}\circ\psi_{q}$. Then we have
$\partial_{t}\bar{u}_{q}+\nu\Lambda^{\alpha}\bar{u}_{q}=\bar{f}_{q}+\bar{R}_{q}+\nu
G_{q}$ (3.1)
with
$G_{q}:=\Lambda^{\alpha}(u_{q}\circ\psi_{q})-(\Lambda^{\alpha}u_{q})\circ\psi_{q}$.
Applying $\dot{\Delta}_{j}$ to (3.1) and using Lemma 2.1, we get
$\begin{split}\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}\bar{u}_{q}(t)\|_{L^{p}}&\lesssim
e^{-\kappa\nu
t2^{j\alpha}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}u_{0,q}\|_{L^{p}}+\int_{0}^{t}e^{-\kappa\nu(t-\tau)2^{j\alpha}}\\\
&\quad\times\big{(}\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}\bar{f}_{q}\|_{L^{p}}+\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}\bar{R}_{q}\|_{L^{p}}+\nu\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}G_{q}\|_{L^{p}}\big{)}\operatorname{d}\tau.\end{split}$
(3.2)
Now from Lemma 2.3 we have
$\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}G_{q}(t)\|_{L^{p}}\leq
Ce^{CV(t)}V^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}(t)2^{q\alpha}\|u_{q}\|_{L^{p}}.$ (3.3)
According to Bernstein lemma and Lemma 2.2, we can get
$\begin{split}\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}\bar{f}_{q}(t)\|_{L^{p}}&\lesssim
2^{-j}\|\nabla\dot{\Delta}_{j}\bar{f}_{q}\|_{L^{p}}\\\ &\lesssim
2^{-j}\|(\nabla
f_{q})\circ\psi_{q}\|_{L^{p}}\|\nabla\psi_{q}\|_{L^{\infty}}\\\ &\lesssim
2^{-j}\|\nabla
f_{q}\|_{L^{p}}\|J_{\psi_{q}^{-1}}\|_{L^{\infty}}^{\frac{1}{p}}\|\nabla\psi_{q}\|_{L^{\infty}}\\\
&\lesssim e^{CV(t)}2^{q-j}\|f_{q}\|_{L^{p}}.\end{split}$ (3.4)
Arguing similarly as in deriving (3.4), we obtain
$\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}\bar{R}_{q}(t)\|_{L^{p}}\lesssim
e^{CV(t)}2^{q-j}\|R_{q}\|_{L^{p}}.$
According to Lemma 2.4, we get
$\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}\bar{R}_{q}(t)\|_{L^{p}}\lesssim
e^{CV(t)}2^{q-j}c_{q}(t)2^{-qs}Z^{\prime}(t)\|u(t)\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}},$
(3.5)
with $\|c_{q}(t)\|_{\ell^{r}}=1$.
Plugging (3.3), (3.4) and (3.5) into (3.2), taking the $L^{\rho}$ norm over
$[0,t]$ and multiplying both sides by
$\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{q(s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho})}$, we obtain
$\begin{split}\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{q(s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho})}\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}\bar{u}_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}&\lesssim
2^{\frac{(q-j)\alpha}{\rho}}(1-e^{-\kappa\nu\rho
t2^{j\alpha}})^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{qs}\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}u_{0,q}\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+\nu^{-\frac{1}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}2^{(q-j)(1+\frac{\alpha}{\rho}+\frac{\alpha}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}})}e^{CV(t)}2^{q(s-\frac{\alpha}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}})}\|f_{q}\|_{L^{\rho_{1}}_{t}L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{q(s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho})}2^{(q-j)\alpha}e^{CV(t)}V^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}(t)\|u_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+2^{(q-j)(1+\frac{\alpha}{\rho})}\int_{0}^{t}c_{q}(\tau)Z^{\prime}(\tau)e^{CV(\tau)}\|u(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\operatorname{d}\tau.\end{split}$
(3.6)
Let $M_{0}\in\mathbb{Z}$ to be fixed hereafter. Decomposing
$u_{q}=\dot{S}_{q-M_{0}}\bar{u}_{q}\circ\psi_{q}^{-1}+\sum_{j\geq
q-M_{0}}\dot{\Delta}_{j}\bar{u}_{q}\circ\psi_{q}^{-1},$
we have for all $t\in[0,T]$,
$\|u_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}\leq
e^{CV(t)}\big{(}\|\dot{S}_{q-M_{0}}\bar{u}_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}+\sum_{j\geq
q-M_{0}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}\bar{u}_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}\big{)}.$ (3.7)
By Lemma A.1 in [6], we have
$\|\dot{S}_{q-M_{0}}\bar{u}_{q}\|_{L^{p}}\lesssim\|J_{\psi_{q}^{-1}}\|_{L^{\infty}}^{\frac{1}{p}}(2^{-q}\|\nabla
J_{\psi_{q}^{-1}}\|_{L^{\infty}}\|J_{\psi_{q}}\|_{L^{\infty}}+2^{-M_{0}}\|\nabla\psi_{q}^{-1}\|_{L^{\infty}})\|u_{q}\|_{L^{p}}.$
This together with Lemma 2.2 and Bernstein lemma leads to
$\|\dot{S}_{q-M_{0}}\bar{u}_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}\lesssim
e^{CV(t)}(e^{CV(t)}-1+2^{-M_{0}})\|u_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}.$ (3.8)
As $\dot{\Delta}_{j}u_{0,q}=0$ for $|j-q|>1$, from (3.6) we get
$\begin{split}&\sum_{j\geq
q-M_{0}}\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{q(s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho})}\|\dot{\Delta}_{j}\bar{u}_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}\\\
\lesssim&(1-e^{-\kappa\nu\rho
t2^{q\alpha}})^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{qs}\|u_{0,q}\|_{L^{p}}+\nu^{-\frac{1}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}2^{M_{0}(1+\alpha)}e^{CV(t)}2^{q(s-\frac{\alpha}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}})}\|f_{q}\|_{L^{\rho_{1}}_{t}L^{p}}\\\
&+\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{M_{0}\alpha}e^{CV(t)}V^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}(t)2^{q(s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho})}\|u_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}\\\
&+2^{M_{0}(1+\alpha)}\int_{0}^{t}c_{q}(\tau)Z^{\prime}(\tau)e^{CV(\tau)}\|u(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\operatorname{d}\tau.\end{split}$
(3.9)
Plugging (3.8) and (3.9) into (3.7) yields that
$\begin{split}\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{q(s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho})}\|u_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}&\leq
C(1-e^{-\kappa\nu\rho
t2^{q\alpha}})^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{qs}\|u_{0,q}\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+Ce^{CV(t)}\Big{(}\nu^{-\frac{1}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}2^{M_{0}(1+\alpha)}2^{q(s-\frac{\alpha}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}})}\|f_{q}\|_{L^{\rho_{1}}_{t}L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+\big{(}2^{-M_{0}}+2^{M_{0}\alpha}V^{1-\frac{\alpha}{2}}(t)\big{)}\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{q(s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho})}\|u_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+2^{M_{0}(1+\alpha)}\int_{0}^{t}c_{q}(\tau)Z^{\prime}(\tau)\|u(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\operatorname{d}\tau\Big{)}.\end{split}$
Choose $M_{0}$ to be the unique integer such that
$2C2^{-M_{0}}\in(\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{4}]$ and $T_{1}$ to be the largest real
number such that
$T_{1}\leq T\quad\text{and}\quad CV(T_{1})\leq C_{0}\quad\text{with}\quad
C_{0}=\min\bigg{(}\ln
2,\Big{(}\frac{2^{-M_{0}\alpha}}{8C^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}\Big{)}^{\frac{2}{2-\alpha}}\bigg{)}.$
Thus for $t\in[0,T_{1}]$, there exists a constant $C_{1}$ such that
$\begin{split}\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{q(s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho})}\|u_{q}\|_{L^{\rho}_{t}L^{p}}&\leq
C_{1}\Big{(}(1-e^{-\kappa\nu\rho
t2^{q\alpha}})^{\frac{1}{\rho}}2^{qs}\|u_{0,q}\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+\nu^{-\frac{1}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}2^{q(s-\frac{\alpha}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}})}\|f_{q}\|_{L^{\rho_{1}}_{t}L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+\int_{0}^{t}c_{q}(\tau)Z^{\prime}(\tau)\|u(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\operatorname{d}\tau\Big{)}.\end{split}$
Taking $\ell^{r}$ norm yields
$\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{t}\dot{B}^{s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho}}_{p,r}}\leq
C_{1}\Big{(}\|u_{0}\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}+\nu^{-\frac{1}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho_{1}}_{t}\dot{B}^{s-\frac{\alpha}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}_{p,r}}+\int_{0}^{t}Z^{\prime}(\tau)\|u(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\operatorname{d}\tau\Big{)}.$
(3.10)
Splitting $[0,T]$ into $m$ subintervals like as $[0,T_{1}]$, $[T_{1},T_{2}]$
and so on, such that
$C\int_{T_{k}}^{T_{k+1}}\|\nabla v(t)\|_{L^{\infty}}\operatorname{d}t\approx
C_{0}.$
Arguing similarly as in deriving (3.10), we get for all $t\in[T_{k},T_{k+1}]$,
$\begin{split}\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{[T_{k},t]}\dot{B}^{s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho}}_{p,r}}&\leq
C_{1}\Big{(}\|u(T_{k})\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}+\nu^{-\frac{1}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho_{1}}_{[T_{k},t]}\dot{B}^{s-\frac{\alpha}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}_{p,r}}\\\
&\quad+\int_{T_{k}}^{t}Z^{\prime}(\tau)\|u(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\operatorname{d}\tau\Big{)}.\end{split}$
By a standard induction argument, it can be shown that
$\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{t}\dot{B}^{s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho}}_{p,r}}\leq
C_{1}^{k+1}\Big{(}\|u_{0}\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}+\nu^{-\frac{1}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho_{1}}_{t}\dot{B}^{s-\frac{\alpha}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}_{p,r}}+\int_{0}^{t}Z^{\prime}(\tau)\|u(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\operatorname{d}\tau\Big{)}.$
Since the number of such subintervals is $m\approx CV(T)C_{0}^{-1}$, one can
readily conclude that up to a change of $C$,
$\begin{split}\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho}}\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho}_{T}\dot{B}^{s+\frac{\alpha}{\rho}}_{p,r}}&\leq
Ce^{CV(T)}\Big{(}\|u_{0}\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}+\nu^{-\frac{1}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho_{1}}_{T}\dot{B}^{s-\frac{\alpha}{\rho_{1}^{\prime}}}_{p,r}}\\\
&\quad+\int_{0}^{T}Z^{\prime}(t)\|u(t)\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\operatorname{d}t\Big{)}.\end{split}$
(3.11)
Of course, the above inequality is valid for all $\rho\in[\rho_{1},\infty]$.
Choosing first $\rho=\infty$ in (3.11) and applying Gronwall lemma leads to
$\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}\leq
Ce^{CZ(T)}\Big{(}\|u_{0}\|_{\dot{B}^{s}_{p,r}}+\nu^{\frac{1}{\rho_{1}}-1}\|f\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\rho_{1}}_{T}\dot{B}^{s-\alpha+\frac{\alpha}{\rho_{1}}}_{p,r}}\Big{)}.$
(3.12)
Now plugging (3.12) into (3.11) yields the desired estimate for general
$\rho$. ∎
## 4 Local well-posedness
In this section, we prove the following result:
###### Proposition 4.1.
Let $u_{0}\in\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}(\mathbb{R})$ with $p\in[1,\infty)$,
then there exists $T>0$ such that the equation (1.2) has a unique solution $u$
such that
$u\in\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}\cap
L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}.$
Besides for all $\beta\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$, we have
$t^{\beta}u\in\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+\beta}_{p,1}$.
###### Proof.
We prove this proposition by making use of an iterative method.
Step 1: approximation solution.
Let $u^{0}:=e^{-t\Lambda}u_{0}(x)$ and let $u^{n+1}$ be the solution of the
linear equation
$\begin{cases}\partial_{t}u^{n+1}+u^{n}\partial_{x}u^{n+1}+\Lambda
u^{n+1}=0\\\ u^{n+1}(x,0)=u_{0}(x).\end{cases}$
Obviously $u^{0}\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+};\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1})$, thus
according to Theorem 1.2, we have $\forall n\in\mathbb{N}$,
$u^{n}\in\widetilde{L}^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{+};\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1})\cap
L^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{+};\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}).$
Step 2: uniform bounds.
Now we intend to obtain uniform bounds, with respect to the parameter $n$, for
some $T>0$ independent of $n$.
By making use of Lemma 2.4 and similar arguments as in the proof of Theorem
1.2, for all $T>0$ such that
$\int_{0}^{T}\|u^{n}(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}\operatorname{d}\tau\leq
CC_{0},$
we have
$\begin{split}\|u^{n+1}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}_{t}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{2}}_{p,1}}+\|u^{n+1}\|_{L^{1}_{t}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}&\leq
C\sum_{q\in\mathbb{Z}}(1-e^{-\kappa
t2^{q}})^{\frac{1}{2}}2^{\frac{q}{p}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q}u_{0}\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\quad+C\|u^{n}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}_{t}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{2}}_{p,1}}\|u^{n+1}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}_{t}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{2}}_{p,1}}.\end{split}$
By Lebesgue theorem, there exist $T>0$ and an absolute constant
$\varepsilon_{0}>0$ such that
$\sum_{q\in\mathbb{Z}}(1-e^{-\kappa
T2^{q}})^{\frac{1}{2}}2^{\frac{q}{p}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q}u_{0}\|_{L^{p}}\leq\varepsilon_{0}$
(4.1)
and
$\|u^{n+1}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{2}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{2}}_{p,1}}+\|u^{n+1}\|_{L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}\leq
2\varepsilon_{0}.$ (4.2)
On the other hand, by Theorem 1.2 and the Sobolev embedding
$\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}\hookrightarrow L^{\infty}$, we have
$\|u^{n+1}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\leq
Ce^{C\int_{0}^{T}\|u^{n}(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}\operatorname{d}\tau}\|u_{0}\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\leq
C\|u_{0}\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}.$
Combining the above results, we have proved that the sequence
$(u^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is uniformly bounded in
$\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}\cap
L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}$.
Step 3: strong convergence.
We first prove that $(u^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a Cauchy sequence in
$\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}$.
Let $(n,m)\in\mathbb{N}^{2}$, $n>m$ and $u^{n,m}:=u^{n}-u^{m}$. One easily
verifies that
$\begin{cases}\partial_{t}u^{n+1,m+1}+u^{n}\partial_{x}u^{n+1,m+1}+\Lambda
u^{n+1,m+1}=-u^{n,m}\partial_{x}u^{m+1}\\\ u^{n+1,m+1}(x,0)=0.\end{cases}$
According to Theorem 1.2, we have
$\|u^{n+1,m+1}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\leq
Ce^{C\|u^{n}\|_{L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}}\int_{0}^{T}\|u^{n,m}\partial_{x}u^{m+1}(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\operatorname{d}\tau.$
(4.3)
By Proposition 2.1 and the embedding
$\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}\hookrightarrow L^{\infty}$, we have
$\|u^{n,m}\partial_{x}u^{m+1}\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\lesssim\|u^{n,m}\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\|u^{m+1}\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}.$
Substituting this into (4.3) yields
$\|u^{n+1,m+1}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\leq
C\|u^{n,m}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}e^{C\|u^{n}\|_{L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}}\int_{0}^{T}\|u^{m+1}(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}\operatorname{d}\tau.$
By (4.1), we can choose $\varepsilon_{0}$ small enough such that
$\|u^{n+1,m+1}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\leq\epsilon\|u^{n,m}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}$
with $\epsilon<1$. Now we can get by induction
$\|u^{n+1,m+1}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\leq\epsilon^{m+1}\|u^{n,0}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\leq
C\epsilon^{m+1}\|u_{0}\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}.$
This implies that $(u^{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a Cauchy sequence in
$\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}$. Thus there exists
$u\in\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}$ such that $u^{n}$
converges strongly to $u$ in
$\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}$. Fatou lemma and (4.2)
ensure that $u\in L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}$. Thus by passing to
the limit into the approximation equation, we can get a solution to (1.2) in
$\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}\cap
L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}$.
Step 4: uniqueness.
Let $u_{1}$ and $u_{2}$ be two solutions of the equation (1.2) with the same
initial data and belonging to the space
$\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}\cap
L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}$. Let $u_{1,2}:=u_{1}-u_{2}$, then we
have
$\begin{cases}\partial_{t}u_{1,2}+u_{1}\partial_{x}u_{1,2}+\Lambda
u_{1,2}=-u_{1,2}\partial_{x}u_{2}\\\ u_{1,2}(x,0)=0.\end{cases}$
By similar arguments as in Step 3, we have
$\|u_{1,2}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{t}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\leq
Ce^{C\|u_{1}\|_{L^{1}_{t}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}}\int_{0}^{t}\|u_{1,2}\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{\tau}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\|u_{2}(\tau)\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}\operatorname{d}\tau.$
Gronwall’s inequality ensures that $u_{1}=u_{2}$, $\forall t\in[0,T]$.
Step 5: smoothing effect.
We will prove that for all $\beta\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$, we have
$\|t^{\beta}u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+\beta}_{p,1}}\leq
C_{\beta}e^{C(\beta+1)\|u\|_{L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}}\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}.$
(4.4)
It is obvious that
$\begin{cases}\partial_{t}(t^{\beta}u)+u\partial_{x}(t^{\beta}u)+\Lambda(t^{\beta}u)=\beta
t^{\beta-1}u\\\ (t^{\beta}u)(x,0)=0.\end{cases}$
When $\beta=1$, by Theorem 1.2, we have
$\|tu(t)\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}\leq
Ce^{C\|u\|_{L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}}\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}.$
Suppose (4.4) is true for $n$, we will prove it for $n+1$. Applying Theorem
1.2 to the equation of $t^{n+1}u$ yields that
$\begin{split}\|t^{n+1}u(t)\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+n+1}_{p,1}}&\leq
C(n+1)e^{C\|u\|_{L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}}\|t^{n}u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+n}_{p,1}}\\\
&\leq
C_{n}e^{C(n+2)\|u\|_{L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}}}\|u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}.\end{split}$
For general $\beta\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$, obviously
$[\beta]\leq\beta\leq[\beta]+1$. Thus by the following interpolation
$\|t^{\beta}u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+\beta}_{p,1}}\lesssim\|t^{[\beta]}u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+[\beta]}_{p,1}}^{[\beta]+1-\beta}\|t^{[\beta]+1}u\|_{\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+[\beta]+1}_{p,1}}^{\beta-[\beta]},$
we can get the estimate for general $\beta\in\mathbb{R}^{+}$. ∎
## 5 Blow-up criterion
In this section, we prove the following blow-up criterion:
###### Proposition 5.1.
Let $T^{\ast}$ be the maximum local existence time of $u$ in
$\widetilde{L}^{\infty}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}\cap
L^{1}_{T}\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1}$. If $T^{\ast}<\infty$, then
$\int_{0}^{T^{\ast}}\|\partial_{x}u(t)\|_{L^{\infty}}\operatorname{d}t=\infty.$
###### Proof.
Suppose
$\int_{0}^{T^{\ast}}\|\partial_{x}u(t)\|_{L^{\infty}}\operatorname{d}t$ be
finite, then by Theorem 1.2, we have
$\forall t\in[0,T^{\ast}),\quad\|u(t)\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}\leq
M_{T^{\ast}}:=Ce^{C\int_{0}^{T^{\ast}}\|\partial_{x}u(t)\|_{L^{\infty}}\operatorname{d}t}\|u_{0}\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}<\infty.$
(5.1)
Let $\widetilde{T}>0$ such that
$\sum_{q\in\mathbb{Z}}(1-e^{-\kappa\widetilde{T}2^{q}})^{\frac{1}{2}}M_{T^{\ast}}\leq\varepsilon_{0},$
(5.2)
where $\varepsilon_{0}$ is the absolute constant emerged in the proof of
Proposition 4.1. Now (5.1) and (5.2) imply that
$\forall
t\in[0,T^{\ast}),\quad\sum_{q\in\mathbb{Z}}(1-e^{-\kappa\widetilde{T}2^{q}})^{\frac{1}{2}}2^{\frac{q}{p}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q}u(t)\|_{L^{p}}\leq\varepsilon_{0}.$
This together with the local existence theory ensures that, there exists a
solution $\widetilde{u}(t)$ on $[0,\widetilde{T})$ to (1.2) with the initial
datum $u(T^{\ast}-\widetilde{T}/2)$. By uniqueness,
$\widetilde{u}(t)=u(t+T^{\ast}-\widetilde{T}/2)$ on $[0,\widetilde{T}/2)$ so
that $\widetilde{u}$ extends the solution $u$ beyond $T^{\ast}$. ∎
## 6 Global well-posedness
In this section, making use of the method of modulus of continuity [12], with
help of similar arguments as in [1], we give the proof of the global well-
posedness.
Let $T^{\ast}$ be the maximal existence time of the solution $u$ to (1.2) in
the space
$\widetilde{L}^{\infty}([0,T^{\ast});\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1})\cap
L^{1}_{loc}([0,T^{\ast});\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}+1}_{p,1})$. From Proposition
4.1, there exists $T_{0}>0$ such that
$\forall t\in[0,T_{0}],\quad t\|\partial_{x}u(t)\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq
C\|u^{0}\|_{\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1}}.$
Let $\lambda$ be a positive real number that will be fixed later and
$T_{1}\in(0,T_{0})$. We define the set
$I:=\\{T\in[T_{1},T^{\ast});\forall t\in[T_{1},T],\forall x\neq
y\in\mathbb{R},|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|<\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|)\\},$
where $\omega:\mathbb{R}^{+}\longrightarrow\mathbb{R}^{+}$ is strictly
increasing, concave, $\omega(0)=0$, $\omega^{\prime}(0)<+\infty$,
$\lim_{\xi\rightarrow 0^{+}}\omega^{\prime\prime}(\xi)=-\infty$ and
$\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|)=\omega(\lambda|x-y|).$
The function $\omega$ is a modulus of continuity chosen as in [12].
We first prove that $T_{1}$ belongs to $I$ under suitable conditions over
$\lambda$. Let $C_{0}$ be a large positive number such that
$2\|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}}<\omega(C_{0})<3\|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}}.$ (6.1)
Since $\omega$ is strictly increasing, then by maximum principle we have
$\lambda|x-y|\geq C_{0}\Rightarrow|u(x,T_{1})-u(y,T_{1})|\leq
2\|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}}<\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|).$
On the other hand we have from Mean Value Theorem
$|u(x,T_{1})-u(y,T_{1})|\leq|x-y|\|\partial_{x}u(T_{1})\|_{L^{\infty}}.$
Let $0<\delta_{0}<C_{0}$. Then by the concavity of $\omega$ we have
$\lambda|x-y|\leq\delta_{0}\Rightarrow\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|)\geq\frac{\omega(\delta_{0})}{\delta_{0}}\lambda|x-y|.$
If we choose $\lambda$ so that
$\lambda>\frac{\delta_{0}}{\omega(\delta_{0})}\|\partial_{x}u(T_{1})\|_{L^{\infty}},$
then we get
$0<\lambda|x-y|\leq\delta_{0}\Rightarrow|u(x,T_{1})-u(y,T_{1})|<\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|).$
Let us now consider the case $\delta_{0}\leq\lambda|x-y|\leq C_{0}$. By Mean
Value Theorem and the increasing property of $\omega$, we can get
$|u(x,T_{1})-u(y,T_{1})|\leq\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda}\|\partial_{x}u(T_{1})\|_{L^{\infty}}\quad\text{and}\quad\omega(\delta_{0})\leq\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|).$
Choosing $\lambda$ such that
$\lambda>\frac{C_{0}}{\omega(\delta_{0})}\|\partial_{x}u(T_{1})\|_{L^{\infty}},$
thus we get
$\delta_{0}\leq\lambda|x-y|\leq
C_{0}\Rightarrow|u(x,T_{1})-u(y,T_{1})|<\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|).$
All the preceding conditions over $\lambda$ can be obtained if we take
$\lambda=\frac{\omega^{-1}(3\|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}})}{2\|u_{0}\|_{L^{\infty}}}\|\partial_{x}u(T_{1})\|_{L^{\infty}}.$
(6.2)
From the construction, the set $I$ is an interval of the form
$[T_{1},T_{\ast})$. We have three possibilities which will be discussed
separately.
Case 1: The first possibility is $T_{\ast}=T^{\ast}$. In this case we
necessarily have $T^{\ast}=\infty$ because the Lipschitz norm of $u$ does not
blow up.
Case 2: The second possibility is $T_{\ast}\in I$ and we will show that is not
possible.
Let $C_{0}$ satisfy (6.1), then for all $t\in[T_{1},T^{\ast})$, we have
$\lambda|x-y|\geq C_{0}\Rightarrow|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|<\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|).$
Since $\partial_{x}u(t)$ belongs to
$\mathcal{C}((0,T^{\ast});\dot{B}^{\frac{1}{p}}_{p,1})$, then for
$\varepsilon>0$ there exist $\eta_{0},R>0$ such that $\forall
t\in[T_{\ast},T_{\ast}+\eta_{0}]$,
$\|\partial_{x}u(t)\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq\|\partial_{x}u(T_{\ast})\|_{L^{\infty}}+\frac{\varepsilon}{2}\quad\text{and}\quad\|\partial_{x}u(T_{\ast})\|_{L^{\infty}(B^{c}_{(0,R)})}\leq\frac{\varepsilon}{2},$
where $B_{(0,R)}$ is the ball of radius $R$ and with center the origin. Hence
for $\lambda|x-y|\leq C_{0}$ and $x$ or $y\in
B^{c}_{(0,R+\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda})}$, we have for $\forall
t\in[T_{\ast},T_{\ast}+\eta_{0}]$
$|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|\leq|x-y|\|\partial_{x}u(t)\|_{L^{\infty}(B^{c}_{(0,R)})}\leq\varepsilon|x-y|.$
On the other hand we have from the concavity of $\omega$
$\lambda|x-y|\leq
C_{0}\Rightarrow\frac{\omega(C_{0})}{C_{0}}\lambda|x-y|\leq\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|).$
Thus if we take $\varepsilon$ sufficiently small such that
$\varepsilon<\frac{\omega(C_{0})}{C_{0}}\lambda,$
then we find that
$\lambda|x-y|\leq C_{0};x\;\text{or}\;y\in
B^{c}_{(0,R+\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda})}\Rightarrow|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|<\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|).$
It remains to study the case where $x,y\in B_{(0,R+\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda})}$.
Since $\|\partial^{2}_{x}u(T_{\ast})\|_{L^{\infty}}$ is finite (see
Proposition 4.1) then we get for each $x\in\mathbb{R}$
$|\partial_{x}u(x,T_{\ast})|<\lambda\omega^{\prime}(0).$
From the continuity of $x\longrightarrow|\partial_{x}u(x,T_{\ast})|$ we obtain
$\|\partial_{x}u(T_{\ast})\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{(0,R+\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda})})}<\lambda\omega^{\prime}(0).$
Let $\delta_{1}\ll 1$. By the continuity in time of the quantity
$\|\partial_{x}u(t)\|_{L^{\infty}}$, there exists $\eta_{1}>0$ such that
$\forall t\in[T_{\ast},T_{\ast}+\eta_{1}]$
$\|\partial_{x}u(t)\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{(0,R+\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda})})}<\lambda\frac{\omega(\delta_{1})}{\delta_{1}}.$
Therefore for $\lambda|x-y|\leq\delta_{1}$ and $x\neq y$ belonging together to
$B_{(0,R+\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda})}$, we have for all
$t\in[T_{\ast},T_{\ast}+\eta_{1}]$
$\begin{split}|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|&\leq|x-y|\|\partial_{x}u(t)\|_{L^{\infty}(B_{(0,R+\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda})})}\\\
&<\lambda|x-y|\frac{\omega(\delta_{1})}{\delta_{1}}\\\
&\leq\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|).\end{split}$
Now for the other case since
$\forall x,y\in
B_{(0,R+\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda})},\delta_{1}\leq\lambda|x-y|;|u(x,T_{\ast})-u(y,T_{\ast})|<\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|),$
then we get from a standard compact argument the existence of $\eta_{2}>0$
such that for all $t\in[T_{\ast},T_{\ast}+\eta_{2}]$
$\forall x,y\in
B_{(0,R+\frac{C_{0}}{\lambda})},\delta_{1}\leq\lambda|x-y|;|u(x,t)-u(y,t)|<\omega_{\lambda}(|x-y|).$
Taking $\eta=\min(\eta_{0},\eta_{1},\eta_{2})$, we obtain that
$T_{\ast}+\eta\in I$ which contradicts the fact that $T_{\ast}$ is maximal.
Case 3: The last possibility is that $T_{\ast}$ does not belong to $I$. By the
continuity in time of $u$, there exist $x\neq y$ such that
$u(x,T_{\ast})-u(y,T_{\ast})=\omega_{\lambda}(\xi),\quad\text{with}\quad\xi=|x-y|.$
We will show that this scenario can not occur and more precisely:
$f^{\prime}(T_{\ast})<0\quad\text{where}\quad f(t):=u(x,t)-u(y,t).$
This is impossible since $f(t)\leq f(T_{\ast}),\forall t\in[0,T_{\ast}]$.
The proof is the same as [12] and for the convenience of the reader we sketch
out the proof. From the regularity of the solution we see that the equation
can be defined in the classical manner and
$f^{\prime}(T_{\ast})=u(y,T_{\ast})\partial_{x}u(y,T_{\ast})-u(x,T_{\ast})\partial_{x}u(x,T_{\ast})+\Lambda
u(y,T_{\ast})-\Lambda u(x,T_{\ast}).$
From [12] we have
$u(y,T_{\ast})\partial_{x}u(y,T_{\ast})-u(x,T_{\ast})\partial_{x}u(x,T_{\ast})\leq\omega_{\lambda}(\xi)\omega^{\prime}_{\lambda}(\xi).$
Again from [12]
$\begin{split}\Lambda u(y,T_{\ast})-\Lambda
u(x,T_{\ast})&\leq\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\frac{\xi}{2}}\frac{\omega_{\lambda}(\xi+2\eta)+\omega_{\lambda}(\xi-2\eta)-2\omega_{\lambda}(\xi)}{\eta^{2}}\operatorname{d}\eta\\\
&+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\frac{\xi}{2}}^{\infty}\frac{\omega_{\lambda}(2\eta+\xi)-\omega_{\lambda}(2\eta-\xi)-2\omega_{\lambda}(\xi)}{\eta^{2}}\operatorname{d}\eta\\\
&\leq\lambda J(\lambda\xi),\end{split}$
where
$\begin{split}J(\xi)&=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\frac{\xi}{2}}\frac{\omega(\xi+2\eta)+\omega(\xi-2\eta)-2\omega(\xi)}{\eta^{2}}\operatorname{d}\eta\\\
&\quad+\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{\frac{\xi}{2}}^{\infty}\frac{\omega(2\eta+\xi)-\omega(2\eta-\xi)-2\omega(\xi)}{\eta^{2}}\operatorname{d}\eta.\end{split}$
Thus we get
$f^{\prime}(T_{\ast})\leq\lambda(\omega\omega^{\prime}+J)(\lambda\xi).$
Now, we choose the same function as [12]
$\omega(\xi)=\begin{cases}\frac{\xi}{1+4\pi\sqrt{\xi_{0}\xi}},&\text{if}\;0\leq\xi\leq\xi_{0};\\\
C_{\xi_{0}}\log\xi,&\text{if}\;\xi\geq\xi_{0},\end{cases}$
here $\xi_{0}$ is sufficiently large number and $C_{\xi_{0}}$ is chosen to
provide continuity of $\omega$. It is shown in [12],
$\forall\xi\neq 0,\quad\omega(\xi)\omega^{\prime}(\xi)+J(\xi)<0.$
Thus we can get that $f^{\prime}(T_{\ast})<0$.
Combining the above discussion, we conclude that $T^{\ast}=\infty$ and
$\forall
t\in[T_{1},\infty),\quad\|\partial_{x}u\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq\lambda\omega^{\prime}(0)=\lambda.$
The value of $\lambda$ is given by (6.2).
## 7 Appendix -- Commutator Estimate
In this appendix, we give the proof of Lemma 2.4.
By Bony’s decomposition, we have
$\begin{split}R_{q}&=(\dot{S}_{q-1}v-v)\cdot\nabla\dot{\Delta}_{q}u-[\dot{\Delta}_{q},v\cdot\nabla]u\\\
&=[\dot{T}_{v^{j}},\dot{\Delta}_{q}]\partial_{j}u+\dot{T}_{\partial_{j}\dot{\Delta}_{q}u}v^{j}-\dot{\Delta}_{q}\dot{T}_{\partial_{j}u}v^{j}\\\
&\quad+\big{\\{}\partial_{j}\dot{R}(v^{j},\dot{\Delta}_{q}u)-\partial_{j}\dot{\Delta}_{q}\dot{R}(v^{j},u)\big{\\}}\\\
&\quad+\big{\\{}\dot{\Delta}_{q}\dot{R}(\operatorname{div}v,u)-\dot{R}(\operatorname{div}v,\dot{\Delta}_{q}u)\big{\\}}\\\
&\quad+(\dot{S}_{q-1}v-v)\cdot\nabla\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\\\
&=:R_{q}^{1}+R_{q}^{2}+R_{q}^{3}+R_{q}^{4}+R_{q}^{5}+R_{q}^{6}.\end{split}$
(7.1)
Above, the summation convention over repeated indices has been used. The
notation $\dot{T}$ stands for homogeneous Bony s paraproduct which is defined
by
$\dot{T}_{f}g:=\sum_{q^{\prime}\in\mathbb{Z}}\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}f\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}g,$
and $\dot{R}$ stands for the remainder operator defined by
$\dot{R}(f,g):=\sum_{q^{\prime}\in\mathbb{Z}}\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}f(\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}-1}g+\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}g+\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}+1}g).$
Note that
$\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla v\|_{L^{a}}\approx
2^{q^{\prime}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v\|_{L^{a}},\quad\forall
a\in[1,\infty],\;q^{\prime}\in\mathbb{Z}.$ (7.2)
Now let us estimate each term in (7.1).
Bounds for $2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{1}\|_{L^{p}}$:
By (2.1) and the definition of $\dot{\Delta}_{q}$, we have
$\begin{split}R_{q}^{1}&=\sum_{|q^{\prime}-q|\leq
4}[\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}v^{j},\dot{\Delta}_{q}]\partial_{j}\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}u\\\
&=\sum_{|q^{\prime}-q|\leq
4}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{N}}h(y)\big{[}\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}v^{j}(x)-\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}v^{j}(x-2^{-q}y)\big{]}\partial_{j}\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}u(x-2^{-q}y)\operatorname{d}y.\end{split}$
(7.3)
Applying Mean Value Theorem and Young’s inequality to (7.3) yields
$2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{1}\|_{L^{p}}\leq C\sum_{|q^{\prime}-q|\leq
4}\|\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}\nabla
v\|_{L^{\infty}}2^{q^{\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}.$
(7.4)
Bounds for $2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{2}\|_{L^{p}}$:
According to (2.1), we have
$R_{q}^{2}=\sum_{q^{\prime}\geq
q-3}\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}\partial_{j}\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v^{j}.$
By (7.2), we can get
$\begin{split}2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{2}\|_{L^{p}}&\leq C\sum_{q^{\prime}\geq
q-3}2^{q\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v^{j}\|_{L^{\infty}}\|\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}\partial_{j}\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\leq C\sum_{q^{\prime}\geq
q-3}2^{q-q^{\prime}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{\infty}}2^{q\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\|_{L^{p}}.\end{split}$ (7.5)
Bounds for $2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{3}\|_{L^{p}}$:
Again from (2.1), we have
$R_{q}^{3}=-\sum_{|q^{\prime}-q|\leq
4}\dot{\Delta}_{q}(\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}\partial_{j}u\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v^{j})=-\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}|q^{\prime}-q|\leq
4\\\ q^{\prime\prime}\leq
q^{\prime}-2\end{subarray}}\dot{\Delta}_{q}(\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}\partial_{j}u\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v^{j}).$
(7.6)
Therefore, denoting $\frac{1}{p_{2}}=\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{p_{1}}$ and taking
advantage of (7.2), we can obtain
$\begin{split}2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{3}\|_{L^{p}}&\leq
C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}|q^{\prime}-q|\leq 4\\\ q^{\prime\prime}\leq
q^{\prime}-2\end{subarray}}2^{q\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v^{j}\|_{L^{p_{1}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}\partial_{j}u\|_{L^{p_{2}}}\\\
&\leq C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}|q^{\prime}-q|\leq 4\\\ q^{\prime\prime}\leq
q^{\prime}-2\end{subarray}}2^{(q-q^{\prime\prime})(\sigma-1-\frac{N}{p_{1}})}2^{q^{\prime}\frac{N}{p_{1}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}2^{q^{\prime\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}.\end{split}$
(7.7)
Note that, starting from the first equality of (7.6), one can alternately get
$\begin{split}2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{3}\|_{L^{p}}&\leq C\sum_{|q^{\prime}-q|\leq
4}2^{q\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v^{j}\|_{L^{p_{1}}}\|\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}\partial_{j}u\|_{L^{p_{2}}}\\\
&\leq C\sum_{|q^{\prime}-q|\leq
4}2^{q^{\prime}(\sigma-1)}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}\|\dot{S}_{q^{\prime}-1}\partial_{j}u\|_{L^{p_{2}}}.\end{split}$
(7.8)
Bounds for $2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{4}\|_{L^{p}}$:
$\begin{split}R_{q}^{4}&=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}|q^{\prime}-q|\leq 2\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}\partial_{j}(\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v^{j}\dot{\Delta}_{q}\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u)-\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}\geq
q-3\\\ |q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}\partial_{j}\dot{\Delta}_{q}(\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v^{j}\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u)\\\
&=:R_{q}^{4,1}+R_{q}^{4,2}.\end{split}$
By (7.2), we can get
$\begin{split}2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{4,1}\|_{L^{p}}&\leq
C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}|q^{\prime}-q|\leq 2\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{\infty}}2^{q^{\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\leq C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}|q^{\prime}-q|\leq 2\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}2^{q^{\prime}\frac{N}{p_{1}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}2^{q^{\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}.\end{split}$
(7.9)
For $R_{q}^{4,2}$, we proceed differently according to the value of
$\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}$. If $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}\leq 1$, we
denote $\frac{1}{p_{3}}:=\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}$ and have
$\begin{split}2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{4,2}\|_{L^{p}}&\leq
C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}\geq q-3\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}2^{q(1+\sigma)}2^{q(\frac{N}{p_{3}}-\frac{N}{p})}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p_{3}}}\\\
&\leq C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}\geq q-3\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}2^{q(1+\sigma)}2^{q\frac{N}{p_{1}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\leq C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}\geq q-3\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}2^{(q-q^{\prime})(1+\sigma+\frac{N}{p_{1}})}2^{q^{\prime}\frac{N}{p_{1}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}2^{q^{\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}.\end{split}$
(7.10)
If $\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{p_{1}}>1$, taking $p_{1}=p^{\prime}$ in the above
computations yields
$\begin{split}2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{4,2}\|_{L^{p}}&\leq
C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}\geq q-3\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}2^{q(1+\sigma)}2^{q\frac{N}{p^{\prime}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{1}}\\\
&\leq C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}\geq q-3\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}2^{q(1+\sigma)}2^{q\frac{N}{p^{\prime}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v\|_{L^{p^{\prime}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}\\\
&\leq C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}\geq q-3\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}2^{(q-q^{\prime})(1+\sigma+\frac{N}{p^{\prime}})}2^{q^{\prime}\frac{N}{p_{1}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}2^{q^{\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}.\end{split}$
(7.11)
Putting (7.9), (7.10) and (7.11) together, we obtain
$\begin{split}2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{4}\|_{L^{p}}&\leq
C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}\geq q-3\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}2^{(q-q^{\prime})\big{(}1+\sigma+N\min(\frac{1}{p_{1}}+\frac{1}{p^{\prime}})\big{)}}\\\
&\qquad\times 2^{q^{\prime}\frac{N}{p_{1}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}2^{q^{\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}.\end{split}$
(7.12)
Bounds for $2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{5}\|_{L^{p}}$:
Similar computations yield
$\begin{split}2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{5}\|_{L^{p}}&\leq
C\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}q^{\prime}\geq q-3\\\
|q^{\prime\prime}-q^{\prime}|\leq
1\end{subarray}}2^{(q-q^{\prime})\big{(}\sigma+N\min(\frac{1}{p_{1}}+\frac{1}{p^{\prime}})\big{)}}\\\
&\qquad\times
2^{q^{\prime}\frac{N}{p_{1}}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\operatorname{div}v\|_{L^{p_{1}}}2^{q^{\prime}\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime\prime}}u\|_{L^{p}}.\end{split}$
(7.13)
Bounds for $2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{6}\|_{L^{p}}$:
$R_{q}^{6}=-\sum_{q^{\prime}\geq
q-1}\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}v\cdot\nabla\dot{\Delta}_{q}u,$
thus by Bernstein lemma, we have
$2^{q\sigma}\|R_{q}^{6}\|_{L^{p}}\leq C\sum_{q^{\prime}\geq
q-1}2^{q-q^{\prime}}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q^{\prime}}\nabla
v\|_{L^{\infty}}2^{q\sigma}\|\dot{\Delta}_{q}u\|_{L^{p}}.$ (7.14)
Combining inequalities (7.4), (7.5), (7.7) or (7.8), (7.12), (7.13) and
(7.14), we end up with the desired estimate for $R_{q}$.
Straightforward modifications in the estimates for $R_{q}^{3}$, $R_{q}^{4}$
and $R_{q}^{5}$ leads to the desired estimate in the special case where $u=v$.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Prof. P.Constantin for
helpful comments and suggestions. The authors also thank Prof. H.Dong and J.Wu
for kindly informing us the recent paper [9]. The authors were partly
supported by the NSF of China (No.10725102).
## References
* [1] H.Abidi, T.Hmidi, On the Global Well-posedness of the Critical Quasi-geostrophic Equation, arXiv, math.AP/0702215.
* [2] N.Alibaud, J.Droniou, Cccurence and non-apperance of schockes in fractal Burgers equations, Journal of Hyperbolic Differential Equations, vol. 4, No. 3(2007)479-499.
* [3] M.Cannone, C.Miao, G.Wu, On the inviscid limit of the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations with fractional diffusion. To appear in Advances in Mathematical Sciences and Applications, Vol.18, 2(2008).
* [4] Q.Chen, C.Miao and Z.Zhang, A new Bernstein’s Inequality and the 2D Dissipative Quasi-Geostrophic Equation, Comm.Math.Phys. 271, 821-838(2007).
* [5] P.Constantin, D.Cordoba and J.Wu, On the critical dissipative quasi-geostrophic equation, Dedicated to Professors Ciprian Foias and Roger Temam (Bloomington, IN, 2000). Indiana Univ. Math. J. 50 (2001), 97-107.
* [6] R.Danchin, Uniform Estimates for Transport-Diffusion Equations, Journal of Hyperbolic Differential Equations, vol. 4, No. 1(2007)1–17.
* [7] R.Danchin, Estimates in Besov spaces for transport and transport-diffusion equations with almost Lipschitz coefficients, Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 21(3) (2005) 863-888.
* [8] H.Dong and D.Du, Global well-posedness and a decay estimate for the critical dissipative quasi-geostrophic equation in the whole space, DCDS 21(2008) or arXiv, math.AP/0701828.
* [9] H.Dong, D.Du, and D. Li, Finite time sigularities and global well-posedness for fractal Burgers equation, to appear in Indiana U. Math J.
* [10] T.Hmidi, S.Keraani, Global solutions of the super-critical 2D quasi-geostrophic equation in Besov spaces, Advances in Mathematics, Volume 214, Issue 2, 1 October 2007, Pages 618-638.
* [11] G.Karch, C.Miao, X.Xu, On convergence of solutions of fractal Burgers equation toward rarefaction waves, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 39(2007)1536-1549.
* [12] A.Kiselev, F.Nazarov, R.Shterenberg, Blow up and regularity for fractal Burgers equation, arXiv, math.AP/0804.3549.
* [13] A.Kiselev, F.Nazarov and A.Volberg, Global well-posedness for the critical 2D dissipative quasi-geostrophic equation, Inventiones Math. 167(2007) 445-453.
* [14] C.Miao, B.Yuan and B.Zhang, Well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for the fractional power dissipative equations, Nonlinear Analysis 68 (2008) 461-484.
* [15] T.Runst, W.Sickel, Sobolev Spaces of Fractional Order, Nemytskij Operators, and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations, de Gruyter Series in Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, vol. 3, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1996.
* [16] H.Triebel, Theory of Function Spaces, Monographs in Mathematics, Vol.78. Basel-Boston-Stuttgart: Birkhuser Verlag, DM 90.00, 1983.
* [17] G.Wu, J.Yuan, Well-posedness of the Cauchy problem for the fractional power dissipative equation in critical Besov spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 340 (2008) 1326–1335.
* [18] J.Wu, Global solutions of the 2D dissipative quasi-geostrophic equation in Besov spaces, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 36, 1014-1030(2004).
* [19] J.Wu, The two-dimensional quasi-geostrophic equation with critical or supercritical dissipation, Nonlinearity 18, 139-154(2005).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-22T14:01:11 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.891822 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Changxing Miao and Gang Wu",
"submitter": "Changxing Miao",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3465"
} |
0805.3487 | How complex a complex network of equal nodes can be? M. S. Baptista
# How complex a complex network of equal nodes can be?
M. S. Baptista , F. Moukam Kakmeni, Gianluigi Del Magno , M. S. Hussein
previous address: Max-Planck-Institut für Physik komplexer Systeme,
Nöthnitzerstr. 38, D-01187 Dresden, Germany, future address: Institute for
Complex Systems and Mathematical Biology, King’s College, University of
Aberdeen, AB24 3UE Aberdeen, United Kingdomprevious address: Max-Planck-
Institut für Physik komplexer Systeme, Nöthnitzerstr. 38, D-01187 Dresden,
Germany Centro de Matemática da Universidade do Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre
687, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal Department of Physics, Faculty of Science,
University of Buea, P. O. Box 63 Buea, Cameroon Max-Planck-Institut für
Physik komplexer Systeme, Nöthnitzerstr. 38, D-01187 Dresden, Germany
Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo, Rua do Matão, Travessa R, 187,
05508-090 SP, Brasil
###### Abstract
Positive Lyapunov exponents measure the asymptotic exponential divergence of
nearby trajectories of a dynamical system. Not only they quantify how chaotic
a dynamical system is, but since their sum is an upper bound for the entropy
by the Ruelle inequality, they also provide a convenient way to quantify the
complexity of an active network. We present numerical evidences that for a
large class of active networks, the sum of the positive Lyapunov exponents is
bounded by the sum of the positive Lyapunov exponents of the corresponding
synchronization manifold, the last quantity being in principle easier to
compute than the latter. This fact is a consequence of the property that for
an active network considered here, the amount of information produced is more
affected by the interactions between the nodes than by the topology of the
network. Using the inequality described above, we explain how to predict the
behavior of a large active network only knowing the information provided by an
active network consisting of two coupled nodes.
## 1 Introduction
The relation between topology and function in active networks, networks
composed by nodes described by some intrinsic deterministic dynamics, is a
fundamental question whose answer may help understand the collective behavior
[1] of a variety of complex systems ranging from particle-like chemical waves
[2], light propagation in dieletric structures [3], neural networks [4] and
metabolic networks [5].
The work of Kuramoto [6] and the works of Pecora and collaborators [7, 8] laid
the foundations of a theoretical framework for studying the relation between
topology and function in active networks. In particular, the latter opened up
a new way to study the onset of complete synchronization in active networks
[9, 10, 11] composed of equal node dynamics.
At the present moment, it is important to understand from a theoretical
perspective the relation between the structure of a network (topology) and the
behavior of it (function) in active networks whose nodes are not only far away
from complete synchronization (desynchronous) but also nodes that interact
among themselves simultaneously by linear and nonlinear means.
In this work, we conjecture that an upper (or lower) bound for the sum of the
Lyapunov exponents of an active network with some special properties [12] and
an arbitrary size, formed by nodes possessing equal dynamics, can be
analytically calculated by only using information coming from the behavior of
two coupled nodes. We recall that by the Ruelle Formula [13], the sum of the
positive Lyapunov exponents is an upper bound for the entropy. Hence, the sum
of the positive Lyapunov exponents represent a convenient way to quantify the
behavior of the network and therefore to measure how complex a network is.
To describe our conjecture, we first introduce some concepts and ideas,
illustrated by Fig. 1. This figure represents the trajectory of two nodes $X$
and $Y$ of a large network. The networks considered here admit a synchronous
solution [see Eq. (1)] and a desynchronous one. The position where this
synchronous solution lies is pictorially represented by the dashed black line
that represents a projection of the synchronization manifold of the network.
The desynchronous solution is represented by the filled red regions localed
off the diagonal. This solution represents a chaotic desynchronous trajectory.
If the synchronous solution is unstable, initial conditions close to the
synchronization manifold leave its neighborhood, eventually arriving at a
desynchronous (stable) solution, a chaotic attractor. If the synchronous
solution is stable, it is to be expected that complete synchronization takes
place, when all nodes have equal trajectories.
The Lyapunov exponents of the desynchronous solutions (a chaotic attractor)
are calculated from Eq. (2), and the sum of the positive ones is denoted by
$\Lambda$. The Lyapunov exponents of the synchronous solution are refered to
as conditional Lyapunov exponents, and the sum of the positive ones is denoted
by $\Lambda_{C}$. [16].
Roughly speaking, our conjecture states that if for two ($N=2$) coupled nodes
with equal dynamics and coupling strengths, the quantity $\Lambda$ is greater
(smaller) than $\Lambda_{C}$, then this inequality remains valid for $N>2$
coupled nodes (with the same dynamics) with coupling strengths obtained by
properly rescaling.
Accordingly, given an interval for each coupling strength, the collection of
all networks considered here can be classified in two classes : The class
LOWER for which $\Lambda\geq\Lambda_{C}$ ($\Lambda_{C}$ is a lower bound for
$\Lambda$) and the class UPPER for which $\Lambda\leq\Lambda_{C}$
($\Lambda_{C}$ is an upper bound for $\Lambda$). While for the first class, a
node forces another not to do what it is doing, inducing the nodes to stay out
of synchrony, in the second class a node forces another to do what it is
doing, inducing all the nodes to become synchronous.
Naturally, if the nodes in the network becomes completely synchronous, then
the synchronous solution becomes stable and $\Lambda=\Lambda_{C}$.
It is often considered that the complexity of a network can be quantified by
typical characteristics as the average degree, the network’s connecting
topology, the minimal and maximal degree, the average or minimal path length
connecting two nodes, and others. But these characteristics are a measure of
the structure of the network and not of the behavior of it. In this work, at
least for the class of networks considered here, we can state that these
active networks behave in only two ways, regardless the many characteristics
that quantify the network’s structure: the behaviors UPPER and LOWER. In other
words, if nodes of an active network with equal nodes interact by a coupling
function that induces an LOWER (or UPPER) character, this character will not
be modified by the use of other connecting topologies.
To justify our conjecture, we use complex networks of linear and nonlinear
maps coupled by linear terms, and neural networks of highly non-linear neurons
(Hindmarsh-Rose (HR) neurons [17]) connected simultaneously by linear
couplings (electrical synapses) and non-linear couplings (chemical synapses).
We finally discuss how our conjecture can be used to predict whether a network
formed by nodes that when isolated are chaotic (periodic) will maintain such a
chaotic behavior, then predicting how complex larger networks can be.
Figure 1: [Color online] Illustration of the two most relevant types of
solutions we expect to find in the networks here considered. A synchronous
solution whose trajectory is represented by the black dashed line, which lies
on the synchronization manifold, and the desynchronous solution whose
trajectory is represented by the red filled regions. The sum of the positive
Lyapunov exponents of the synchronous solution is denoted by $\Lambda_{C}$ and
the sum of the positive Lyapunov exponents of the desynchronous solution is
denoted by $\Lambda$.
## 2 Active networks
Consider an active network formed by $N>0$ equal nodes
$\mathbf{x_{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ with $d>2$. The network is described by
$\dot{\mathbf{x_{i}}}=\mathbf{F(x_{i})}+\sigma\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathcal{G}_{ij}\mathbf{H(x_{j})}+g\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathcal{C}_{ij}\mathbf{S(x_{i},x_{j})},$
(1)
where $g\in\mathbb{R}$ and $\sigma>0$, $\mathcal{G}=\\{\mathcal{G}_{ij}\\}$ is
a Laplacian matrix ($\sum_{j}\mathcal{G}_{ij}=0$) describing the way nodes are
linearly coupled, $\mathcal{C}=\\{\mathcal{C}_{ij}\\}$ is the the adjacent
matrix representing the way the nodes are connected by linear and non-linear
function, and $\mathbf{H}:\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and
$\mathbf{S}:\mathbb{R}^{d}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}^{d}$ are arbitrary
differentiable transformations. We also assume that $\mathcal{G}$ and
$\mathcal{C}$ commute.
A solution of (1) is called synchronous if
$\mathbf{x_{1}}(t)=\cdots=\mathbf{x_{N}}(t)$. To guarantee the existence of
such solutions, we assume that every node of the network receives the same
number $k$ of incoming connections. In other words, we require that
$\sum_{j}\mathcal{C}_{ij}=k$ for any $i$. It is easy to see that this
condition not only guarantees the existence of synchronous solution, but also
implies that the $d$-dimensional linear subspace
$\mathcal{S}=\\{\mathbf{x_{1}=x_{2}=\ldots=x_{N}}\\}$ is invariant. The set
$\mathcal{S}$ is called synchronization manifold. Note that a synchronous
solution $\mathbf{x}_{i}(t)=\mathbf{x}(t)$ for $i=1,\ldots,N$ satisfies the
following ordinary differential equation
$\dot{\mathbf{x}}=F(\mathbf{x})+gk\mathbf{S(x,x)}.$ (2)
The way small perturbations $\mathbf{\delta x}_{1},\mathbf{\delta
x}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{\delta x}_{N}$ propagate in the network is described by
the variational equations [7] associated to (1)
$\displaystyle\dot{\mathbf{\delta x}}_{i}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
DF(\mathbf{x}_{i})\mathbf{\delta
x}_{i}+\sigma\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathcal{G}_{ij}D{\mathbf{H}}(\mathbf{x}_{j})\mathbf{\delta
x}_{j}+$ $\displaystyle
g\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathcal{C}_{ij}D_{1}\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{x}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{j})\mathbf{\delta
x}_{i}+g\sum_{j\neq
i}\mathcal{C}_{ij}D_{2}\mathbf{S}(\mathbf{x}_{i},\mathbf{x}_{j})\mathbf{\delta
x}_{j},$
where $D_{1}S(x,y)$ and $D_{2}S(x,y)$ denote the differential of $S(x,y)$ with
respect to $x$ and $y$, respectively. From (2), we can calculate the Lyapunov
exponents of every solution of (1). The network is assumed to be ergodic, and
so the Lyapunov exponents
$\lambda_{1}\leq\lambda_{2}\leq\cdots\leq\lambda_{m}$ for $m=1,\ldots,Nd$ are
constant almost everywhere, and can be obtained by typical initial conditions.
The $Nd$ Lyapunov exponents of the synchronous solutions are called
conditional Lyapunov exponents. We also assume that the dynamics restricted to
the synchronization manifold $\mathcal{S}$ is ergodic. Hence, also the
conditional Lyapunov exponents along synchronous solutions are constant almost
everywhere on $\mathcal{S}$. The ergodic invariant measure of (1) and that of
the dynamics restricted to $\mathcal{S}$ (not necessarely the same) are
assumed to be unique (singular) and different than a point (non-atomic).
## 3 Conjecture
Here, we describe our proposed conjecture in a more friendly way. For a more
rigorous presentation of it, one should read the Appendix 9.1.
Let $\mathbf{H,S,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}},\sigma,g,N$ as in (1) to be the
parameters which define the active network. $\mathbf{H}$ represents the
function under which the nodes connect among themselves in a linear fashion,
$\mathbf{S}$ the function under which the nodes connect among themselves in a
non-linear fashion, $\mathbf{\mathcal{G}}$ a Laplacian connecting matrix,
$\mathbf{\mathcal{C}}$ an adjacent connecting matrix, $\mathbf{\sigma}$ the
strength of the linear coupling and $g$ the strength of the non-linear
coupling. Finally, $N$ is the number of nodes.
We say that a network is of the class UPPER if $\Lambda\geq\Lambda_{C}$ and of
the class LOWER if $\Lambda\leq\Lambda_{C}$.
We consider that the UPPER and LOWER property holds for a properly rescaled
coupling strength intervals $\sigma(N,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C})$ $\in$
$[\sigma_{m}(N,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}),\sigma^{*}(N,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C})]$
and $g(N,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C})$ $\in$
$[g_{m}(N,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}),g^{*}(N,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C})]$.
Conjecture: The LOWER or UPPER character of a network described by Eq. (1) is
independent of the number of nodes for a properly rescaled coupling strength
interval.
In simple words, this conjecture states that as long as one preserves the
coupling functions $\mathbf{H,S}$ under which nodes connect among themselves,
there will be coupling strengths $\sigma,g$ for which the LOWER or UPPER
character of an active network will be preserved, regardless of the number of
nodes $N$.
## 4 Defining the coupling strength intervals
For simplicity in the notation, we ommit in the representation of the
constants $\sigma_{m},\sigma^{*}$ and $g_{m},g^{*}$ the reference to their
dependence on $\mathbf{\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}}$.
Our conjecture only states that whenever there is a network with $N_{1}$ nodes
with a structure defined by $\mathbf{H,S,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}}$ and this
network has an UPPER (or lower) character for the coupling strength intervals
$[\sigma_{m}(N_{1}),\sigma^{*}(N_{1})]$ and $[g_{m}(N_{1}),g^{*}(N_{1})]$ then
if a network with $N_{2}$ nodes is constructed preserving the coupling
functions $\mathbf{H,S}$ then there exists coupling strength intervals
$[\sigma_{m}(N_{1}),\sigma^{*}(N_{1})]$ and $[g_{m}(N_{1}),g^{*}(N_{1})]$ for
which the network behaves with the same UPPER (or lower) character.
To make this conjecture more practical, we make in the following some
assumptions.
The value of the constants $\sigma_{m}(N),\sigma^{*}(N)$ and
$g_{m}(N),g^{*}(N)$ are such that either $|\sigma_{m}(N)/g_{m}(N)|$ $>>$ 1 or
$|\sigma_{m}(N)/g_{m}(N)|$ $<<$ 1 and $|\sigma^{*}(N)/g^{*}(N)|$ $>>$ 1 or
$|\sigma^{*}(N)/g^{*}(N)|$ $<<$ 1\. The reason is because for such conditions,
the values for these constants for a network with $N>2$ nodes can be
calculated from the values of these constants from the reference network, in
here assumed to have $N=2$ nodes.
The network with $N_{1}$ nodes is regarded to be the reference network and we
consider that $N_{2}>N_{1}$. For simplicity, we further consider that
$N_{1}=2$. In addition, to make our analyses simpler, we consider in our
numerical simulations a constant $g_{m}(N)=g^{*}(N)$, and we choose either
$|\sigma_{m}(N)/g_{m}(N)|>>$1 or $|\sigma_{m}(N)/g_{m}(N)|<<$1.
Then, we choose the constant $\sigma^{*}(N)$ such that its value is a little
bigger than the smallest coupling values for which complete synchronization is
reached and when $\Lambda=\Lambda_{C}$. However, other intervals could be
considered. The reason again is that $\sigma^{*}(N)$ can be analytical
calculated from $\sigma^{*}(N=2)$, the linear coupling strength, for which
complete synchronization is found in two mutually coupled systems.
The constants that define the coupling strength interval for a network with
$N$ nodes can be calculated from the constants that define the coupling
strength interval for a network with $N=2$ nodes using
$\displaystyle\sigma(N)=\frac{2\sigma(N=2)}{|\gamma_{2}(N)|}$ (4)
$\displaystyle g(N)=\frac{g(N=2)}{k}$ (5)
where $\gamma_{2}$ is the second largest eigenvalue of $\mathcal{G}$, and $k$
is the number of incoming connections of each node of the network.
As an example of how we use Eq. (4), we do the following. Having defined that
two mutually linearly coupled systems (so, $g$=0) have a LOWER character for
the linear coupling strength interval $[\sigma_{m}(N=2),\sigma^{*}(N=2)]$,then
we construct a network using the same linear coupling function composed of $N$
nodes, but considering now the linear coupling strength interval
$[\sigma_{m}(N),\sigma^{*}(N)]$ calculated using Eq. (4). According to our
conjecture, such a network will have a lower character.
For a more detailed analysis of how we derive Eqs. (4) and (5), one should
read Appendix 9.2.
## 5 Networks of coupled maps
Here, we consider only linear couplings. Then $g=g_{m}$=0, and therefore,
$\sigma_{m}=0$.
For general networks (discrete or continuous descriptions) whose nodes are
completely synchronous, one always have that $\Lambda=\Lambda_{C}$, a non
generic case for which our conjecture can be proved.
For networks of coupled maps, there is another trivial example when
$\Lambda=\Lambda_{C}$. That happens for networks whose Jacobian is constant as
networks formed by linear maps of the type $x^{(i)}_{n+1}=\alpha
x^{(i)}_{n}+2\sigma\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathcal{G}_{ij}x^{(j)}_{n}$ (mod 1) and when
there exists complete synchronization, and the attractor lays on the
synchronization manifold. These results concern arbitrary connecting Laplacian
matrices $\mathcal{G}_{ij}$, for example, they would apply for map lattice
with a coupling whose strength decreases with the distance as a power-law
[19].
Figure 2: Results for the network in Eq. (6), for $\rho$=0.5. For (A) and (C),
N=2, and for (B) and (D), $N$=16. An inhibitory (UPPER) network is shown in
(A) and (B), for $s$=-1, and an excitable (LOWER) network is shown in (C) and
(D), for $s$=1. The horizontal axis in (B) and (D) were rescaled by
$\sigma^{\prime}$=$\sigma*|\gamma_{2}(N=16)|/2$, so that one can compare Figs.
(B) and (D) with (A) and (C).$|\gamma_{2}(N=16)|$=4.1542.
Now, imagine the following network
$x_{n+1}^{(i)}=2x_{n}^{(i)}+s\rho{x_{n}^{(i)}}^{2}+2\sigma\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathcal{G}_{ij}x^{(j)}_{n}\text{
(mod 1)}$ (6)
with $\rho\geq 0$ and $s=\pm 1$. The synchronization manifold is defined by
$x_{n}^{(1)}=x_{n}^{(2)}=\ldots=x_{n}^{(N)}$, and in an all-to-all connecting
topology, the Lyapunov exponent of the synchronization manifold can be
calculated by $\lambda^{(1)}=\ln{(2)}+1/t\sum_{n}\ln{|1+s\rho x_{n}|}$, with
$n=(1,\ldots,t)$, and the others $N-1$ equal exponents associated to the
transversal directions by $\lambda^{(i)}=\ln{(2)}+1/t\sum_{n}\ln{|1+s\rho
x_{n}-2\sigma|}$, for $i\geq 2$. In Fig. 2, we show the values of $\Lambda$
and $\Lambda_{C}$ as we vary $\sigma$, for $\rho=0.5$. In (A) and (C), we
consider $N$=2 (all-to-all topology), and in (B) and (D) we consider a random
networks formed by $N$=16 nodes. The coupling strength interval used for two
coupled nodes was rescaled to the proper coupling strength interval for the
larger random network, using in the denominator of Eq. (4) the value of
$|\gamma_{2}|=4.1542$, relative to the second largest eigenvalue (in absolute
value) of the random network. One can check that if two coupled nodes have an
UPPER [LOWER] character for a given coupling interval as can be seen in Fig.
2(A) [in Fig. 2(C)], larger networks will behave in the same UPPER [LOWER]
character as can be seen in Fig. 2(B) [in Fig. 2(D)].
The conjecture describes a relationship between the conditional exponents and
the Lyapunov exponents. To see that, notice that, typically for the UPPER
networks of linearly connected maps, we have
$\lambda_{1}\approx\lambda^{(1)}$, a consequence of the fact that the largest
Lyapunov exponent can be calculated using the same directions as the ones
along the synchronization manifold. Thus, using our conjecture, if the network
is of the UPPER type,
$\lambda_{1}+\lambda_{2}\leq\lambda^{(1)}+\lambda^{(2)}$, which provides
$\lambda_{2}\leq\lambda^{(2)}$. Otherwise, if the network is of the LOWER
type, $\lambda_{2}\geq\lambda^{(2)}$. That can be checked in Figs. 2(A)-(C).
Since the approaching of the transversal conditional exponents to negative
values are associated with the stabilization of a certain oscillation mode,
close to a coupling strength for which a transversal conditional exponent
approaches zero, there will also be a Lyapunov exponent which approaches zero,
meaning that some oscillation in the attractor becomes stable.
## 6 Networks of Hindmarsh-Rose neurons
Let us illustrate our conjecture in networks composed of $N$ coupled
Hindmarsh-Rose neurons [17] electrically and chemically coupled [20]:
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{i}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
y_{i}+3x_{i}^{2}-x_{i}^{3}-z_{i}+I_{i}+g\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathcal{C}_{ij}S(x_{i},x_{j})$
(7) $\displaystyle+\sigma\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathcal{G}_{ij}x_{j}$
$\displaystyle\dot{y}_{i}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
1-5x_{i}^{2}-y_{i};\>\>\>\dot{z}_{i}=-rz_{i}+4r(x_{i}+1.6),$
The parameter $r$ modulates the slow dynamics and is set equal to 0.005, such
that each neuron is chaotic. The synaptic chemical coupling is modeled by
$S(x_{i},x_{j})=(x_{i}-V_{syn})\Gamma(x_{j})$ where
$\Gamma(x_{j})=\displaystyle\frac{1}{1+e^{-\theta(x_{j}-\Theta_{syn})}}$ with
$\Theta_{syn}=-0.25$, $\theta=10$ and $V_{syn}=2.0$.
$\sigma{\bf\mathcal{G}}_{ji}$ is the strength of the electrical coupling
between the neurons, and $I_{i}=3.25$. In order to simulate the neuron network
and to calculate the Lyapunov exponents through Eq. (11), we use for the node
$i$ the initial conditions $x_{i}$=-1.3078+$\omega_{i}$,
$y_{i}$=-7.3218+$\omega_{i}$, and $z_{i}$=3.3530+$\omega_{i}$, where
$\omega_{i}$ is an uniform random number within [0,0.02]. To calculate the
conditional exponents $\lambda^{(i)}$, we use in Eq. (12) the initial
conditions, $x$=-1.3078, $y$=-7.3218, and $z$=3.3530, but any other set of
typical equal initial conditions can be used [21].
We study three types of neural networks. (i) $g<0$ [Figs. 3(A-C)]. The
coupling (synapses) is said to be of the excitatory type, since
$x_{i}-V_{syn}<0$ and the nodes $j$ contribute positively in the equations for
the first derivative of $x_{i}$. In other words, the postsynaptic neuron
($x_{i}$) is forced to opposite the presynaptic ones ($x_{j}$); (ii) $g=0$
[Figs. 3(D-F)]. The network has nodes coupled to other nodes only
electrically. From the biological point of view, neurons only make electrical
connections with their nearest neighbors. Here, we also consider long-range
correlations. Since $\sigma\geq 0$, this coupling contributes negatively to
the first derivative of $x_{i}$, which results in an inhibitory effect to the
oscillatory motion of the neuron $x_{i}$. (iii) $g>0$ [Figs. 3(G-I)]. The
coupling (synapses) is said to be of the inhibitory type, since the nodes $j$
contribute negatively in the equations for the first derivative of $x_{i}$.
For such a case, the postsynaptic neuron ($x_{i}$) is forced to synchronize
its rithmus to the rithmus of the presynaptic ones ($x_{j}$).
In Fig. 3, we show the values of $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda_{C}$ for the three
types of neural networks being considered, case (i) in Figs. 3(A-C), case (ii)
in Figs. 3(D-F), and case (iii) in Figs. 3(G-I). Networks whose results are
represented in Figs. 3(A-C) and (G-I) are constructed by neurons connected
simultaneously electrically ($\sigma>0$) and chemically ($g>0$) in the all-to-
all topology, while networks whose results are represented in Figs. 3(D-F) are
constructed by neurons connected only electrically ($\sigma>0$ and $g$=0) in
the all-to-all topology.
In (A) [case (i)], for $N$=2 and $g=-0.01$, $\Lambda\leq\Lambda_{C}$, for
$\sigma=[0.1,0.7]$. So, $\sigma_{m}(N=2)$=0.1 which leads to
$\sigma_{m}(N=2)/g_{m}(N=2)|>>1$, as we wish. From our conjecture, for larger
networks as the ones shown in Figs. 3(B) [$N=4$] and 3(C) [$N$=8], we must
have $\Lambda\leq\Lambda_{C}$, for the rescaled coupling interval. From Eqs.
(4) and (5), we have for the network with $N=4$ [Fig. 3(B)], the rescaled
coupling strength interval should be $\sigma=[0.1/2,0.7/2]$ and $g=-0.01/3$,
and for the network with $N=8$ [Fig. 3(C)], the rescaled coupling strength
interval should be $\sigma=[0.1/4,0.7/4]$ and $g=-0.01/7$. In fact, as one
sees in Figs. 3(B-C), we indeed see that these networks have the same UPPER
character as the network with $N$=2, for the considered coupling strength
intervals.
In (D) [case (ii)], for $N$=2 and $g=0$, $\Lambda\leq\Lambda_{C}$ for
$\sigma=[0,0.6]$. So, $g_{m}(N=2)=0$ and consequently $\sigma_{m}(N=2)=0$.
From our conjecture, for larger networks as the ones shown in Figs. 3(E)
[$N=4$] and 3(F) [$N$=8], we must have $\Lambda\leq\Lambda_{C}$ for the
rescaled coupling interval. From Eqs. (4) and (5), we have for $N=4$ [Fig.
3(E)], the rescaled coupling interval should be $\sigma=[0,0.6/2]$ and for
$N=8$ [Fig. 3(F)], the rescaled coupling interval should be
$\sigma=[0,0.6/4]$. In fact, as one sees in Figs. 3(E-F), we indeed have that
these networks have the same UPPER character of the network with $N$=2.
Finally, In (G) [case (iii)], for $N$=2 and $g$=10, $\Lambda\geq\Lambda_{C}$
for $\sigma=[0.01,1]$. So, $|g_{m}(N=2)/\sigma_{m}(N=2)|>>1$ as we wish. From
our conjecture, for larger networks, as the ones shown in Figs. 3(H) [$N=4$]
and 3(I) [$N$=8], we must have $\Lambda\geq\Lambda_{C}$ for the rescaled
coupling interval. From Eqs. (4) and (5), and $N=4$ [Fig. 3(H)], the rescaled
coupling interval should be $\sigma=[0.01/2,1/2]$ and $g$=10/3, and for $N=8$
[Fig. 3(I)], the rescaled coupling interval should be $\sigma=[0.01/4,1/4]$
and $g$=10/7. In fact, as one see in Figs. 3(G-I), we indeed have that these
networks have the same LOWER character of the network with $N$=2.
An inhibitory chemical coupling inhibits the nodes of the network, which means
that such a coupling forders an increase in the level of synchronization. On
the other hand, an excitatory chemical coupling excites the nodes, which means
that such a coupling forders an increase in the level of desynchrony.
It is intuitive to imagine that an excitatory network (as defined exclusively
in terms of the chemical coupling) would have a LOWER characteristic and an
inhibitory network (as defined exclusively in terms of the chemical coupling)
would have an UPPER characteristic. That is why excitation would mean an
increase of desorganization (more entropy) and inhibition an increase of
synchronization (less entropy). However, we have previously shown in Figs.
3(A-C) that an excitatory network (as usually defined in terms of the chemical
coupling) has the UPPER characteristic and in Figs. 3(G-I) that an inhibitory
network (as usually defined in terms of the chemical coupling) has the LOWER
characteristic. This aparent contradiction is simple to be explained.
In the excitatory networks [Figs. 3(A-C)], the absolute strength of the non-
linear (chemical) coupling (0.01) is smaller than the strength of the linear
(electrical) coupling. As a consequence, the linear coupling prevails on the
non-linear coupling. In the inhibitory networks [Figs. 3(A-C)], the strength
of the non-linear (chemical) coupling (10) is much larger than the strength of
the linear coupling. However, such a large strength effectively forders an
excitatory behavior in the network. Notice that while in Fig. 3(A) complete
synchronization appears for $\sigma\approx 0.5$, in Fig. 3(G) complete
synchronization appears for $\sigma\approx 0.95$, and therefore, complete
synchronization in the inhibitory network appears only for a larger linear
coupling than the one for which complete synchronization appears in the
excitatory networks.
It is not the scope of this work to determine for which conditions an
inhibitory (or excitatory) non-linear (chemical) couplings in networks of
neurons simultaneously connected by linear and non-linear means determines the
UPPER or LOWER character of a network. For that one should check Ref. [18].
Had we consider that the neurons were connected exclusively by non-linear
(chemical) means ($\sigma=0$), then it is to be expected that inhibitory
networks would present an UPPER character and excitatory networks would
present a LOWER character.
Figure 3: The values of $\Lambda$ and $\Lambda_{C}$ for neural networks
described by Eq. (7) of nodes connected in an all-to-all topology. In (A),(D),
and (G), $N$=2. In (B),(E), and (H), $N=4$. In (C), (F), (I), $N$=8. Results
for networks with an UPPER character are shown in (A-F), and for networks with
an LOWER character are shown in (G-I).
## 7 Application of our conjecture to predict the chaotic behavior of large
networks
In the following, we discuss how our conjecture can be used to make general
statements about active networks. Consider the UPPER networks formed by
neurons connected only electrically ($g$=0). For such cases, $\Lambda_{C}(N)$
is an upper bound for the Kolmogorov-Sinai (KS) entropy $H_{KS}$ (see [13])
and also an upper bound for $\Lambda$. Since networks formed by nodes
connected in an all-to-all topology produce Laplacian matrices whose
eigenvalues are $\gamma_{1}=0$, and $\gamma_{i}$=$-N$, for $i=2,\ldots,N$, it
is clear from Eq. (4) that $\max{[\Lambda_{C}(N)]}$ for the considered
coupling strengths of a network with the all-to-all topology, is larger or
equal to $\max{[\Lambda_{C}(N)]}$ for any other topology. Defining the network
capacity, $c(N)$, to be equal to $\max{[\Lambda_{C}(N)]}$, calculated for the
all-to-all topology (and the considered coupling intervals), since
$\Lambda_{C}(N)\geq\Lambda(N)$ (as well as $\Lambda_{C}(L)\geq H_{KS}(N)$
[22]) for UPPER networks, we conclude that for these networks not only
$c(N)\geq\max{[\Lambda(N)]}$ (8)
but also
$c(N)\geq\max{[H_{KS}(N)]}$ (9)
where the $\max$ of $\Lambda(N)$ in taken considering ”any” possible
topologies (described in Fig. 4) and the considered coupling intervals.
Figure 4: Representation of a few network topologies with 8 neurons,
considered in this work. The filled balls represent neurons and the lines
indicate an electric bidirectional coupling. In (A) the neurons are only
coupled with its nearest neighbors, forming a ring. From (B) to (D) it is
added to the network long-range bidirectional connections, The average number
of connections that each neuron receives (network degree), $\omega$, is
$\omega$=2, in (A), $\omega$=3, in (B), $\omega$=5, in (C), and $\omega$=7, in
(D). In a network with $N$ neurons, long-range connections are introduced in
the initial ring by connecting each neuron to its N/2-th (B) neighbors, then
to its ($N/2$-1)-th neighbors (C), then to its ($N/2-l$)-th neighbors, till
each neuron is connected to its second neighbors, when the network has the
all-to-all coupling topology.
The value of $c(N)$ for neural networks electrically connected can be
approximately calculated by $\max{(\lambda^{(1)})}+(N-1)\max{(\lambda^{2})}$
(notice that since ${\lambda^{(1)}}$ does not depend on $\sigma$, then,
$\max{(\lambda^{(1)})}$ happens for the same coupling strength for which
$\max{(\lambda^{(2)})}$ is found), which leads to $c(N)\cong
0.01362+0.1013(N-1)$ bits/(time unit). By doing simulations considering
networks as the ones represented in Fig. 4, (with $10\leq N\leq 40$), we
obtain that $\max{[\Lambda(N)]}\cong 0.0830+0.0230(N-1)$bits/(time unit),
which agrees with Eq. (8).
For a network with the all-to-all topology [as in Fig. 4(D)], for $N\geq 10$,
we obtain $\max{[\Lambda(N)]}\cong 0.158447+0.031537(N-1)$, which agrees with
Eq. (8), because $c(N)\geq\max{[\Lambda(N)]}$ (where the maximum is taken
considering the all-to-all topology). Finally, if we construct a network with
nodes connecting to their nearest neighbors forming a closed ring [as in Fig.
4(A)], we find $\max{[\Lambda(N)]}\cong 0.197125+0.034865(N-1)$bits/(time
unit). Equation (8) is once again verified.
Thus, $c(N)$ for electrically connected networks does not depend on the
network topology. That is not the case for chemically connected neural
networks, for which $c(N)$ might be achieved for different topologies, since
the curve for $\lambda^{(1)}$ and $\lambda^{(i)}$ achieve their maximal values
for different values of the coupling strength.
Further, consider two coupled LOWER-type systems and $\Lambda$ is null
(positive) for some coupling strength, meaning a periodic behavior (meaning
chaos). It might be that, for a proper rescaled coupling strength, as more
nodes are added to the network, $\Lambda$ becomes positive, meaning chaos (for
sure there will be chaos). We can also use our conjecture to predict the
behavior of a network constructed with nodes that are either chaotic or
periodic, by only having information about two coupled nodes. Considering only
linear couplings [$g$=0, in Eq. (1)]. For $\sigma\leq\epsilon$, the two
coupled nodes have a periodic dynamics, and thus, $\Lambda=0$, but
$\Lambda_{C}>0$ (UPPER character). That implies that as we add more nodes in
the network, it might be that after the proper rescaling of the coupling
strength the network becomes chaotic.
## 8 Conclusions
In conclusion, we have presented arguments to suggest that for a class of
dynamical systems, the sum of all the positive Lyapunov exponents of an active
network is bounded by the sum of all the positive Lyapunov exponents of the
synchronization manifold. In practical terms, the entropy production of the
synchronization manifold and its transversal directions ($\Lambda_{C}$) of a
system of two coupled equal dynamical systems determines the upper (LOWER
character) or lower (UPPER character) bound for the sum of the positive
Lyapunov exponents of a large network. This fact enables one to predict the
behavior of a large network by using information provided by only two coupled
nodes.
Our results indicate that the behavior (synchronization and information) of an
active network with nodes possessing equal dynamics and especial properties
[21] does not strongly depend on the coupling topology (${\mathcal{G}}$ and
${\mathcal{C}}$) and the size of the network ($N$) but rather on the nature of
the coupling functions ($S$ and $H$).
At first glance, this result seems to be in direct conflict with what one
would expect to find in realistic neural networks, as the mammalian brain,
whose topology is possibly responsible for intelligence. But one should have
in mind that the here considered networks are constructed with nodes that
possess equal dynamics being connected using always the same coupling
function. In realistic brain networks, the coupling functions largely differ
along different brain areas as well as the coupling strength depends on time.
Therefore, in order for the topology to play an important role in the behavior
of a network one needs to consider networks with non-equal nodes and/or that
possess coupling functions that change in space and time.
Naturally, the large class of networks for which our conjecture applies are
far from being realistic. However, we believe our conjecture can contribute to
the understanding of much more complex networks. For example, for the UPPER
networks, a large series of numerical results show that more realistic
networks constructed with non-equal nodes (or networks of equal nodes but with
random coupling strengths [23]) have a KS entropy smaller than the networks
with equal nodes. Therefore, even though networks with equal nodes might not
be realistic, their entropy production is an upper bound for the entropy
production of more realistic networks.
Excitability and inhibition is a concept usually used to classify the way non-
linear (chemical) synapses between two neurons are done. When an inhibitory
neuron spikes (the pre-synaptical neuron) a neuron connected to it (the post-
synaptical neuron) is prevented to spike. When an excitatory neuron spikes it
induces the post-synaptical neuron to spike. Intuitively, one should expect
that an inhibitory (excitatory) coupling forders (prevents) synchronization,
but we have shown two cases for which an excitatory network had an UPPER
character and an inhibitory network had a LOWER character. The reason is that
only the non-linear couplings (chemical synapses) are not sufficienty to
define the LOWER and UPPER character of the network. One should consider the
combined effect of the linear (electrical) and of the non-linear couplings
(chemical). For more details about that, see Ref. [18]
For UPPER networks, the entropy of the attractors cannot be larger than the
entropy of the synchronous set, which therefore imposes a clear limit in the
complex character of these networks. On the hand, for LOWER networks, our
conjecture states that such a limit is unknown.
This conjecture might be a consequence of the fact that the attractors and
behaviors that appear in two coupled nodes for a given coupling strength are
similar to the ones that appear for larger networks, to parameters rescaled
according to Eqs. (4) and (5). In fact, as one can see in the work [24], that
is indeed the case for the coupling strengths for which burst phase
synchronization (BPS) or phase synchronization (PS) appear in networks of
electrically coupled HR-neurons.
## 9 Appendix
### 9.1 The conjecture
Let $\mathbf{H,S,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}},\sigma,g,N$ as in (1) to be the
parameters which defines the active network. $\mathbf{H}$ represents the
function under which the nodes connects among themselves in a linear fashion,
$\mathbf{S}$ the function under which the nodes connects among themselves in a
non-linear fashion, $\mathbf{\mathcal{G}}$ a Laplacian connecting matrix,
$\mathbf{\mathcal{C}}$ an adjacent connecting matrix, $\mathbf{\sigma}$ the
strength of the linear coupling and $\mathbf{g}$ the strength of the non-
linear coupling. Finally, $N$ is the number of nodes.
Denote by $\Lambda(\mathbf{H,S,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}},\sigma,g,N)$ and
$\Lambda_{C}(\mathbf{H,S,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}},\sigma,g,N)$ the sum of the
posititve Lyapunov exponents and the sum of the positive conditional Lyapunov
exponents of the network whose structure is specified by
$(\mathbf{H,S,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}})$, respectively. We say that the couple
$(\mathbf{H,S})$ makes the network to be of the LOWER class if for every
$(\mathbf{\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}})$ there exist four positive constants
$\sigma_{m}$, $g_{m}$, $\sigma^{*}$ and $g^{*}$ such that
$\Lambda_{C}(\mathbf{H,S,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}},\sigma,g)\geq\Lambda(\mathbf{H,S,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}},\sigma,g)$
(10)
for all $\sigma_{m}\leq\sigma\leq\sigma^{*}$ and all $g_{m}\leq g\leq g^{*}$.
An UPPER class active network is defined similarly by reversing the direction
of inequality (10).
Conjecture: Given a network with a LOWER (UPPER) character [as defined in
(10)] specified by $(\mathbf{H,S,\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}})$, and
$(\mathbf{\mathcal{G},\mathcal{C}})$ with $N_{1}$ nodes, there exist coupling
strength intervals $\tilde{\sigma_{m}}\leq\sigma\leq\tilde{\sigma^{*}}$ and
$\tilde{g_{m}}\leq g\leq\tilde{g^{*}}$ for which a network specified by
$(\mathbf{H,S,\mathcal{\tilde{G}},\mathcal{\tilde{C}}})$ and
$(\mathcal{\tilde{G}},\mathcal{\tilde{C}})$ with $N_{2}$ nodes has also a
LOWER (UPPER) character.
### 9.2 Derivation of the coupling strength constants
The variational equation (2) for the synchronous solution can be written as
follows
$\displaystyle\delta\mathbf{\dot{X}}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\\{\mathbf{I}\otimes
D\mathbf{F(\mathbf{x})}+\sigma{\mathcal{G}}\otimes
D\mathbf{H(\mathbf{x})}+g{\mathcal{C}}\otimes
D_{1}\mathbf{S(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x})}$ (11) $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
gk\mathcal{C}\otimes
D_{2}\mathbf{S(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x})}\\}\delta\mathbf{X},$
where $\mathbf{\delta X}$ is the column vector of $\mathbb{R}^{Nd}$ with
components $\mathbf{\delta x}_{1},\mathbf{\delta x}_{2},\ldots,\mathbf{\delta
x}_{N}$, and $\otimes$ stands for the Kronecker product of matrices. Since
$\mathcal{G}$ and ${\mathcal{C}}$ commute, they can be simultaneously
diagonalized. Let $\mathbf{u}_{1},\ldots,\mathbf{u}_{N}$ be their
eigenvectors, and denote by $\gamma_{1},\ldots,\gamma_{N}$ and
$\tilde{\gamma}_{1},\ldots,\tilde{\gamma}_{N}$ the corresponding eigenvalues
for $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{C}$, respectively. We order $\\{\gamma_{i}\\}$
so that $\gamma_{1}=0$. If we write $\mathbf{\delta X}(t)=\sum_{1\leq i\leq
N}\mathbf{u}_{i}\otimes\mathbf{y}_{i}(t)$ with
$\mathbf{y}_{i}(t)\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$, and substitute it in (11), then a
straightforward computation gives
$\dot{\mathbf{y}_{i}}=\\{D\mathbf{F(\mathbf{x})}+\sigma\gamma_{i}D\mathbf{H}(\mathbf{x})+gkD_{1}\mathbf{S(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x})}+g\tilde{\gamma}_{i}D_{2}\mathbf{S(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x})}\\}\mathbf{y}_{i}.$
(12)
While Eq. (11) describes how perturbations are propagated or damped along a
particular node of the network ($\bf{x}_{i}$) Eq. (12) describes how
perturbations are propagated along an eigenmode ($\mathbf{y}_{i}$). While Eq.
(11) is valid for networks with nodes initially set in typical initial
conditions Eq. (12) is only valid for networks with nodes initially set with
equal initial conditions, the assumption done in order to place Eq. (11) in
the eigenmode form in Eq. (12).
Calculating the Lyapunov exponents from Eq. (2) assuming equal initial
conditions for every node provides the same exponents than the conditional
ones obtained from Eq. (12). An advantage of using Eq. (12) for the
calculation of the conditional exponents is that while Eq. (11) requires the
employement of $Nd\times Nd$ dimensional matrices, the conditional exponents
by Eq. (12) requires the use of $N$ matrices of dimensionality $d$. A mode $i$
in equation in Eq. (12) provides a set of $d$ conditional exponents, denoted
by $\lambda^{(i)}_{j}$, $j=1,\ldots,d$. Since we are only interested in
positive exponents, we simplify the notation by making
$\lambda^{(i)}=\sum_{j=1}^{d}\lambda^{(i)}_{j}$. So, $\lambda^{(1)}$ refers to
the sum of the positive conditional Lyapunov exponents of the synchronization
manifold while $\lambda^{(i)}$ ($i\geq 2$) refer to the sum of the positive
Lyapunov exponents of the transversal directions to the synchronization
manifold.
From Eq. (12) it becomes clear that once the conditional exponents are
calculated using two bidirectionally coupled nodes, for the considered
coupling interval, the conditional exponents of the mode $i$ ($\lambda^{(i)}$)
for larger networks with arbitrary topology can be calculated from the
exponents for $N$=2, by
$\lambda^{(1)}(N=2,\sigma,g)=\lambda^{(1)}(N,\sigma,g/k)$ and
$\lambda^{(2)}(N=2,\sigma,g)=\lambda^{(i)}(N,2\sigma/|\gamma_{i}(N)|,g/k)$.
To understand why, just make in Eq. (12) $g=0$. The only term that changes in
these equations as one considers networks with different topologies and sizes
is $\gamma_{i}(N)$, the $i-th$ eigenvalue of the connecting Laplacian matrix
${\mathcal{G}}$ with size $N$. Denoting $\gamma_{i}(N=2)$ and $\sigma(N=2)$ to
be the $i-th$ eigenvalue of the Laplacian matrix ${\mathcal{G}}$ and the
coupling strength, respectivelly, for two mutually coupled nodes then the mode
$i$ of Eqs. (12) for a network with a number $N$ of nodes will preserve the
form of the mode $i$ in Eqs. (12) for the network with $N=2$ if
$\sigma(N)=2\sigma(N=2)/|\gamma_{i}(N)|$. For practical purposes, this
relation can be expressed in terms of only the coupling strengths. Denoting
$\tilde{\sigma}$ as the strength value for the linear coupling for which
$\lambda^{(2)}(N=2)$ reaches a given value, then the coupling strengths for
which $\lambda^{(i)}(N)$ reaches the same value is given by the rescaling [18]
$\tilde{\sigma}(N)=\frac{2\tilde{\sigma}(N=2)}{|\gamma_{i}(N)|}$
A similar analysis can be done assuming that $\sigma$=0. Once that
$D_{2}\mathbf{S(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x})}<<D_{1}\mathbf{S(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{x})}$
in Eq. (12), then the only term that changes in these equations as one
considers networks with different topologies and sizes is $k(N)$, the number
of connections a node within a network of $N$ nodes receives from the other
nodes. So, denoting $\tilde{g}$ as the strength values for the non-linear
coupling for which $\lambda^{(2)}(N=2)$ reaches a given value, then the
coupling strength for which $\lambda^{(i)}(N)$ reaches the same value is given
by the rescaling [18]
$\tilde{g}(N)=\frac{\tilde{g}(N=2)}{k}$
As shown in Ref. [18], Eqs. (4) and (5) remain valid if either
$|\tilde{\sigma}/\tilde{g}|>>1$ or $|\tilde{g}/\tilde{\sigma}|>>1$, which
means that one can consider the linear coupling as a perturbation
($|\tilde{g}/\tilde{\sigma}|>>1$) or the nonlinear coupling as a perturbation
($|\tilde{\sigma}/\tilde{g}|>>1$).
Further in this work, the coupling interval is rescaled using as a reference
the second largest conditional exponent $\lambda^{(2)}$ computed for the
network with $N$=2.
Acknowledgment MSB acknowledges the partial financial support of ”Fundação
para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), Portugal” through the programmes POCTI and
POSI, with Portuguese and European Community structural funds. This work is
also supported in part by the CNPq and FAPESP (MSH). MSH is the Martin
Gutzwiller Fellow 2007/2008.
## References
* [1] S. Strogatz, SYNC: the Emerging science of Spontaneous Order (Hyperium, New York, 2003).
* [2] O.-U. Kheowan, E. Mihaliuk, B. Blasius, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 074101 (2007).
* [3] F. Biancalana, A. Amann, A. V. Uskov, et al., Phys. Rev. E 75, 046607 (2007)
* [4] E. Fuchs, A. Ayali, A. Robinson A, et al. Developmental Neurobiology, 13, 1802 (2007).
* [5] R. Steuer, A. N. Nesi, A. R. Fernie, et al., Bioinformatics, 23, 1378 (2007).
* [6] Y. Kuramoto, Chemical Oscillations, Waves and Turbulence (Springer, New York, 1984).
* [7] L. M. Pecora and T. L. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2109 (1998); M. Barahona and L. M. Pecora, Phys. Rev. Lett., 89, 054101 (2002).
* [8] J. F. Heag, T. L. Carrol, and L. M. Pecora, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4185 (1995).
* [9] M. Chavez, D. U. Hwang, J. Martinerie, S. Boccaletti, Phys. Rev. E, 74 066107 (2006).
* [10] C. S. Zhou, J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. Lett., 96, 164102 (2006).
* [11] I. Belykh, E. de Lange, and M. Hasler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 188101 (2005).
* [12] We consider networks of nodes possessing equal dynamics connected simultaneously by linear and nonlinear means. The connecting Laplacian matrix that describes the topology under which the nodes are connected linearly and nonlinearly are denoted by ${\mathcal{G}}$ and ${{\mathcal{C}}}$, respectivelly. The strengths of the linear and nonlinear couplings are $\sigma$ and $g$ respectivelly. If the nodes in the network are connected by only linear couplings ($g$=0), ${\mathcal{G}}$ can be an arbitrary Laplacian matrix. If nodes are simultaneously connected by linear and nonlinear couplings then ${\mathcal{G}}$ and ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ must commute and every node must receive the same number $k$ of nonlinear connections comming from other nodes.
* [13] According to the Ruelle formula, for ergodic differentiable systems on compact spaces, the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy is bounded above by the sum of the positive Lyapunov exponents of the system. If the systems admits an SRB measure, then the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy is exactly equal to the sum of the positive Lyapunov exponents of the system [14, 15]. For the networks here considered formed by dissipative systems that possess an attractor whose measure is completely supported by an unstable manifold, such an equality should be satisfied. In any case, if it is not certain that such an equality holds, notice that the sum of the positive Lyapunov exponents will be always a measure of entropy production per unit time, since it measures the ratio with which partitions should be created in order to define proper states in a dynamical system.
* [14] Y. B. Pesin Russian Math. Surveys, 32, 55 (1977).
* [15] L.-S. Young, J. Stat. Phys. 108, 733 (2002).
* [16] While the Lyapunov exponents are obtained for typical initial conditions (it does not exist two nodes with the same set of initial conditions), the conditional Lyapunov exponents are obtained considering that every node has equal initial conditions.
* [17] J. L. Hindmarsh and R. M. Rose, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 221, 87 (2984).
* [18] M. S. Baptista and F. M. Moukam Kakmeni, ”The combined effect of chemical and electrical couplings on the transmission of information in Hindmarsch-Rose neural networks.”, manuscript in preparation.
* [19] A. M. Batista and R. L. Viana, Phys. Lett. A, 286, 134 (2001).
* [20] It is interesting to observe here that this widely employed synaptic chemical coupling function can be written as $\Gamma(x_{j})=1-F(x_{j})$, with $F(x_{j})=1/(1+\exp{[\theta(x_{j}-\Theta_{syn})]})$. In this way, one may interpret the term $F(x_{j})$ as a Fermi distribution with $1/\theta$ acting as a temperature and $\Theta$ as the chemical potential. Such a distribution is a commonality in quantum statistics of Fermion particles obeying the exclusion principal: no more than one particle (here a neuron) can occupy the same state.
* [21] Our conjecture applies to networks for which for every chaotic attractor that possesses a basin of attraction with a positive measure there exists also an unstable chaotic saddle (the synchronous solution) associated to this chaotic attractor. In the case there exists multiple chaotic attractors, the coupling strengths $\sigma^{*}(N)$ and $g^{*}(N)$ (as well as $\sigma_{m}(N)$ and $g_{m}(N)$) would be a function of the chosen basin of attraction. The requirement we make is that any initial condition belonging to an open neighborhood around the unstable chaotic saddle goes to only one chaotic attractor. These initial conditions are regarded as the typical ones. Therefore, in our simulations we consider initial conditions that are small perturbations around the unstable synchronous solution. Nevertheless, most of the attractors obtained are completely out of synchrony. The identification of possible many coexisting attractors is a technical matter. In a very general situation, there will be hopefully only a few coexisting attractors and one can clearly identify the functions $\sigma^{*}(N)$ and $g^{*}(N)$ (as well as $\sigma_{m}(N)$ and $g_{m}(N)$).
* [22] D. Ruelle, Bol. Soc. Bras. Mat., 9, 83 (1978).
* [23] M. S. Baptista, J. X. de Machado, M. S. Hussein, PloSONE, 3, e3479 (2008).
* [24] M. S. Baptista and J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. E., 77, 026205 (2008);
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-22T17:26:00 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.897992 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "M. S. Baptista, F. Moukam Kakmeni, Gianluigi Del Magno, M. S. Hussein",
"submitter": "Murilo Baptista S.",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3487"
} |
0805.3519 | Permanent Address: ]Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, UPMC, CNRS, ENS, Paris,
France
Present Address: ]Quantum Institute, LANL, Los Alamos, NM
# Observation of a 2D Bose-gas: from thermal to quasi-condensate to superfluid
P. Cladé [ Atomic Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8424, USA Joint Quantum Institute,
NIST and University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA C. Ryu [
Atomic Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8424, USA Joint Quantum Institute, NIST and
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA A. Ramanathan
Atomic Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8424, USA Joint Quantum Institute, NIST and
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA K. Helmerson
Atomic Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8424, USA Joint Quantum Institute, NIST and
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA W.D. Phillips
Atomic Physics Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8424, USA Joint Quantum Institute, NIST and
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
###### Abstract
We present experimental results on a Bose gas in a quasi-2D geometry near the
Berezinskii, Kosterlitz and Thouless (BKT) transition temperature. By
measuring the density profile, in situ and after time of flight, and the
coherence length, we identify different states of the gas. In particular, we
observe that the gas develops a bimodal distribution without long range order.
In this state, the gas presents a longer coherence length than the thermal
cloud; it is quasi-condensed but is not superfluid. Experimental evidence
indicates that we observe the superfluid transition (BKT transition).
###### pacs:
03.75.Lm, 67.25.-d, 64.70.Tg
One of the most fascinating aspects of a Bose gas in the degenerate regime is
the role of dimensionality. A 2D interacting Bose gas is superfluid at low
enough temperatureKosterlitz and Thouless (1973); Berezinskii (1972). However,
by contrast to the 3D case, there is no long range coherence and the coherence
decays as a power lawKosterlitz and Thouless (1973); Berezinskii (1972). At
temperatures above the Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) transition
temperature, the gas is not superfluid. Due to proliferation of free vortices,
the quasi-condensate (QC) is fractured into small regions of nearly uniform
phase, whose size, which corresponds to the typical length of the exponential
decay of the coherence, is larger than the thermal de Broglie wavelength
($\lambda=\sqrt{2\pi\hbar^{2}/Mk_{B}T}$, where $T$ is the temperature and $M$
the atomic mass). For higher T, this size becomes smaller and approaches
$\lambda$, as the gas crosses over to the thermal phase.
Experiments on 2D bosonic systems, such as two-dimensional ${}^{4}\mathrm{He}$
films Bishop and Reppy (1978) and trapped Bose gases Hadzibabic et al. (2006);
Krüger et al. (2007), are able to show signatures of the BKT transition. Other
systems, such as the superconducting transition in arrays of Josephson
junctions Resnick et al. (1981) and a two dimensional lattice of (3D) Bose-
Einstein condensates Schweikhard et al. (2007), also exhibit a similar
transition. Another interesting observation was in two dimensional spin
polarized atomic hydrogen on liquid 4He Safonov et al. (1998) where a
reduction in three-body dipolar recombination (which is usually associated
with condensation) was observed well above the BKT transition temperature.
This observation results from a reduction of density fluctuations, which
corresponds to quasi-condensation Kagan et al. (2000) footnote1 .
In this letter, we present evidence of transitions in a quasi-2D Bose gas from
thermal (normal gas), to quasi-condensate without superfluidity, to superfluid
quasi-condensate (BKT transition). We explicitly identify the theoretically
expected non-superfluid quasi-condensate, a feature not clearly seen in other
experiments on a 2D trapped Bose gases Hadzibabic et al. (2006); Krüger et al.
(2007). We use an interferometric method to study the coherence of the gas
down to distances smaller than the thermal de Broglie wavelength. Our results
can be understood using the local density approximation (LDA) on a model
Prokof’ev et al. (2001) of a homogeneous system. More recently, calculations
for a trapped system have been carried out using classical-quantum field
methods Bisset and quantum Monte Carlo methods Holzmann2007 .
The BKT transition occurs at a universal value of the superfluid density
$n_{s}=4/\lambda^{2}$. However, the total density at the transition,
$n_{\mathrm{BKT}}$, is not universal and depends on the strength of the
interactions Kosterlitz and Thouless (1973). Interactions in a weakly
interacting Bose gas trapped in a quasi-2D geometry (trap with tight
confinement, at large frequency $\omega_{0}$, along one axis) are described by
a dimensionless coupling constant $\tilde{g}=\sqrt{8\pi}a/l_{0}$ Petrov et al.
(2004), where $a$ is the 3D scattering length and
$l_{0}=\sqrt{\hbar/M\omega_{0}}$ the extent of the ground state along the
tight direction. In the limit of weak interactions ($\ln(1/\tilde{g})<1$),
$n_{\mathrm{BKT}}\lambda^{2}\approx\ln(C/\tilde{g})$ Fisher and Hohenberg
(1988); Popov (1983). Monte-Carlo simulations that calculate the density as a
function of the chemical potential give $C\approx 380$ Prokof’ev et al.
(2001). We can use those simulations for our trapped system by applying a LDA
(see Ref. Prokof’ev et al. (2001)). This is valid even near the BKT transition
if the healing length defined at $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$, $r_{c}\simeq
2\lambda/\sqrt{2\pi\tilde{g}}$, is smaller than the typical size of the cloud
(from the chemical potential given in Prokof’ev et al. (2001), we find that
the Thomas-Fermi radius of the cloud scales as
$R\approx\sqrt{\tilde{g}}R_{T}$, where
$R_{T}=\sqrt{2k_{B}T/m\omega_{\perp}^{2}}$ is the size of the thermal cloud,
$\omega_{\perp}$ being the frequency of the trap in the 2D plane). This
implies that to satisfy the LDA and thus have a BKT transition at a higher
temperature than the true Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) transition Petrov
et al. (2000), one must satisfy $\hbar\omega_{\perp}<\tilde{g}k_{B}T$. For our
typical experimental parameters, $\tilde{g}\simeq 0.02$, $T\simeq
100\mathrm{~{}nK}$ and $\omega_{\perp}/2\pi\simeq 20\mathrm{~{}Hz}$, so the
LDA is reasonable.
Applying the LDA to the calculation of Refs. Prokof’ev et al. (2001), we get
(Fig. 1) the total density at the center of the trap as a function of the
total number of atoms $N$ (normalized to the BEC critical number for 2D
trapped, non-interacting atoms,
$N_{\mathrm{Crit}}=\pi^{2}/6\,(k_{B}T/\hbar\omega_{\perp})^{2}$ Bagnato and
Kleppner (1991)). When $N$ approaches $N_{\mathrm{Crit}}$, the central density
increases rapidly and the calculation predicts the appearance of a bimodal
distribution (Fig. 1, inset). This increase coincides with a reduction in
density fluctuations, which Refs. Prokof’ev et al. (2001) define as the
appearance of a quasi-condensate. The BKT phase transition occurs when the
density at the center reaches $n_{\mathrm{BKT}}$. For $T>T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$
($n<n_{\mathrm{BKT}}$), the 2D cloud will be broken up by the free vortices
into multiple, phase independent, local condensates (non superfuid quasi-
condensate). For $T<T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ ($n>n_{\mathrm{BKT}}$), there will be a
superfluid (quasi-)condensate with phase fluctuations (due to phonons and
bound vortex pairs). We do not expect to see a dramatic change of the in situ
image at the phase transition, because it affects mainly the phase coherence
and not the spatial density profile. However, in our experiment, phase
coherence is revealed in time of flight (TOF) or by interferometry. By all
these methods, we see the progression from thermal to quasi-condensate to
superfluid.
Figure 1: Calculated total density (Tot), quasi-condensate (QC) density and
superfluid (SF) density at the center of the cloud in a trap as a function of
the total number of atoms. Inset: density profile for different numbers of
atoms, from $N/N_{\mathrm{Crit}}\approx 0.9$ (solid line) to
$N/N_{\mathrm{Crit}}\approx 1.1$ (dotted line).
Our experiment uses sodium atoms confined in a single, horizontal, quasi-2D,
optical dipole trap, similar to that described in Görlitz et al. (2001). The
infrared (1030$\mathrm{~{}nm}$) trap laser beam, is spatially filtered through
an optical fiber and collimated. The beam is then focused into a sheet of
light using a cylindrical lens and projected onto the atomic cloud using a
telescope. The sheet of light has a waist ($1/e^{2}$ radius) in the vertical
direction of $\approx 9\mathrm{~{}\mu m}$, and a Rayleigh range of
440$\mathrm{~{}\mu m}$. The waist in the horizontal direction perpendicular to
the propagation axis of the laser is 800$\mathrm{~{}\mu m}$. However, due to a
small distortion of the laser intensity profile in this direction, atoms see a
trapping frequency higher than it would be for a Gaussian profile with that
waist. This results in a trapped cloud of atoms that is approximately a
circular disk with an aspect ratio of 50. For a typical value of the laser
power (500$\mathrm{~{}mW}$), the trapping frequencies are 1$\mathrm{~{}kHz}$
and 18 $\mathrm{~{}Hz}$ in the vertical and horizontal directions,
respectively.
We initially confine sodium atoms in a magnetic trap and cool them using rf-
induced evaporation Kozuma et al. (1999). Before reaching quantum degeneracy,
we adiabatically transfer the atoms to the optical dipole trap. After 5 s of
evaporation in the dipole trap, we reduce the depth of the trap (initially
around 5$\mathrm{~{}\mu K}$) during 1 s to a final value ranging from
5$\mathrm{~{}\mu K}$ to 2$\mathrm{~{}\mu K}$ and then hold for 5 s to complete
the evaporative cooling. We set the final temperature by choosing the final
trap depth. We vary the phase space density keeping temperature constant (same
trap depth) and controling the initial number of trapped atoms. For a trap
with a vertical confinement of $\omega_{0}/2\pi=1\mathrm{~{}kHz}$ the
temperature is around $T=100\mathrm{~{}nK}$, which corresponds to
$k_{B}T\approx 2\hbar\omega_{0}$, so the thermal motion is not completely
frozen out along the tight direction. However, the quasi-condensed atoms are
well confined in 2D since the mean field never exceeds 1$\mathrm{~{}kHz}$, and
therefore we expect to see 2D physics.
Figure 2: Density profile of the cloud after 5$\mathrm{~{}ms}$ TOF. The two
images (with the same axis scale, but different color scale) are taken for two
different numbers of atoms. The graph represent the cross section of the cloud
along a line passing through the center of the cloud along the direction of
the trap laser (arrow). The dot-dashed (red) line is a fit to the sum of two
Gaussians, while the solid (blue) line is the wider of the Gaussians.
Figure 2 shows two absorption images of the cloud, after 5$\mathrm{~{}ms}$ of
TOF, for the same temperature but different number of atoms. Both pictures
show bimodality and density fluctuations. These fluctuations, which appear
only after TOF, are manifestations of the in situ phase fluctuations of the
quasi-condensate. In spite of the similarities (bimodality and density
fluctuations), there are significant differences between the two pictures. The
one on the left with fewer atoms is clearly broken up, while the one on the
right is more compact and the narrow part of the fit (dot-dashed/red curve) is
not as wide.
Figure 3: Width of the narrow part of the cloud, obtained by fitting 5 ms TOF
images with two Gaussians, as a function of the fitted peak 2D density, for
two different temperatures. The lines are linear fits to two portions of the
data, and are used to determine a transition point. Inset: 2D “in situ” peak
density footnote2 at the transition point as a function of the
@hyphenationtem-pera-ture. The dashed line is the theoretical value
$n_{\mathrm{BKT}}\lambda^{2}=\ln(380/\tilde{g})$ and the solid line is the
same value corrected using a 3D model Holzmann et al. (2008). We add a $\pm
15\%$ uncertainty uncertainties primarily due to the disagreement of the
different methods used for calibration (for the temperature: TOF and
interferometric measurement of $\lambda$; for the density: theoretical
absorbtion cross section and in situ measurement of the Thomas-Fermi radius).
In figure 3 we plot the width of the narrow part as a function of the peak
density for two different temperatures (trap depths). For both temperatures,
the width initially decreases with increasing density (presumably due to a
decrease of free vortices) and then, beyond a certain point, increases slowly
(presumably due to repulsive interactions between atoms). The central density
at which the width is a minimum depends on the temperature of the gas: we
identify this as the point when atoms at the center of the trap cross the BKT
transition. In the inset of Fig. 3, we plot this critical density footnote2
as a function of the temperature. The dashed line is the theoretical
prediction Prokof’ev et al. (2001)
$n_{\mathrm{BKT}}\lambda^{2}=\ln(380/\tilde{g})$ and the continious line is
this theoretical prediction corrected by a factor taking into acount thermal
excitation of modes in the tight direction, as done in Ref. Holzmann et al.
(2008). The position of the point of minimum width agrees with the theoretical
prediction, supporting its identification as the BKT transition in the central
region of the trap.
Figure 4: Cross section of the density profile of the cloud after
10$\mathrm{~{}ms}$ of TOF, fitted with the sum of three Gaussian. Left: for
$n<n_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ ($T>T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$); right: for $n>n_{\mathrm{BKT}}$
($T<T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$). The data are taken with the same trap depth as Fig 2.
With this interpretation, the picture on the left of Fig. 2 is taken for
$T>T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ and contains a thermal component (solid/blue curve) and a
non superfluid quasi-condensate (dot-dashed/red curves) whereas the picture on
the right ($T<T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$) contains the thermal part and a QC part with
both a superfluid and non-supefluid component, which are not separated after
5$\mathrm{~{}ms}$ TOF. However, after 10$\mathrm{~{}ms}$ of TOF, the three
components can be separated. For $T$ just above $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$, there is a
bimodal distribution (Fig. 4, left): the thermal component (solid/blue) and
quasi-condensate (dot-dashed/red). For $T$ just below $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ (Fig.
4, right), we see a trimodal distribution: the thermal component and the non-
superfluid QC (which are very similar to the case where $T$ is just above
$T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$) and the superfluid part (very narrow peak, dashed/orange).
This transition occurs when the central density reaches $\approx$4.5
atoms/$\mathrm{\mu m}^{2}$, but with the approximate correction factor to the
in situ value gives $\approx$9.4 atoms/$\mathrm{\mu m}^{2}$, which is in
reasonable agreement with the theoretical prediction and the 5$\mathrm{~{}ms}$
TOF analysis.
Figure 5: Left: Schematic of the atom interferometer used to measure the
spatial coherence of the 2D atomic cloud. The $\nu$s and $\mathbf{k}$s denote
the frequencies and corresponding wavevectors, respectively, of the Raman
laser beams. Right: Images of atoms in the $F=2$ state after the
interferometer sequence for two different delays between Raman pulses (upper:
$\tau=7.5\mathrm{~{}\mu s}$, lower: $\tau=17.5\mathrm{~{}\mu s}$). For the
longer delay, the interference of the thermal cloud is washed out and there
are only fringes from the condensate.
To measure the coherence of our gas, we have developed a Ramsey-like method.
This allows us to measure coherence properties on a length scale below the
thermal de Broglie wavelength. We use two, $\pi/2$, two-photon Raman pulses,
with counterpropagating and nearly counterpropagating laser beams, to transfer
atoms from the $F=1$ to the $F=2$ internal state, also transferring two photon
recoil momenta. We interfere, _in situ_ , the two $F=2$ copies of the cloud,
which have a velocity different by $\hbar\mathbf{K}/m$ and are spatially
shifted by $\mathbf{R}$ (see Fig. 5 and below). Specifically, if
$\hat{\psi}_{0}(\mathbf{r})$ is the quantum field operator, with
$n_{0}(\mathbf{r})=\left<\hat{\psi}_{0}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{r})\hat{\psi}_{0}(\mathbf{r})\right>$
the initial atomic density (in $F=1$), then the measured density of atoms in
$F=2$ after the two Raman pulses is
$n(\mathbf{r})=\frac{1}{4}\left(2n_{0}(\mathbf{r})+\left<\hat{\psi}_{0}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{r})\hat{\psi}_{0}(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R})e^{i\mathbf{r}\cdot\mathbf{K}+i\phi_{0}}+\mathrm{h.c.}\right>\right),$
(1)
where
$\mathbf{K}=\mathbf{k_{1}}-\mathbf{k_{2}}-\mathbf{k^{\prime}_{1}}+\mathbf{k^{\prime}_{2}}$
(notation defined in Fig. 5),
$\mathbf{R}=\hbar(\mathbf{k_{1}}-\mathbf{k_{2}})\tau/m$ is the displacement of
the cloud during the time between pulses, $\tau$, and $\phi_{0}$ is the
(uncontrolled) phase between the two Raman pulses. By measuring the average
spatial contrast of the interference fringes in an image, averaged over
several images, we obtain the normalized correlation function
$g^{(1)}(\mathbf{R})=\left<\hat{\psi}_{0}^{\dagger}(\mathbf{r})\hat{\psi}_{0}(\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{R})\right>/n_{0}(\mathbf{r})$.
Figure 6: Contrast of the interference fringes as a function of the
separation of the two clouds in the interferometer. Each curve corresponds to
an average over many data sets where the maximum density of atoms falls within
a chosen range. Inset: Corresponding density profiles of the atomic cloud.
Lines (solid, dotted, dashed, dot-dashed) correspond respectively to density
ranges of 2-4, 5-8, 10-12, 13-19 $\mathrm{~{}atoms/\mu m^{2}}$.
Figure 6 shows the contrast of the fringes as a function of $\mathbf{R}$, for
different densities, but the same temperature, $T\approx 100\mathrm{~{}nK}$.
This contrast is calculated by measuring the relative intensity of the peak of
the Fourier component of the image at the spatial frequency of the fringes.
Since we cannot precisely control the number of atoms, we average only the
data that falls within a chosen range of peak densities. For each curve, we
see an initial drop of the contrast on a length scale of the order of
1$\mathrm{~{}\mu m}$, due to the relatively short coherence length of the
thermal component (the thermal de Broglie wavelength is
$\lambda=1\mathrm{~{}\mu m}$ for $T=100\mathrm{~{}nK}$). For atomic clouds
with densities between 5 and 8$\mathrm{~{}atoms/\mu m^{2}}$ (dotted line),
where we clearly see a bimodal distribution, the coherence extends well beyond
$\lambda$, but decreasing to zero by $10~{}\mathrm{~{}\mu m}$, a distance much
shorter than the spatial width of the narrow part of the bimodal distribution
(see inset). This behavior is as expected for this quasi-condensate region for
$T$ just above $T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$ where, due to local condensation, there is
coherence for distances greater than the thermal de Broglie wavelength, but
because of the free vortices, the coherence decreases exponentially on a
length scale of the order of $r_{c}=2\lambda/\sqrt{2\pi\tilde{g}}\simeq
6\mathrm{~{}\mu m}$ Prokof’ev et al. (2001). For higher densities
($T<T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$), the coherence also decays slowly but has a non zero
value even at 20$\mathrm{~{}\mu m}$. For this phase, one expects a power law
decay of the coherence mainly due to long wavelength phonons. The typical
distance at which the coherence decreases by a factor of 2 is given by
$l=2^{1/\alpha}/\sqrt{\tilde{g}n}$ Petrov et al. (2004), where $\alpha$ is the
coefficient of the power law decay whose value is $1/4$ at the BKT transition.
We calculate $l\approx 40\mathrm{~{}\mu m}$ for our typical parameters at the
BKT transition.
With our interferometric method, an isolated vortex would be characterized by
a double fork structure in the interference pattern Chevy et al. (2001). To
see such a structure, one should separate the two interfering copies of the
gas by a distance larger than the fringe spacing ($\approx 7\mathrm{~{}\mu
m}$), a distance which is comparable to the healing length ($r_{c}\simeq
6\mathrm{~{}\mu m}$). However, in the non-superfluid region
($T>T_{\mathrm{BKT}}$), the fringes disappear at this separation. Therefore,
with our fringe spacing (constrained by our optical resolution), it is not
possible to see such a direct signature of the free vortices that are supposed
to proliferate in this regime. This should also holds true in Hadzibabic et
al. (2006), as suggested by the results of Krüger et al. (2007).
In this experiment, we have observed the predicted intermediate regime,
between the thermal and superfluid phase, characterized by a bimodal density
distribution and a coherence length longer than the thermal de Broglie
wavelength, but smaller than the predicted length scale in the superfluid
region. At higher densities, we see a phase with a much longer coherence
length, which is consistent with the BKT superfluid phase. For sufficiently
long TOF we clearly see a trimodal distribution showing the presence of three
components. A possible explanation for previous experiments Hadzibabic et al.
(2006); Krüger et al. (2007) having missed seeing a trimodal distribution
(they associate the BKT transition with the appearance of bimodality) is that,
they don’t see this intermediate quasi-condensed regime. This may be because
their imaging integrates over one dimension, reducing the signal of the narrow
part of the distribution relative to that of the thermal cloud. Finally, our
expermental setup, which allows us to see BKT related physics in a single
”pancake” of atoms, opens new oportunities, such as studying density
fluctuations at the transition. Future experiments could use a Feshbach
resonance to tune the coupling constant in our all optical trap, and explore
different interaction regimes.
This work was suported by the Office of Naval Research. We thank J. Dalibard,
T. Simula, M. Davis and B. Blakie for helpful discussions.
## References
* Kosterlitz and Thouless (1973) J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C 6, 1181 (1973).
* Berezinskii (1972) V. S. Berezinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP 34, 610 (1972).
* Bishop and Reppy (1978) D. J. Bishop and J. D. Reppy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 1727 (1978).
* Hadzibabic et al. (2006) Z. Hadzibabic et al., Nature 441, 1118 (2006).
* Krüger et al. (2007) P. Krüger et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 040402 (2007).
* Resnick et al. (1981) D. J. Resnick, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 1542 (1981).
* Schweikhard et al. (2007) V. Schweikhard, S. Tung, and E. A. Cornell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 030401 (2007).
* Safonov et al. (1998) A. I. Safonov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4545 (1998).
* Kagan et al. (2000) Y. Kagan et al., Phys. Rev. A 61, 043608 (2000).
* (10) The component due to quasi-condensation is referred to as a superfluid component in some references (section 21 of Popov (1983)) even if there is no global superfluidity (algebraic decay of the coherence).
* Prokof’ev et al. (2001) N. Prokof’ev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 270402 (2001). N. Prokof’ev et al., Phys. Rev. A 66, 043608 (2002).
* (12) R.N Bisset et al., (2008), eprint arXiv:0804.0286.
* (13) M. Holzmann and W. Krauth, (2007), eprint arXiv:0710:5060.
* Petrov et al. (2004) D. Petrov et al., J. Phys. IV. France 116, 5 (2004).
* Popov (1983) V. Popov, _Functional Integrals in Quantum Field Theory and Statistical Physics_ (Reidel, 1983).
* Fisher and Hohenberg (1988) D. S. Fisher and P. C. Hohenberg, Phys. Rev. B 37, 4936 (1988).
* Petrov et al. (2000) D. Petrov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2551 (2000).
* Bagnato and Kleppner (1991) V. Bagnato and D. Kleppner, Phys. Rev. A. 44 (1991).
* Görlitz et al. (2001) A. Görlitz et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 130402 (2001).
* Kozuma et al. (1999) M. Kozuma et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 871 (1999).
* (21) In order to take into account the 5 ms TOF, we multiply by a correction factor $1+\omega_{\perp}^{2}t_{\mathrm{TOF}}^{2}$ to bring the density back to its in situ value. This correction factor is true only for the thermal part and probably overestimates the in situ density of the QC part.
* Holzmann et al. (2008) M. Holzmann et al., Europhys. Lett. 82, 30001 (2008).
* (23) Unless otherwise stated, the uncertainties are one standard deviation combined systematic and statistical.
* Chevy et al. (2001) F. Chevy et al., Phys. Rev. A. 64, 031601 (2001).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-22T18:03:04 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.904696 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "P. Clad\\'e, C. Ryu, A. Ramanathan, K. Helmerson and W. D. Phillips",
"submitter": "Kristian Helmerson",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3519"
} |
0805.3537 | # Public Discourse in the Web Does Not Exhibit Group Polarization
Fang Wu and Bernardo A. Huberman
HP Laboratories
Palo Alto, CA 94304
###### Abstract
We performed a massive study of the dynamics of group deliberation among
several websites containing millions of opinions on topics ranging from books
to media. Contrary to the common phenomenon of group polarization observed
offline, we measured a strong tendency towards moderate views in the course of
time. This phenomenon possibly operates through a self-selection bias whereby
previous comments and ratings elicit contrarian views that soften the previous
opinions.
No aspect of the massive participation in content creation that the web
enables is more evident than in the countless number of opinions, news and
product reviews that are constantly posted on the Internet. Since these
opinions play such an important role in trust building and the creation of
consensus about many issues and products, there have been a number of recent
of studies focused on the design, evaluation and utilization of online opinion
systems [5, 6, 10, 11] (for a survey, see [7]). Given the importance of group
opinions to collective social processes such as group polarization and
information cascades [2, 3, 4, 15] it is surprising that with the exception of
one study [13], little research has been done on the dynamic aspects of online
opinion formation. It remains unclear, for example, whether the opinions about
books, movies or societal views fluctuate a long time before reaching a final
consensus, or they undergo any systematic changes as time goes on. Thus the
need to understand how online opinions are created and evolve in time in order
to draw accurate conclusions from that data.
Within this context we studied the dynamics of online opinion expression by
analyzing the temporal evolution of a very large set of user views, ranging
from millions of online reviews of the best selling books at Amazon.com, to
thousands of movie reviews at the Internet Movie Database IMDB.com.
Surprisingly, our analysis revealed a trend that runs counter to the well
known herding effect studied under information cascades, and in the smaller
instance of group polarization. Online, a self selection mechanism is at play
whereby previous comments and ratings elicit contrarian views that soften the
previous opinions.
It is well known that in the case of group polarization, members of a
discussion group tend to advocate more extreme positions and call for riskier
courses of action than individuals who did not participate in any such
discussion [1, 17]. However, on the massive scale that the web offers, we
observed that later opinions in the course of time tend to show a large
difference with previous ones, thus softening the overall discourse. This is a
robust and quantitative observation for which we can only offer a tentative
explanation in terms of the cost of expressing an opinion to the group at
large.
In order to perform this study we first analyzed book ratings posted on
Amazon.com. Our sample consisted of the book ratings of the top 4,000 best-
selling titles of Amazon in each of the following 12 categories, as of July 1,
2007: arts & photography, biographies & memoirs, history, literature &
fiction, mystery & thrillers, reference, religion & spirituality, sports,
travel, nonfiction, science, and entertainment. For each of the 48,000 books,
a series of user ratings was collected in time order, where each rating is an
integer between 1 and 5. Among the 48,000 books, 16,454 books have no less
than 20 ratings, and 11,920 have an average rating above 4.
We first checked the average rating of the 16,454 books as a function of the
index of the rating ($n=1,\dots,20$). As can be seen from Fig. 1(a), $EX_{n}$
decreases almost linearly with $n$, so there is a clear dynamical trend in the
ratings, which corroborates the observation reported in [13]. Later users tend
to write different reviews from those of earlier users. Like in the
experimental setup of group polarization, an Amazon user observes the existing
average rating of that book before she leaves her own (usually shown at the
top of the book page, right under the title). However, as opposed to group
polarization, the overall opinion on Amazon tends to decrease away from the
extreme ones.
Figure 1: (a) The average rating of 16,454 books on Amazon.com with more than
20 reviews. $EX_{n}$ is the sample average rating of all the 16,454 $n$’th
ratings. As one can see from the figure, $EX_{n}$ decreases by 0.4 stars in 20
steps. We did not obtain enough data from low selling books to show the
opposite trend.
One point to be stressed is that these results do not necessarily imply that
as time goes on the average opinion of the whole population changes, for the
late reviewers might come from a different group than the earlier ones and
need not be representative of the whole population. This is seen when plotting
the average “helpful ratio” as a function of star rating in Fig. 2 for users
of Amazon. As can be seen, the whole population finds high ratings in general
more helpful than low ratings, implying that the majority of the population
does not necessarily agree with the low ratings. This additional data suggests
that rather than indicating a real opinion shift in the whole population, the
observed dynamic trend is more of an expression bias.
(a)
(b)
Figure 2: (a) The average helpful ratio of five different star ratings. (b)
The average review length of five different star ratings in the number of
characters. The data is calculated for 4,000 bestselling mystery books. By
comparing the two figures it is clear that people find high ratings more
helpful not just because they are longer. For instance, 5-star reviews are on
average shorter than 4-star and 3-star reviews but are nevertheless more
helpful.
On reflection, it is rather surprising that people contribute opinions and
reviews of topics which have already been extensively covered by others. While
posting views is easy to understand when it involves no effort, like clicking
on a button of a website, it is more puzzling in situations where it is
costly, such as composing a review.111When a user of Amazon decides to review
a book, she is required to write a short paragraph of review in addition to a
simple star rating. The average word count of Amazon reviews is 181.5 words
[12], so the cost of opinion expression is indeed high. If the opportunity to
affect the overall opinion or rating diminishes with the number of published
ones, why does anyone bother to incur the cost of contributing yet another
review? From a rational choice theory point of view, if the utility to be
gained does not outweigh the cost, people would refrain from expressing their
views. And yet they do. This is reminiscent of the well analyzed voter’s
paradox [9, 14, 16], where a rational calculation of their success probability
at determining the outcome of an election would make people stay home rather
than vote, and yet they show up at the polls with high turnout rates. In
contrast to a political election, there is no concept of winning in online
opinion systems. Rather, by contributing her own opinion to an existing
opinion pool, a person affects the average or the distribution of opinions by
a marginal amount that diminishes with the size of that pool.
One possible explanation for these results is that in cases like Amazon,
people will derive more utility the more they can influence the overall
rating, as in the voter’s paradox. To be precise, in cases where users’
opinions can be quantified and aggregated into an average value, the influence
of an online opinion can be measured by how much its expression will change
the average opinion. Suppose that $n$ users have expressed their opinions,
$X_{1},\dots,X_{n}$, on a given topic at a website, with $X_{i}$ denoting the
quantified value of the $i$’th opinion. If the $(n+1)$’th person expresses a
new opinion $X_{n+1}$, it will move the average rating to
$\bar{X}_{n+1}=\frac{n\bar{X}_{n}+X_{n+1}}{n+1},$ (1)
and the absolute change in the average rating is given by
$|\bar{X}_{n+1}-\bar{X}_{n}|=\frac{|X_{n+1}-\bar{X}_{n}|}{n+1}.$ (2)
Thus a person is more likely to express her opinion whenever
$|X_{n+1}-\bar{X}_{n}|$ is large — an opinion is likely to be expressed if it
deviates by a significant amount from those already stated. Indeed, what is
the point of leaving another 5-star review after one hundred people have
already done so?222This point has also been made within the “brag-and-moan”
model [8, 11] which assumes that consumers only choose to write reviews when
they are very satisfied with the products they purchased (brag), or very
disgruntled (moan). Note however, that the brag-and-moan model is static and
thus predicts that $\bar{X}_{n}$ is constant over time, in contradiction with
the observed dynamical trends.
In order to test this hypothesis, we measured directly how much one’s rating
deviates from the observed average rating. We plot the expected _deviation_
$Ed_{n}=E|X_{n}-\bar{X}_{n-1}|$ as a function of $n$ in Fig. 3, where $X_{n}$
is the rating left by the $n$’th user, and $\bar{X}_{n-1}$ is the average
rating the $n$’th user observes. As can be seen, $Ed_{n}$ increases with $n$.
Since the expected deviation $Ed_{n}$ of an i.i.d. sequence normally
_decreases_ with $n$, this increasing trend is indeed significant. This again
supports our conjecture that those users who disagree from the public opinion
will be more willing to express themselves and thus soften the overall opinion
of a given book.
Figure 3: The average deviation of Amazon ratings increases with the number of
people.
Next we examined whether this dynamical trend is still prominent at the level
of each individual book. We defined $d=\bar{X}_{20}-\bar{X}_{10}$ as a measure
of the change in a book’s rating over time. The histogram of 16,454 $d$’s is
shown in Fig. 4. As can be seen, most of the changes are negative. A $t$-test
of the alternative hypothesis “$d<0$” yields a $p$-value less than $0.0001$,
which further confirms the declining trend.
Figure 4: Histogram of the change in average book ratings
($d=\bar{X}_{20}-\bar{X}_{10}$) on Amazon.com. Most of the changes are
negative, testifying a declining trend in the average ratings.
While our hypothesis of a costly expression bias seems to explain the
softening of opinions observed in Amazon, it would be more conclusive if one
could conduct a test that directly compares people’s opinions expressed at
different cost levels. In order to address this issue we conducted a study of
IMDB.com (The Internet Movie Database). Unlike users of Amazon who are
required to write a review when rating a book, users of IMDB are free to
_choose_ the effort level when reviewing a movie. Specifically, after
observing the current average rating of a movie, a user can either submit a
quick rating by clicking on a scale of 10 stars, or can make the extra effort
involved in writing a comment between 10 and 1000 words.
Our study focused on two sets of movie titles. The first consists of the 50
most top-rated movies released after year 2000, which we call the “good
movies”, and the second consists of the 50 most low-rated, which we call the
“bad movies”. For each movie we know its average rating (taken among all
ratings with or without a comment), as well as the value and date-stamp of its
each commented rating, but we do not have any specific information about each
uncommented rating.
(a) Good movies
(b) Bad movies
Figure 5: Average rating associated with a comment of the (a) good and (b) bad
movies, as a function of the number of existing ratings. It can be seen that
good movies tend to receive lower ratings as time goes on, and bad movies tend
to receive higher ratings.
(a)
(b)
Figure 6: Histogram of $d=\bar{X}_{10}-\bar{X}_{5}$ for the good movies and
bad movies.
The trend of the ratings associated with comments of the two sets of movies is
shown in Fig. 5. Similar to Amazon, a softening of the expressed view is once
again observed for both sets. Two histograms of $d=\bar{X}_{10}-\bar{X}_{5}$
for the good movies and the bad movies are shown in Fig. 6. A $t$-test of the
alternative hypothesis $d<0$ for the good movies yields a $p$-value 0.44. A
$t$-test of $d>0$ for the bad movies yields a $p$-value 0.018. While it is not
too reliable to conclude that good movies tend to receive lower ratings over
time, it is safer to conclude that bad movies accumulate higher ratings as
time goes on.
We also examined the difference between the overall average rating (with or
without a comment) and the average rating associated with a comment for each
movie, and the result is shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen that those who decide
to spend the time to write a comment tend to speak differently from the
majority users, who simply leave a star rating without any justification. Fig.
7 is thus a direct verification of our hypothesis that high cost induces
expression bias.
Figure 7: Expression bias of commented ratings. Each point in this figure
corresponds to one movie title. The horizontal coordinate represents the
movie’s overall average rating ($\bar{r}$) taken over both commented and
uncommented ratings. The vertical coordinate represents the movie’s average
rating taken over only commented ratings ($\bar{r}_{c}$). Good and bad movies
are represented by circles and crosses, respectively. Clearly, those users who
spend the additional cost to write a comment tend to speak oppositely to the
majority. A $t$-test of the alternative hypothesis that $\bar{r}_{c}<\bar{r}$
for good movies and a similar $t$-test of $\bar{r}_{c}>\bar{r}$ for bad movies
both yield a $p$-value less than $0.001$.
These results show that in the process of articulating and expressing their
views online, people tend to follow a different pattern from that observed in
information cascades or group polarization. What is observed is an anti
polarization effect, whereby previous comments and ratings elicit contrarian
views that soften the previous opinions. This is in contrast to the phenomenon
of herding and opinion polarization observed in both group dynamics and online
sites.333We point out that in a website like Jyte.com, where it takes only one
click to agree or disagree with an arbitrary claim, we did see a strong group
polarization [15]. It is possible that the latter is due to the fact that such
a vote is costless compared to the opinions on Amazon and IMDB.
In closing, besides their intrinsic novelty, these results throw a cautionary
note on the interpretation of online public opinion. This is because a simple
change in the order or frequency of given sets of views can change the ongoing
expression in the community, and thus the perceived collective wisdom that new
users will find when accessing that information.
## References
* [1] Solomon E. Asch. Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5):31–35, November 1955.
* [2] Abhijit V. Banerjee. A simple model of herd behavior,.
* [3] Sushil Bikhchandani, David Hirshleifer, and Ivo Welch. A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5):992–1026, 1992.
* [4] Judith A. Chevalier and Dina Mayzlin. The effect of word of mouth online: Online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3):345–354, 2006.
* [5] Dan Cosley, Shyong K. Lam, Istvan Albert, Joseph A. Konstan, and John Riedl. Is seeing believing? How recommender interfaces affect users’ opinions. In CHI 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, April 2003.
* [6] Chrysanthos Dellarocas. Immunizing online reputation reporting systems against unfair ratings and discriminatory behavior. In ACM EC’00, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, October 2000.
* [7] Chrysanthos Dellarocas. The digitization of word of mouth: Promise and challenges of online feedback mechanisms. Management Science, 49(10):1407–1424, October 2003.
* [8] Chrysanthos Dellarocas and Ritu Narayan. What motivates consumers to review a product online? A study of the product-specific antecedents of online movie reviews. In WISE 2006, Evanston, Illinois, USA, December 2006.
* [9] Anthony Downs. An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper & Row, New York, 1957.
* [10] Guodong Gao, Bin Gu, and Mingfeng Lin. The dynamics of online consumer reviews. In WISE 2006, Evanston, Illinois, USA, December 2006.
* [11] Nan Hu, Paul A. Pavlou, and Jennifer Zhang. Can online reviews reveal a product’s true quality? Empirical findings and analytical modeling of online word-of-mouth communication. In ACM EC’06, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, June 2006.
* [12] Erik Ketzan. Amazon.com and the new democracy of opinion. http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/papers_ketzan1.html, November 2002.
* [13] Xinxin Li and Lorin M. Hitt. Self selection and information role of online product reviews. In WISE 2004, Brisbane, Australia, November 2004.
* [14] William H. Riker and Peter C. Ordeshook. A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62:25–42, 1968.
* [15] Matthew J. Salganik, Peter Sheridan Dodds, and Duncan J. Watts. Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5762):854–856, February 2006.
* [16] Alexander A. Schuessler. Expressive voting. Rationality and Society, 12(1):87–119, 2000.
* [17] Cass R. Sunstein. Deliberative trouble? Why groups go to extremes. Yale Law Journal, 110(1), October 2000.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-22T20:28:37 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.909842 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Fang Wu and Bernardo A. Huberman",
"submitter": "Bernardo Huberman",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3537"
} |
0805.3596 | ,
# Dynamical estimates of chaotic systems from Poincaré recurrences
M. S. Baptista Institute for Complex Systems and Mathematical Biology, King’s
College, University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UE Aberdeen, United Kingdom Centro de
Matemática da Universidade do Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre 687, 4169-007 Porto,
Portugal Dariel M. Maranhão Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo,
Rua do Matão, Travessa R, 187, 05508-090 SP, Brasil J. C. Sartorelli
Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo, Rua do Matão, Travessa R, 187,
05508-090 SP, Brasil
###### Abstract
We show a function that fits well the probability density of return times
between two consecutive visits of a chaotic trajectory to finite size regions
in phase space. It deviates from the exponential statistics by a small power-
law term, a term that represents the deterministic manifestation of the
dynamics. We also show how one can quickly and easily estimate the Kolmogorov-
Sinai entropy and the short-term correlation function by realizing
observations of high probable returns. Our analyzes are performed numerically
in the Hénon map and experimentally in a Chua’s circuit. Finally, we discuss
how our approach can be used to treat data coming from experimental complex
systems and for technological applications.
Observing how long a dynamical system takes to return to some state is one of
the simplest ways to model and quantify its dynamics from data series. In this
work, we describe a simple way to extract some relevant invariant quantities
of a chaotic system by using recurrence times, in particular Poincaré
recurrences that measure the time interval for a system to return to a
configuration close to its initial state. Part of this work is dedicated to
apply the theoretical results proposed by [Pinto et al. arxiv:0908.4575] to
calculate the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy and the decay of correlation of the
experimental Chua’s circuit when the returns are measured in “large” size
regions in phase space. Another part is dedicated to study how the deviation
(from the exponential form) of the density of the first Poincaré returns can
be used to detect deterministic manifestations in chaotic systems. Finally, we
discuss how our approach can be used to treat data coming from experimental
complex systems and for technological applications.
## I Introduction
Chaotic systems have simultaneously a stochastic stocastic and a
deterministic dynamical characters dinamica . Single trajectories are
predictable (deterministic) for a short-term evolution and unpredictable for a
long-term evolution (stochastic). While the stochastic character is associated
with an exponential decay of correlations and information about the actual
state is rapidly lost as the trajectory evolves, the deterministic character
is associated to a power-law decay of correlations and information about the
actual state is lost as the system is evolved, but in a rather slower fashion.
A relevant question that arises when dealing with data coming from complex
systems is whether manifestations of chaotic behavior can be detected in the
data mamen so that one can construct deterministic models. One wishes to come
up with a dynamical description of the data, but due to the sensitivity
dependence on initial conditions of chaotic systems one is prompt to adopt a
probabilistic approach in order to reveal the underlying dynamics of the
system from statistical averages nicolis . A promising tool of analysis is
provided by the statistics of the Poincaré recurrence time (PRT) poincare
which measures the time interval between two consecutive visits of a
trajectory to a finite size region in phase space.
Many relevant quantifiers of low-dimensional chaotic systems can be obtained
by the statistical properties of the PRTs. The purpose of the present work is
to apply some results from Ref. paulo and to propose other theoretical
approaches to easily identify deterministic and stochastic manifestations in
dissipative strongly chaotic systems by using the PRTs of chaotic trajectories
to regions of finite size baptista , considering only short return times.
These later two conditions constraining our analyzes are devoted to suitably
apply our approaches to realistic physical situations: the resolution to
measure returns as well as the time frame to realize the experiment is finite.
By chaotic systems, we mean non-uniformly hyperbolic systems. We focus the
analyzes on the Hénon map and on an experiment, the Chua’s circuit, but we
also present results coming from the logistic map.
We first present the theoretical framework to be used in Secs. II,III,IV, and
V. Then, in Sec. VI, we apply this approach to analyze the Hénon map and the
experimental Chua’s circuit. We also work with the Logistic map in Appendix A.
In Sec. II, we present a continuous function, $\rho_{F}$ that fits well the
probability distribution for the PRTs to regions of finite size. The many
parameters of $\rho_{F}$ are theoretically estimated in Sec. III. Further, we
show how to use these parameters to quantify how stochastic or deterministic
the considered system is, under the perspective of the PRTs. Concerning the
coefficient of the power-law term (responsible for the deviation of $\rho_{F}$
from the Poisson distribution), a first approximation furnishes that it is
inversely proportional to the average return time. The longer (shorter) is the
average return time, the smaller (larger) the power-law term, and the more
stochastic (more deterministic) the PRTs.
In Sec. IV, we succinctly describe how to calculate the Kolmogorov-Sinai (KS)
entropy, denoted by $H_{KS}$, in terms of the number of unstable periodic
orbits (UPOs) and of the frequency with which the PRT happen. Then, we explain
how $H_{KS}$ can be calculated in typical physical situations, when the
information about the UPOs is unknown and the only available information is
the frequency with which a high probable PRT with short length happens. Notice
that this frequency can be easily measured even if only a few return times are
observed because faster returns are more probable.
Alternative methods to calculate the correlation entropy, $K_{2}$, a lower
bound of $H_{KS}$, and to calculate $H_{KS}$ from time series were proposed in
Refs. grassberger ; cohen . In Ref. grassberger $K_{2}$ is calculated from
the correlation decay and in Ref. cohen by the determination of a generating
partition of phase space that preserves the value of the entropy. But while
the method in Ref. grassberger unavoidably suffers from the same difficulties
found in the proper calculation of the fractal dimensions from data sets, the
method in Ref. cohen requires the knowledge of the generating partitions,
information that is not trivial to be extracted from complex data. The
advantage of the theoretical approach used is its simplicity. As one can see
in Eq. (19), the only information required is the frequency with which high
probable PRTs happen in some regions of the phase space.
In Sec. V, we show how the PRTs can be used to calculate the correlation
function for short-term returns and an upper bound for long-term returns, a
function that indicates how much the future returns are related to the past
returns to a finite size region.
Other methods to calculate the correlation function from the PRTs were
proposed in Refs. correlation2 ; young . One of the advantages of the proposed
theoretical approach is that we could show, in a very trivial way, that if the
distribution of the PRTs has an exponential decay then the correlation
function also decays exponentially, a result rigorously demonstrated in young
.
Finally, in Sec. VII, we present our conclusions and discuss how this approach
can be used in an integrated way to characterize experimental data coming from
complex systems.
## II The probability distribution of the PRTs
In recent works eduardo ; baptista:2005 , it was shown that the fitted
probability density function $\rho_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$, of a series of
Poincaré return times $\tau_{n}$ ($n=1,\ldots,L$) to a box ${\mathcal{B}}$ of
equal finite sides $2\epsilon$ return , of typical trajectories in a non-
uniform hyperbolic attractor on $\mathcal{R}^{2}$, deviates from the
exponential law
$\rho_{P}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})=\mu({\mathcal{B}})e^{-\tau\mu({\mathcal{B}})}$
if the box ${\mathcal{B}}$ is placed on some special region of the phase
space, where $\mu({\mathcal{B}})$ is the probability measure inside it. This
quantity measures the frequency with which a chaotic trajectory visits
${\mathcal{B}}$.
The function $\rho_{P}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ describes well the discrete
probability distribution function (PDF), denoted by
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$, in Axiom-A systems and some classes of non-
uniformly hyperbolic systems with exponential decay of correlations (=chaos
with strong mixing properties) hirata , for arbitrarily small intervals
($\epsilon\rightarrow 0$). In Ref. baptista:2005 , it was hypothesized that
for $\tau>\tau_{UPO}^{min}$, we have
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})\rightarrow{\rho}_{F}^{\prime}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$
with
${\rho}_{F}^{\prime}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})=\beta e{{}^{(-\alpha\tau)}},$ (1)
where $\tau>\tau_{UPO}^{min}$ represents the PRT for which the distribution
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ becomes approximately continuous and
$\beta=\beta_{R}+\alpha$. It was assumed that $\beta_{R}e{{}^{(-\alpha\tau)}}$
describes an effective PDF associated mostly with the return of trajectories
along the unstable manifold of UPOs outside the box ${\mathcal{B}}$. It is the
result of the non-hyperbolic nature of the dynamics inside the box, whose
probability measure suffers the influence of non-local UPOs. The term $\alpha
e{{}^{(-\alpha\tau)}}$ describes the hyperbolic nature of the dynamics inside
the box, the return of trajectories to the box associated with the local
dynamics provided by the UPOs inside the interval.
The coefficients of $\rho_{F}^{\prime}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ are obtained by
the least square fitting method which minimizes the error between
$\rho_{F}^{\prime}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ and $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$:
$E(\rho_{F}^{\prime}-\rho)=(\rho_{F}^{\prime}-\rho)^{2}.$ (2)
In addition, assuming that Eq. (1) describes well $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$,
then the following equations should be simultaneously satisfied
$\displaystyle\sum_{\tau_{min}}^{\tau^{min}_{UPO}}\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})+\int_{\tau^{min}_{UPO}}^{\tau_{max}}\rho_{F}^{\prime}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})d\tau$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 1$ (3)
$\displaystyle\sum_{\tau_{min}}^{\tau^{min}_{UPO}}\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})\times\tau+\int_{\tau^{min}_{UPO}}^{\tau_{max}}\rho_{F}^{\prime}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})\tau
d\tau$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\langle\tau\rangle$ (4)
by considering that $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ can be broken in two terms, one
that describes its discrete nature, the probability of finding a PRT of length
$\tau<\tau^{min}_{UPO}$, and another that describes its continuous nature.
Denoting $\tau_{min}$ as to be the PRT with the minimum length
[$\min{(\tau_{n})}$] and $\langle\tau\rangle=1/L\sum_{n=1}^{L}\tau_{n}$, and
assuming that $\tau_{min}=\tau^{min}_{UPO}$ then
$\alpha\cong(\langle\tau\rangle-\tau_{min})^{-1}$ and
$\beta_{R}\cong\alpha[e^{(\alpha\tau_{min})}-1]$, for sufficiently small
$\epsilon$ so that the terms that contain $\max{(\tau_{n})}$, regarded as
$\tau_{max}$, can be neglected. So, for finite $\langle\tau\rangle$,
$\beta>\alpha$. However, Eq. (1) does not seem to completely capture the
nature of $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ for finite size intervals. Satisfying
conditions (3) and (4) do not necessarily minimizes the error in (2), and the
contrary also does not apply. Such disagreement becomes stronger in boxes
centered close to homoclinic tangencies. By fitting $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$
by a function of the type in Eq. (1) might produce $\beta\leq\alpha$, which
disagrees with the inequality $\beta>\alpha$ that validates Eq. (1). For the
here considered dynamical systems for parameters far away from intermittent
behavior, and data coming from plasma turbulence and stock market baptista ,
one finds often that $\alpha\cong\beta$, a consequence of
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ be greater than
$\rho_{F}^{\prime}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$, for $\tau<\langle\tau\rangle$, and
that $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})<\rho_{F}^{\prime}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$, for
$\tau>\langle\tau\rangle$. These facts suggest that for systems with a
dynamics similar to the Hénon map, the small term $\beta_{R}$ considered to be
constant in Ref. baptista:2005 is in fact a function that we hypothesize to
be a power-law with respect to $\tau^{\prime}$. That lead us to
$\rho_{F}(\tau^{\prime},{\mathcal{B}})=\left(\beta^{*}+c\left[1-\left(\frac{\tau^{\prime}}{\langle\tau_{e}\rangle}\right)^{\gamma}\right]\right)e^{(-\alpha\tau^{\prime})}$
(5)
where
$\displaystyle\tau^{\prime}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\tau-\tau_{UPO}^{min}+1$ (6)
$\displaystyle\langle\tau_{e}\rangle$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{\tau^{min}_{UPO}}^{\tau_{max}}\rho(\tau^{\prime},{\mathcal{B}})\tau^{\prime}d\tau^{\prime}$
(7)
and $\gamma$ is a positive small value. Notice that the use of $\tau^{\prime}$
and $\langle\tau_{e}\rangle$ is only an artifact to simplify our further
approximations and also to simplify any possible nonlinear fitting that we
might make concerning the real PDF.
The power-law term
$\beta_{R}=c[1-(\frac{\tau^{\prime}}{\langle\tau_{e}\rangle})^{\gamma}]$ shows
that the considered systems for which this distribution holds have a return
time distribution whose decay is not characterized by either a power-law or
exponential decay but by both. It appears as a combined effect of the
finiteness of the box, the expanding factor nearby low-periodic UPOs along the
unstable direction, and the existence of homoclinic tangencies, which gives
the non-uniformly hyperbolic character of the Hénon map and the Chua’s
circuit.
A large value of $\gamma$ (which implies in a large $\beta_{R}$) indicates
that there is a large contribution to the measure inside the box due to UPOs
that are outside the box. Two things contribute for a large value of $\gamma$:
the size and location of the box. The larger the size and the level of non-
hyperbolicity of the box are, the larger the value of $\gamma$ is. We find
larger values of $\gamma$ when we measure PRTs in boxes placed close to
homoclinic tangencies. At such a case, trajectory points that have returned
once to the box after $P$ iterations keep consecutively returning to the box
after $P$ iterations. The trajectory is no longer under the influence of the
linear expanding character of a period-$P$ UPO (along the direction of the
unstable eigenvector) but under the influence of the non-linear character of
the unstable manifold of the UPO located outside the box.
Figure 1: A sketch of the structure of the manifolds and eigenvectors of UPOs
(represented by full circles and the letter O) inside (A) or outside (B) a
finite size box, where the PRTs are being measured. In (A), the box is far
away from homoclinic tangencies, and in (B) the box is in the neighborhood of
a homoclinic tangency (represented by the full square and the letter T).
A sketch of these ideas is depicted in Fig. 1. In (A), we represent a box that
is centered on an UPO (in the figure represented by a full circle and the
letter O). The box is sufficiently large so that the escape of trajectories
from the box which are associated with this UPO happens no longer along the
unstable eigenvector ($E^{u}$) but along the unstable manifold ($W^{u}$). The
smaller is the period of an UPO, the smaller is the eigenvalue of the unstable
eigenvector. So, the escape of the trajectory along the unstable manifold is
usually expected to happen for a low-period UPO. In (B), we represent a box
centered in a homoclinic tangent (in the figure represented by a full square
and the letter T). In the neighborhood of homoclinic tangencies exist low-
period UPOs whose unstable and stable manifold happens to be almost parallel,
forming a trapping region. In these trapping regions, the trajectory returns
to the box along $W^{u}$ and eventually escapes the box, but it may return to
it along the stable manifold $W^{s}$ of the UPO outside the box. For short
returns, these confined trajectories contribute positively to
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$, increasing $\mu({\mathcal{B}})$.
We can classify regions ${\mathcal{B}}$ by the way returns happen inside it:
type I are the regions whose returns are associated with higher-period UPOs,
here conveniently regarded as the hyperbolic ones. type II and III are the
ones associated with lower-period UPOs, here conveniently regarded as the non-
hyperbolic regions. In these regions, the deviation of
$\rho_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ to the exponential is large, meaning a large
$\gamma$. For the type II regions, the unusual returns that happen inside the
interval are associated to UPOs outside it. Such behavior is a consequence of
the existence of homoclinic tangencies baptista:2005 inside the region. For
the type III regions, the unusual returns are associated with lower-period
UPOs inside them. baptista:2005 . When there is an UPO with low period $P$
inside the box, $\rho(\tau=P)$ is no longer exactly equal to $\mu_{NR}$ [given
by Eq. (27)] due to the fact that linearization around this low-period UPO
does not provide the measure due to this UPO inside the box.
## III Estimation of $\alpha$, $\beta^{*}$, $\tau_{UPO}^{min}$, $\omega$, and
$\gamma$
To estimate $\alpha$ and $\beta^{*}$, we make $\gamma$=0 (treating the power-
law term as a perturbation), and place $\rho_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ into
Eqs. (3) and (4). We arrive that
$\displaystyle\beta^{*}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{\rho_{e}^{2}}{\langle\tau_{e}\rangle}$ (8)
$\displaystyle\alpha$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{\rho_{e}}{\langle\tau_{e}\rangle}$ (9)
where
$\rho_{e}({\mathcal{B}})=\int_{\tau_{UPO}^{min}}^{\tau_{max}}\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})d\tau$
and $\langle\tau_{e}\rangle$ defined as in Eq. (7).
As discussed in baptista:2005 , the exponential part of the distribution
reflects the stochastic nature of the returns associated with UPOs inside
${\mathcal{B}}$. It is interesting to know how much the exponential term
$\beta^{*}\exp{[-\alpha\tau^{\prime}]}$ inside $\rho_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$
deviates from the Poisson function
$\frac{\mu}{1-\mu}\exp{[\ln{(1-\mu)\tau^{\prime}}]}$, a function that
describes the probability with which returns happen if one considers
trajectories generated by uncorrelated processes. For that, we calculate
$\tilde{\mu}_{1}$ and $\tilde{\mu}_{2}$ such that
$\frac{\tilde{\mu}_{1}}{1-\tilde{\mu}_{1}}\exp{[\ln{(1-\tilde{\mu}_{2})}\tau^{\prime}]}\cong\beta^{*}\exp{[-\alpha\tau^{\prime}]}$
(10)
We arrive that $\tilde{\mu}_{1}\cong\frac{\beta^{*}}{1+\beta^{*}}$ and
$\tilde{\mu}_{2}\cong\alpha$. The continuous part of
$\rho_{F}(\tau>\tau^{min}_{UPO})$ deviates from the Poisson distribution (for
which $\tilde{\mu}_{1}$=$\tilde{\mu}_{2}$) whenever
$\tilde{\mu}_{1}\neq\tilde{\mu}_{2}$. Such deviation becomes larger, the
larger $|\mu-\alpha|$
($=|\frac{\mu_{e}}{\rho_{e}}-\frac{\rho_{e}}{\langle\tau_{e}\rangle}|$, where
$\mu_{e}({\mathcal{B}})=\mu({\mathcal{B}})\rho_{e}({\mathcal{B}})$). The
larger $|\mu-\alpha|$ is, the larger $\tau_{UPO}^{min}-\tau_{min}$ (notice
that $\mu=\alpha$ when $\tau_{min}=\tau_{UPO}^{min}$, what happens when
$\epsilon\rightarrow 0$) and since $\alpha$ depends on $\tau_{UPO}^{min}$ it
is reasonable to consider that the larger (the smaller)
$\omega=(\tau_{UPO}^{min}-\tau_{min})$ (11)
is, the more correlated and deterministic (uncorrelated and stochastic) the
returns are.
There are three approaches to estimate $\tau_{UPO}^{min}$. One is by just
inspecting when $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ presents a continuous exponential
decay. The other is by fitting $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ considering an
exponential function of the type
${\rho}^{\prime}_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})=\beta^{*}e^{-\alpha\tau}$, and
$\tau_{UPO}^{min}$ is the value for which
$[{\rho}^{\prime}_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})-\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})]$ becomes
smaller than some $N/L$ ($N\in\mathbf{N}$, and $L$ is the number of PRT
observed). The last approach is the one that will be considered in this work
due to its experimental orientation. For that one has just to notice that as
$\tau$ becomes large, $\alpha$ as estimated by Eq. (9) approaches an
asymptotic value close to the value obtained by fitting
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ using the exponential function
${\rho}^{\prime}_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$.
To estimate $\gamma$, we consider that $\tau_{max}-\tau_{UPO}^{min}>>1$, and
use that
$[1-(\frac{\tau^{\prime}}{\langle\tau_{e}\rangle})^{\gamma}]\cong\gamma\ln{(\frac{\langle\tau_{e}\rangle}{\tau^{\prime}})}$,
$\alpha\approx\beta^{*}$, and $c\cong 1$ (so in the limit of
$\epsilon\rightarrow 0$,
$\rho_{F}(\tau^{\prime},{\mathcal{B}})\rightarrow\beta^{*}e^{-\alpha\tau^{\prime}}$).
Then, from Eq. (3) we arrive that
$\gamma\propto\frac{\tau_{min}}{\log{(\langle\tau\rangle)}\langle\tau\rangle^{2}}$
(12)
using that $\max{(\tau^{\prime}_{max})}\cong\tau_{max}>>1$. By making
$\alpha\approx\beta^{*}$, we assume that the deviation of $\rho_{F}$ from the
exponential law ($\alpha e^{-\alpha\tau}$) is exclusively provided by the term
$\beta_{R}$. In other words, the dynamical character of the system is provided
by $\beta_{R}$. Therefore, manifestations of the deterministic behavior are
more evident when $\frac{\tau^{\prime}}{\langle\tau_{e}\rangle}$ is maximal
and that happens for when $\tau^{\prime}=1$, what also means when
$\tau=\tau_{min}$.
To simplify the presentation of our results, we rewrite Eq. (12) as
$\gamma\propto\langle\tau\rangle^{\theta}$ (13)
## IV Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy
Now, we describe how the Kolmogorov-Sinai (KS) entropy can be written in terms
of the PDF. Then, we apply this formalism to a typical physical situation when
UPOs cannot be calculated and information about them is unknown.
Firstly, remind that by the Pesin’s equality eckmann , the KS-entropy equals
the sum of the positive Lyapunov exponents.
For uniformly hyperbolic systems paulo (see Appendix), it is valid to write
that
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})\cong\frac{N_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})}{N(\tau)}$ (14)
where $N_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ and $N(\tau)$ represent the number of non-
recurrent UPOs with period $\tau$ inside ${\mathcal{B}}$ and $N(\tau)$ the
total number of different UPOs of period $\tau$ embedded in the chaotic
attractor. A non-recurrent UPO inside the region ${\mathcal{B}}$ is an UPO
that visits this region only once.
Also, for this class of systems, we can write that
$N(\tau)=C\exp{{}^{\tau\times H_{KS}}}$ (15)
where $H_{KS}$ represents the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy and $C$ is a positive
constant.
Then, placing Eq. (14) in (15), we have that
$H_{KS}=-\frac{C}{\tau}+\frac{1}{\tau}\log{\left[\frac{N_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})}{\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})}\right]}$,
in the limit of $\tau\rightarrow\infty$. Then, for a finite $\tau$ we have
that
$H_{KS}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})\leq\frac{1}{\tau}\log{\left[\frac{N_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})}{\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})}\right]}$
(16)
As shown in Appendix A, it is reasonable to consider in Eq. (16) that
$N_{NR}=1$. Even if there are more than one non-recurrent UPO inside the
region where the returns are being measured, making $N_{NR}=1$ in Eq. (16)
will not largely affect the estimation provided by this equation. So, to
estimate the Lyapunov exponent of experimental systems, as the Chua’s circuit,
we will consider that
$H_{KS}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})\leq\frac{1}{\tau}\log{\left[\frac{1}{\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})}\right]}$
(17)
This equation offers a way to estimate the KS-entropy of a chaotic system
without having to calculate UPOs, a very difficult task.
Equation (16) is valid for uniformly hyperbolic systems of the class for which
local quantities provide good approximations for global quantities (Tent map,
for example). For the other types of uniformly hyperbolic systems and the non-
uniformly hyperbolic systems (as the Logistic map, Hénon map, and Chua’s
circuit), the inequality in Eq. (16) should approximate well the divergence on
initial conditions for trajectories departing from the considered region.
Therefore, to obtain a good estimation of the Lyapunov exponent one should
consider an average of this quantity taken over many regions in phase space as
in
$\langle
H_{KS}(\tau)\rangle\leq\frac{1}{L}\sum_{k=1}^{L}\frac{1}{\tau}\log{\left[\frac{N_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})}{\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}}_{k})}\right]}$
(18)
where we are considering that this average is taken over ${\mathcal{B}}_{k}$
regions in phase space, with $k=1,\ldots,L$.
Similarly, for experimental systems, we use
$\langle
H_{KS}(\tau)\rangle\leq\frac{1}{L}\sum_{k=1}^{L}\frac{1}{\tau}\log{\left[\frac{1}{\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}}_{k})}\right]}$
(19)
Let us now compare our result in Eq. (16) with a rigorous result saussol1
valid for a chaotic uniformly hyperbolic map (piecewise monotone maps of an
interval with a finite number of branches and with bounded derivative of
$p$-bounded variation with an invariant measures with positive entropy) that
presents one positive Lyapunov exponent. For $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, we have
that $\epsilon\approxeq\mu({\mathcal{B}})$. From Kac’s lemma we have that
$\frac{1}{\langle\tau\rangle}=\mu({\mathcal{B}})$ and then
$\epsilon\approxeq\frac{1}{\langle\tau\rangle}$. Also, for a sufficiently
small interval, $\rho(\tau_{min},{\mathcal{B}})\approxeq\mu({\mathcal{B}})$
(assuming that $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ is well described by an exponential
distribution), then Eq. (17) can be rewritten as
$\lambda\cong\frac{-\ln{(\epsilon)}}{\tau_{min}}$, which agrees with the
result derived in Ref. saussol1 that
$\lambda=\frac{-\ln{(\epsilon)}}{\tau_{min}}$, for
$\tau_{min}\rightarrow\infty$.
## V Correlation function for short-term returns
The distribution $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ can be used to calculate the
correlation function, a quantity that measures how fast a system looses
information about the past as it evolves. Calling $\phi(x)$ to be some
observable measured at the position $x$, the correlation between the
observable $\phi$ at a time $T$ [i.e., $\phi(F^{T}(x))$] with the initial
observation $\phi(x)$ is given by stocastic
$\displaystyle C(\phi,T)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int\phi(x)\phi(F^{T}(x))d\mu$ (20) $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\int\phi(x)d\mu.\int\phi(F^{T}(x))d\mu$
where $d\mu$ stands as usually to $\sigma(x)dx$ and $\sigma(x)$ represents the
invariant density from which the invariant measure $\mu({\mathcal{B}})$ can be
calculated by $\mu({\mathcal{B}})=\int_{x\in\mathcal{B}}\sigma(x)dx$
In this work, we are mainly interested in understanding the behavior of the
PRTs to regions ${\mathcal{B}}$. So, instead of averaging the correlation of
trajectories over the whole space $x$, we calculate the correlation of
trajectories in ${\mathcal{B}}$. Employing similar ideas to the ones in Refs.
correlation1 ; correlation2 ; paulo , and writing the observable to be
$\mu({\mathcal{B}})$, we have that
$C(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})=\mu[{\mathcal{B}}\cap
F^{-\tau}({\mathcal{B}})]-\mu[{\mathcal{B}}]\mu[F^{-\tau}({\mathcal{B}})]$
(21)
where $C(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ measures the correlation between trajectories
that visit the region ${\mathcal{B}}$ and that return to it after $\tau$
iterations. This function is also known as the speed of mixing.
For an invariant measure, we have that
$\mu[{\mathcal{B}}]=\mu[F^{-\tau}({\mathcal{B}})]$, and thus,
$C(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})=\mu[{\mathcal{B}}\cap
F^{-\tau}({\mathcal{B}})]-\mu[{\mathcal{B}}]^{2}.$ (22)
The quantity $\mu[{\mathcal{B}}\cap F^{-\tau}({\mathcal{B}})]$ represents the
probability measure of having trajectory points leaving ${\mathcal{B}}$ and
returning to it after a series of returns $\tau_{i}$, with $i=1,\ldots,l$ such
that $\sum_{i}^{l}\tau_{i}=\tau$ and $\tau_{i}\leq\tau$. We can write the set
$[{\mathcal{B}}\cap F^{-\tau}({\mathcal{B}})]$ as a union of two sets
$S^{\prime}\cup S^{*}$ with $S^{\prime}\cap S^{*}=\emptyset$, where
$S^{\prime}$ as defined in Eq. (29) and $S^{*}$ defined as the set of points
that are mapped to ${\mathcal{B}}$ after $\tau$ iterations but with the
additional fact that for each $x^{*}\in S^{*}$ it exists $\tau^{*}<\tau$ for
which $F^{\tau^{*}}(x^{*})\in{\mathcal{B}}$. In other words, $S^{*}$
represents the set of points that are mapped back to ${\mathcal{B}}$ after
$\tau$ iterations, excluding all the points that firstly return to
${\mathcal{B}}$ after $\tau$ iterations.
If $\tau<2\tau_{min}$, then, $\mu[{\mathcal{B}}\cap
F^{\tau}({\mathcal{B}})]=\mu(S^{\prime})$. Using Eqs. (28) and (29), we arrive
to that $\mu[{\mathcal{B}}\cap
F^{\tau}({\mathcal{B}})]=\mu({\mathcal{B}})\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$, since
there cannot be trajectory points that return more than once within this time
interval.
Then, for $\tau<2\tau_{min}$
$C(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})=\mu({\mathcal{B}})\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})-\mu[{\mathcal{B}}]^{2}$
(23)
For $\tau>2\tau_{min}$, we can always write that
$C(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})\leq\mu({\mathcal{B}})\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})-\mu[{\mathcal{B}}]^{2},$
(24)
since $\mu[{\mathcal{B}}\cap F^{\tau}({\mathcal{B}})]$ =
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})\mu({\mathcal{B}})+\mu[S^{*}]$, Notice that as $\tau$
grows, $\mu[S^{*}]\rightarrow\mu_{R}$ in Eq. (26).
Therefore, if the density of the returns has an exponential decay with respect
to time, so will the correlation behave, a statement that was rigorously
proved for some classes of systems and observables in Ref. young . The
advantage of the approach proposed here is the simplicity with which we can
understand such a rigorous result.
From Eqs. (23) and (24) we can clearly see that the larger
$(\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})-\mu[{\mathcal{B}}])$ is, the slower the decay of
the correlation function. That is exactly the case for type II and III non-
hyperbolic regions, for $\tau<2\tau_{min}$, when the distribution
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ receives a large contribution of the power-law term
$\beta_{R}$. For the type I hyperbolic regions, $C(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ decays
much faster to 0, since $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})\approx\mu({\mathcal{B}})$.
And typically, the bigger $\omega$ in Eq. (11) is, the bigger
$(\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})-\mu[{\mathcal{B}}])$. That is so because the
smaller $\tau_{min}$ is, the larger $\rho(\tau_{min},{\mathcal{B}})$.
In Ref. paulo , a similar derivation of the correlation function was proposed,
but considering the correlation between trajectories departing from
$S^{\prime}$ and arriving to ${\mathcal{B}}$. In other words, the correlation
between trajectories that produce first returns and that return only once to
${\mathcal{B}}$. In Eqs. (23) and (24), one can estimate the correlation
between all trajectories departing from ${\mathcal{B}}$ and arriving in
${\mathcal{B}}$ including also trajectories that return more than once.
## VI Determinism and stochasticism in the Hénon map and the experimental
Chua’s circuit
Figure 2: [Color online] Results from the experimental Chua’s circuit. (A)
Probability measure with which $X_{n}$ visits intervals of length
$\epsilon=0.005V$. The arrows (from left to right) indicate the intervals
$\mathcal{B}_{1}$, $\mathcal{B}_{3}$, and $\mathcal{B}_{2}$, respectively. (B)
First returning map $X_{n}\times X_{n+1}$ in full gray squares, pre-images of
trajectory points located at the maximum of the returning map in stars, and
the UPOs of up to period 6 in pluses.
Figure 3: [Color online] (A) and (B) are results for the Hénon attractor and
(C) and (D) results for the experimental Chua’s circuit. Estimation of the
parameter $\alpha$ and $\tau^{min}_{UPO}$ for the Hénon attractor (A) and for
the Chua’s circuit (C). In (B) and (D), we show $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$,
the fitting of $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ by a function of the type
$\rho_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ [Eq. (5)], and the fitting of
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ by an exponential function of the type
$\rho_{F}^{\prime}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ [Eq. (1)]. The fittings are made by
considering the transformed time $\tau^{\prime}$ [Eq. (6)] but, in these
figures, we re-transform the time back to $\tau$ in order to plot the fittings
together with the distribution $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$.
The Hénon’s map is given by $x_{n+1}=a-x_{n}^{2}+by_{n}$, and $y_{n+1}=x_{n}$,
with $a=1.4$ and b=$0.3$, and the considered experimental Chua’s circuit can
be seen in Ref. maranhao_PRE2008 . We focus our analyzes in three regions
$\mathcal{B}_{1}$ (type I), $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ (type II), and $\mathcal{B}_{3}$
(type III).
For the Hénon attractor, the regions ${\mathcal{B}}$ are boxes of equal sides
$2\epsilon$. The region $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ represents a box centered at
$(x,y)=(1.11807,0.14719)$, $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ a box centered at the primary
homoclinic tangent $(x,y)=(1.780098,0.09495)$, and $\mathcal{B}_{3}$ a box
centered at a period-2 UPO $(x,y)=(1.36612008,-0.666120078)$.
Figure 4: The fittings of $\gamma$ (vertical axis) versus $\langle\tau\rangle$
in a log-log graph, for the distributions $\rho_{F}$ of Hénon map in (A-C)
(left column) and for the experimental Chua’s circuit in (D-F) (right column),
in the form $\gamma\propto\langle\tau\rangle^{\theta}$ [see Eq. (13)]. The
value of the power $\theta$ is shown inside the figures. Experimentally, the
value of $\langle\tau\rangle$ is over-estimated, which leads to a smaller
$\theta$ exponent.
For the Chua’s circuit, we reconstruct the attractor using the same techniques
of Ref. maranhao_PRE2008 and make the trajectory discrete, producing a
discrete time series represented by $X_{n}$, which represents the voltage in
the capacitor $C_{1}$, whenever the voltage in the capacitor $C_{2}$ reaches
zero. The attractor is of the Rössler-type. In Fig. 2(A) we show the invariant
measure of $X_{n}$ and in 2(B), the first returning map $X_{n}\times X_{n+1}$,
by the gray full squares. The (blue) stars represent trajectory points located
at the maximum of the return map and its pre-images. Every pre-image is
located at a $X_{n}$ point for which the probability density is large in (A),
what typically happens for non-uniformly hyperbolic systems. The plus symbol
indicates the place of the lower-period UPOs (up to period 6). In this
circuit, ${\mathcal{B}}$ represents intervals of size $\epsilon$.
$\mathcal{B}_{1}$ represents the interval centered at $X_{n}=-0.64$,
$\mathcal{B}_{2}$ the interval centered at $X_{n}=0.05$, and $\mathcal{B}_{3}$
the interval centered at the position of a period-2 UPO $X_{n}=-0.586637$.
These points where the intervals are positioned are indicated by the arrows in
Fig. 2(A).
We now make a detailed analysis of the PRTs to the box $\mathcal{B}_{2}$, for
the Hénon map [in Figs. 3(A-B)], and the PRTs to the interval
$\mathcal{B}_{2}$, for the Chua’s circuit [in Figs. 3(C-D)]. In (A) and (C),
we estimate the value of $\alpha$ as we consider different values for
$\tau^{min}_{UPO}$, in Eq. (9). We consider the smallest value of
$\tau^{min}_{UPO}$ for which the value of $\alpha$ ”converges”. The arrow
indicates these values. For the Hénon attractor, $\tau^{min}_{UPO}=28$ and for
the Chua’s circuit, $\tau^{min}_{UPO}=13$. In (B) and (D), we show
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$, $\rho_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$, and a fitting of
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ by an exponential function of the type of
${\rho}^{\prime}_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ [Eq. (1)]. For the Hénon attractor
(B), using the distribution $\rho_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ in the integral of
Eq. (3) produces the value 0.994826 while using
$\rho_{F}^{\prime}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ produces 0.987701. For the Chua’s
circuit (D), using the distribution $\rho_{F}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ in the
integral of Eq. (3) produces the value 0.78 while using
$\rho_{F}^{\prime}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ produces 0.68. Reminding that the
integrals in Eq. (3) should provide 1, it is clear that the proposed
distribution in Eq. (5) fits better $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$.
In Fig. 4, we show the relation between $\gamma$ and $\langle\tau\rangle$ for
$\mathcal{B}_{1}$, $\mathcal{B}_{2}$, and $\mathcal{B}_{3}$, in the Hénon
attractor [first column, (A-C)] and in the Chua’s circuit [second column,
(D-F)]. We have numerically obtained that for the Hénon map,
$\gamma\propto\langle\tau\rangle^{\theta}$ with $\theta\cong-0.6$ [excluding
the region ${\mathcal{B}}_{3}$, whose results are shown in (C)], and for the
Chua’s circuit $\gamma\propto\langle\tau\rangle^{\theta}$ with $\theta<-0.9$.
Remind that the larger is $|\theta|$, the smaller $\beta_{R}$.
For type II non-hyperbolic regions, as $\epsilon$ is decreased, typically we
expect that the unstable manifold of the UPO outside the region will still
belong to the region, which leads to a small $|\theta|$ value.
Table 1: Estimation of the Lyapunov exponent. For the Hénon map, we typically find that the UPO with the smallest period has a period larger than the observed $\tau_{min}$, a consequence of the non-hyperbolic character of this map [see Fig. 6(B) and 6(D)]. Thus, for calculating the Lyapunov exponent, we consider in Eq. (16) $\tau=P_{min}$, where $P_{min}$ is the lowest period of all UPOs inside ${\mathcal{B}}$. For all regions studied in this map, the number of non-recurrent UPOs is within the interval $N_{NR}=[1,2]$ as expected. For the experimental Chua’s circuit, we calculate the Lyapunov exponent considering in Eq. (17) $\tau$ equal to the first Poincaré return for which the PDF presents its third maximum. We also assume that $N_{NR}=1$. The positive Lyapunov exponent of the Hénon attractor is also calculated using the technique in Ref. eckmann and the largest Lyapunov exponent of the Chua’s circuit is also calculated using the technique in Ref. sano , with the code of the Tisean package tisean . We obtain that the positive Lyapunov exponent of the Hénon map is 0.419/iteration and the one for the Chua’s circuit is 0.52/cycle. The value of $\tau$ used is the number between parentheses. $\epsilon$ \- Hénon | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.005 | 0.001 | 0.0008
---|---|---|---|---|---
${\mathcal{B}}_{1}$ | 0.32(21) | 0.40(23) | 0.40(23) | 0.39(23) | 0.39(23)
${\mathcal{B}}_{2}$ | 0.61(18) | 0.33(18) | 0.36(18) | 0.40(22) | 0.29(29)
$\epsilon$ \- Chua | 0.1700 | 0.1450 | 0.1200 | 0.0950 | 0.0700
${\mathcal{B}}_{1}$ | 0.43(7) | 0.42(7) | 0.42(7) | 0.42(7) | 0.46(9)
${\mathcal{B}}_{2}$ | 0.58(5) | 0.39(7) | 0.58(5) | 0.25(13) | 0.27(13)
Table 1 shows estimates for the positive Lyapunov exponent using the right-
hand side of Eq. (16) for the Hénon map and Eq. (17) for the Chua’s circuit.
${\mathcal{B}_{1}}$ represents a hyperbolic type I region and
${\mathcal{B}_{2}}$ a non-hyperbolic type III region, with different sizes
$\epsilon$. For the Hénon attractor, a numerical calculation of this exponent
provides $\lambda$=0.419 eckmann , and for the experimental Chua’s circuit,
$\lambda$=0.52/cycle sano ; tisean . The unit of the Lyapunov exponent for
this circuit is in [1/cycles]. That is due to the fact that for the
calculation of this exponent we have used the discrete time series $X_{n}$,
which represents the voltage in capacitor $C_{1}$ whenever the voltage of
capacitor $C_{2}$ is zero.
In both systems, the Lyapunov exponents estimated from Eqs. (16) [for the
Hénon map] and (17) [for the Chua’s circuit] using returns measured in the
non-hyperbolic regions ${\mathcal{B}}_{2}$ produce worse estimates than the
ones measured in the hyperbolic regions ${\mathcal{B}}_{1}$. That is to be
expected since our estimations are valid for uniformly hyperbolic systems. For
both systems and all regions, the estimation of the Lyapunov exponents produce
better results as the size of the regions decrease and $\tau_{min}$ becomes
large. That is also to be expected since as the size of the box decreases the
chance that a region has a hyperbolic character increases.
Since both the Hénon map and the Chua’s circuit are non-uniformly hyperbolic
systems, in order to obtain better estimates for the Lyapunov exponents we
need to calculate an average value considering many regions in phase space.
To firstly illustrate how an average value provides a better estimation for
the real value of the Lyapunov exponent, we average all the values shown in
Table 1. For the Hénon map, we obtain that $\lambda=0.39$ (the real Lyapunov
exponent is 0.419) and for the Chua’s circuit we obtain that $\lambda=0.42$
(the real value is 0.52).
Then, we calculate $\langle H_{KS}\rangle$ for the Hénon map, using Eq. (18)
and considering $L=$500 regions with $\epsilon$=0.005 and $\tau=P_{min}$,
where $P_{min}$ is the lowest period of all UPOs inside each region. We obtain
that $\langle H_{KS}\rangle=0.464$ (compare with the real value 0.419). These
$L=$500 regions are centered in points of a 500 long trajectory. Using Eq.
(19) for the same previous conditions, we obtain $\langle
H_{KS}\rangle=0.441$. For the Chua’s circuit, we calculate $\langle
H_{KS}\rangle$ using Eq. (19) considering $L=$25 regions ${\mathcal{B}}$ with
$\epsilon$=0.067 and $\tau$ equal to the second largest first Poincaré return.
We obtain that $\langle H_{KS}\rangle=0.42\pm 0.1$ (compare with the real
value 0.52).
In Fig. 5, we show the decay of the correlation function with respect to
$\tau$. Notice that this function is local and reflects the decay of
correlation of PRTs to a particular interval. As expected, the correlation
function decays faster in the type I hyperbolic regions [(A) and (C)] than in
the type II non-hyperbolic regions. In addition, in general, the larger
$\epsilon$ is, the larger the value of the correlation function, a consequence
of the fact that the larger $\epsilon$ is, the larger both $\theta$ and
$\omega$ are.
Figure 5: Correlation function with respect to $\tau$ for the Hénon map (A-B)
and the experimental Chua’s circuit (C-D). In (A) and (C), we consider the
type I hyperbolic regions ${\mathcal{B}}_{1}$, and in (B) and (D), we consider
the type II non-hyperbolic regions ${\mathcal{B}}_{2}$.
## VII Conclusions
We have studied the Poincaré recurrence time (PRT) of chaotic systems, a
quantity that measures the time interval between two consecutive visits of a
trajectory to a finite size region in phase space. The motivation in studying
PRT is that for some systems the only possible measure one can make is the
time interval between two events. But one still wants to understand what kind
of dynamics is behind the generation of these returns.
If the region in phase space has an arbitrarily small size, for systems that
have strong mixing characteristics, a long return time contains no longer
information about the future returns, which means that the consecutive series
of returns lose their correlation and they behave as if they had been
generated by a completely random process. At such a situation, the probability
distribution of the PRTs approaches a Poisson distribution collet ; hirata
and few can be said about the dynamical manifestations of the data by only
considering the form of this distribution.
Our approach is mainly devoted to characterize a chaotic system (obtaining
relevant invariant quantities) considering regions with finite size and short
return times. We show how to calculate the short-term correlation function
[see Eq. (23)] and the Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy [see Eqs. (17) and (19)],
using the distribution of PRTs, a quantity that can be easily accessible in
experiments.
As the region in phase space where the returns are being measured becomes
larger, the first Poincaré returns reflect more the deterministic nature of
the system. That leads to a large deviation of the density of the returns from
the Poisson [see Eq. (5)] and a slower decay of correlations for short-term
returns [see Eq. (23) and Fig. 5].
These characteristics can be advantageously used to characterize the level of
determinism in chaotic systems. More specifically, the larger $\theta$ is in
Eq. (11), the more deterministic is the considered chaotic system under the
point of view of the PRTs. Another quantity is
$\omega=\tau^{min}_{UPO}-\tau_{min}$, where $\tau^{min}_{UPO}$ is the return
value for which the probability distribution of the PRTs presents a continuous
decay with the increasing of the return time, and $\tau_{min}$ is the return
with the minimal length. The larger $\omega$ is, the larger is the time span
within which discontinuities are observed in the distribution of returns. Each
discontinuity identifies particular returns, which makes them to be highly
predictable. As shown in Sec. V, these previous intuitive ideas are indeed
correct, i.e., larger $\theta$ and $\omega$ result in a slower decay of
correlations.
The strategy of using a value of $\tau$ that is larger than $\tau_{min}$ in
Eqs. (18) and (19) is due to the fact that in non-hyperbolic systems as the
Hénon map and the experimental Chua’s circuit the density of the PRTs for
$\tau=\tau_{min}$, i.e. $\rho(\tau_{min},{\mathcal{B}})$, receives a
contribution coming from UPOs outside of ${\mathcal{B}}$, which violates the
conditions under which these equations are derived. When the UPOs are known as
it is the case for the Hénon map, we use $\tau=P_{min}$, in Eqs. (18) and
(19), where $P_{min}$ represents the period of the UPO inside ${\mathcal{B}}$
with the lowest period. When the UPOs are unknown as it is the case for the
experimental Chua’s circuit, we use $\tau>\tau_{min}$.
Our approach can be straightforward applied to the treatment of data coming
from complex systems, and the reason lies on the formulas that we have used.
As one can check the 3 most relevant formulas used in our work [Eqs. (11),
(19), and (23)] depend only on the probability of the Poincaré return times to
finite size intervals with short time-length, a quantity that can be easily
and quickly accessible from measurements and that, in principle, does not
require the existence of chaos.
For some technological applications as in the control of chaos OGY , one does
not need to know with high precision the position of an UPO, but rather its
unstable eigenvalue. Equation (32) offers a trivial way to calculate this
quantity by measuring the probability with which the fastest first Poincaré
return to a sufficiently small interval happens. Naturally, this equations
also offers a simple way to obtain estimations for the local first derivative
of a system, a quantity often needed to make local models of complex systems.
If the system is higher-dimensional then $L_{min}$ in Eq. (32) should refer to
the product of all the unstable eigenvalues of a single non-recurrent UPO
appearing in the region, as explained in Ref. celso .
Acknowledgments: MSB would like to thank the wonderful discussions with
Benoit Saussol, Miguel Mendes, and Tomas Persson, during the International
conference in honor of Yakov Pesin on his 60th birthday (25-29 June, 2007),
concerning the Poincaré return time to regions of finite size, discussions
which partially influenced the many ideas presented in this work, and also
discussions with M. Todd about recent mathematical proofs concerning the
exponential statistics of the PRTs. MSB was also partially supported by the
Centro de Matemática da Universidade do Porto, financed by FCT through the
programmes POCTI and POSI, with Portuguese and European Community structural
funds. JCS and DMM acknowledge the financial support of CNPq and FAPESP.
## References
* (1) M. Viana, Stochastic dynamics of deterministic systems, Brazillian Math. Colloquium IMPA, 1997; A. Lacosta, M. C. Mackey, Chaos, Fractals, and noise, Springer, 1994.
* (2) K. T. Alligood, T. D. Sauer, J. A. Yorke, Chaos, an introduction to dynamical systems, Springer, 1997; H. Kantz and T. Schreiber, Nonlinear time series analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997.
* (3) C. Komalapriya, M. Thiel, M. C. Romano, et al., Reconstruction of a system’s dynamics from short trajectories, Phys. Rev. E, 78 (2008) 066217 (2008).
* (4) G. Nicolis and C. Rouvas-Nicolis, in Encyclopedia of Nonlinear Sciences, Routledge, New York, 2005.
* (5) H. Poincaré, Sur le probléme des trois corps et les équations de la dynamique, Acta Matematica, 13 (1890), 1-270.
* (6) P. R. F. Pinto, M. S. Baptista, I. Labouriau, First Poincaré return, natural measure, UPO and Kolmogorov-sinai Entropy, arXiv:0908.4575.
* (7) M. S. Baptista, I. L. Caldas, M. V. A. P. Heller, and A. A. Ferreira Recurrence in plasma edge turbulence, Phys. Plasmas, 8 (2001), 4455-4462; M. S. Baptista and I. L. Caldas, Stock Market Dynamics, Physica A, 312 (2002) 539-564.
* (8) P. Grassberger and I. Procaccia, Estimation of the Kolmogorov entropy from a chaotic signal Phys. Rev. A 28, (1983), 2591-2593.
* (9) A. Cohen and I. Procaccia, Computing the Kolmogorov entropy from time signals of dissipative and conservative dynamical systems, Phys. Rev. A, 31 (1985) 1872-1882.
* (10) R. Artuso, Correlation decay and return time statistics, Physica D, 131 (1999), 68-77.
* (11) L.-S. Young, Recurrence times and rates of mixing, Israel Journal of Mathematics, 110, (1999), 153-188.
* (12) Eduardo G. Altmann, Elton C. da Silva, and Iberê L. Caldas, Recurrence time statistics for finite size intervals, Chaos, 14 (2004), 975-981.
* (13) M. S. Baptista, S. Kraut, C. Grebogi, Poincaré recurrence and measure of hyperbolic and nonhyperbolic chaotic attractors, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, (2005) 094101.
* (14) The Poincaré return time (PRT) is the number of iterations needed to make a trajectory leaving from a point in the attractor inside a region to return to it. A typical trajectory generates a series of returns $\tau_{1}$, $\tau_{2},\ldots$, $\tau_{L}$.
* (15) B. Saussol, On fluctuations and the exponential statistics of return times Nonlinearity, 14 (2001), 179-191; M. Hirata, B. Saussol, and S. Vaienti, Statistics of return times: a general framework and new applications, Comm. Math. Phys. 206, (1999), 33-55.
* (16) J.-P. Eckmann and D. Ruelle, Ergodic theory of chaos and strange attractors, Rev. Mod. Phys. 57 (1985) 617-656.
* (17) B. Saussol, Recurrence rate in rapidly mixing dynamical systems, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems A, 15 (2006), 259-267.
* (18) B. V. Chirikov, D. L. Shepelyansky, Correlation properties of dynamical chaos in Hamiltonian systems, Ninth International Conference of Nonlinear Oscillations, Kiev 1981, Naukova Dumka, Kiev, 1984, vol. II; B. V. Chirikov, D. L. Shepelyansky, Correlation properties of dynamical chaos in Hamiltonian systems, Physics D, 13, (1984) 395-400l; C. F. F. Karney, Long-time correlations in the stochastic regime, Physica D, 8 (1983) 360-380.
* (19) D. M. Maranhão, M. S. Baptista, J. C. Sartorelli, I. L. Caldas, Experimental observation of a complex periodic window, Phys. Rev. E., 77 (2008) 037202.
* (20) M. Sano and Y. Sawada, Measurement of the Lyapunov spectrum from a chaotic time series Phys. Rev. Lett., 55 (1985) 1082-1085.
* (21) R. Hegger, H. Kantz, and T. Schreiber, Practical implementation of nonlinear time series methods: the TISEAN package, Chaos, 9 (1999) 413.
* (22) P. Collet, Some ergodic properties of maps of the interval, Lectures given at the CIMPA summer school, Dynamical Systems and Frustrated Systems, Hermann, Paris, 1996.
* (23) E. Ott, C. Grebogi, and J. A. Yorke, Controlling chaos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, (1990) 1196-1199.
* (24) C. Grebogi, E. Ott, J. A. Yorke, Unstable periodic orbits and the dimensions of multifractal chaotic attractors, Phys. Rev. A, 37, (1988) 1711-1724.
* (25) Y.-C. Lai, Y. Nagai, and C. Grebogi, Characterization of the Natural Measure by Unstable Periodic Orbits in Chaotic Attractors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 649 (1997).
* (26) L. Perko, Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991).
## Appendix A The density of returns $\rho$ and the non-recurrent UPOs
In Ref. celso it is derived a formula that relates the probability measure of
a D-dimensional box ${\mathcal{B}}$ with the unstable eigenvalues of the UPOs
inside it. More specifically,
$\mu({\mathcal{B}})=\lim_{P\rightarrow\infty}\left[\sum_{j}L_{j}(P)^{-1}\right]$
(25)
where $L_{j}(P)=L_{1}j(P)L_{2}j(P)\ldots L_{U}j(P)$, and $L_{u}j(P)$
($u=1,\ldots,U$) represent the $U$ positive eigenvalues (larger than 1) of the
$j$ fixed point located in ${\mathcal{B}}$ of the $P$-fold iterate of the map
represented by $F^{P}$ (i.e., the fixed points are period-P UPOs that belongs
to ${\mathcal{B}}$), where $P$ tends to infinity. In a general situation,
there are $U$ positive eigenvalues and the box is $D$-dimensional. In the
following, we consider $D$=2, and U=1 (there is only one positive Lyapunov
exponent).
Equation (25) was demonstrated to hold for mixing hyperbolic (axiom A)
attractors and was shown numerically to hold for the non-hyperbolic Hénon
attractor in Refs. lai ; baptista:2005 , for UPOs of moderately large period
$P\cong 30$.
As done in Ref. paulo , we rewrite the right-hand side of Eq. (25) as a sum of
two terms, without taking the limit of $P\rightarrow\infty$ but for a finite
$P$:
$\sum_{j}L_{j}(P)^{-1}=\mu_{R}+\mu_{NR}$ (26)
where $\mu_{R}=\sum_{j}[L^{R}_{j}(P)]^{-1}$ and
$\mu_{NR}=\sum_{j}[L^{NR}_{j}(P)]^{-1},$ (27)
where $L^{R}_{j}(P)$ are the unstable eigenvalues of the so called recurrent
UPOs that return to ${\mathcal{B}}$ more than once before completing their
cycles, and $L^{NR}_{j}(P)$ are the unstable eigenvalues of the so called non-
recurrent UPOs that return to ${\mathcal{B}}$ only once. So, while $\mu_{NR}$
measures the contribution to the measure due to chaotic trajectories
associated with non-recurrent UPOs, $\mu_{R}$ measures the contribution to the
measure due to chaotic trajectories associated with recurrent UPOs.
As shown in Ref. paulo , there is a clever way to relate the density
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ with the measure of the attractor associated with
UPOs inside ${\mathcal{B}}$ by
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})=\mu_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ (28)
The term $\mu_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ can be represented in terms of space
averages by
$\mu_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})=\frac{\mu(S^{\prime})}{\mu({\mathcal{B}})}$ (29)
where $\mu(S^{\prime})$ represents the measure of the set $S^{\prime}$ (the
part of the measure inside ${\mathcal{B}}$ due to the set $S^{\prime}$) and
$S^{\prime}$ represents the set of points of the attractor that returns
firstly to ${\mathcal{B}}$ after $\tau$ iterations. More rigorously,
representing by $F$ the transformation that generates a chaotic set $A$ and
given a subset ${\mathcal{B}}\subset A$, then $S^{\prime}\in A$ and
$S^{\prime}=F^{-\tau}({\mathcal{B}})\cap{\mathcal{B}}$ such that there is not
$\tau^{*}<\tau$ for which
$F^{\tau^{*}}({\mathcal{B}})\cap{\mathcal{B}}\neq\emptyset$.
But the right-hand side of Eq. (29) can be estimated by
$\frac{N_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})}{N(\tau)}$, and therefore,
$\mu_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})=\frac{N_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})}{N(\tau)},$
(30)
where $N_{NR}(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$ and $N(\tau)$ represent the number of non-
recurrent UPOs with period $\tau$ inside ${\mathcal{B}}$ and $N(\tau)$ the
total number of different UPOs of period $\tau$ embedded in the chaotic
attractor.
Now, using Eq. (27), it is clear that
$\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})\geq L_{min}(\tau)^{-1},$ (31)
where $L_{min}$ represents the unstable eigenvalue with the lowest amplitude
within all UPOs with period $\tau$.
Figure 6: By empty circles we show $1/L_{min}(\tau)$ and (red) crosses the
value of $\rho(\tau,{\mathcal{B}})$, for the Hénon attractor for different
regions. $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ [in (A)], $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ [in (B)], and
$\mathcal{B}_{3}$ [in (C)], and also for a region centered at a period-8 UPO
[in (D)]. $\epsilon=0.02$ in all figures. The arrow points to the value of
$\tau_{min}$.
In Fig. 6, we show the values of $L_{min}(\tau)^{-1}$ and the density of
returns $\rho$ in the Hénon attractor, for the regions $\mathcal{B}_{1}$ [in
(A)], $\mathcal{B}_{2}$ [in (B)], $\mathcal{B}_{3}$ [in (C)], and also for a
region centered at a period-8 UPO [in (D)] at the position $(x,y)$=(1.496703,
-0.545333), denoted by ${\mathcal{B}}_{4}$.
We see that for $\tau\approxeq\tau_{min}$, inequality in Eq. (31) is close to
an equality and we can write that
$\rho(\tau_{min},{\mathcal{B}})\approxeq L_{min}(\tau_{min})^{-1}.$ (32)
The reason is that for such a case, there is only a few (a number of the order
of 1) non-recurrent UPOs with period $\tau_{min}$. It is easy to understand
that by using the following argument. Imagine a sufficiently small region
centered around an UPO with period $P=1$. Clearly $\tau_{min}=1$ and there
will be only one non-recurrent UPO with period $P$=1. Now, consider a region
around an UPO with period $P$=2. Similarly, $\tau_{min}=2$ and there will be
only one UPO with period $2$. Typically, for sufficiently small regions, there
will be only one non-recurrent UPO inside the regions if
$P\approxeq\tau_{min}$.
Provided that the UPO is hyperbolic, the uniqueness of the UPO in the small
region is garanteed by the Hartman-Grobman Theorem hartman and the size of
the region in which the uniqueness of the UPO can be garanteed is related to
the strength of the hyperbolicity of the UPO.
To illustrate that, we consider the Logistic map $[x_{n+1}=bx_{n}(1-x_{n})]$,
whose bifurcation diagram is shown in Fig. 7(A), constructed considering 100
parameter values $b$ within the parameter range $[3.6,3.99]$. In Fig. 7(B), we
show the number of non-recurrent UPOs, denoted by $N_{NR}$, for UPOs with
period $P=\tau_{min}$ and intervals with size $\epsilon=0.001$, randomly
selected such that $\tau_{min}\in[10,14]$. For the large majority of
intervals, $N_{NR}=1$. Finally, in 7(C), we show the values of $\langle
H_{KS}\rangle$ calculated from Eq. (19) for this parameter range. Notice that
despite the choice of $N_{NR}=1$, the value of $\langle H_{KS}\rangle$ is a
good estimation for the positive Lyapunov exponent of this map, indicated in
this figure by $\lambda$.
Figure 7: [Color online] Results for the Logistic map:
$x_{n+1}=bx_{n}(1-x_{n})$. (A) Bifurcation diagram of the Logistic map (green
points). Empty squares represent intervals of size $\epsilon=0.001$ randomly
selected such that $\tau_{min}\in[10,14]$. We consider 100 parameter values
within the range $[3.6,3.99]$ and for each parameter we consider one interval.
(B) the number $N_{NR}$ of non-recurrent UPOs with period $P=\tau_{min}$
inside each one of the 100 intervals. (C) The value of the Lyapunov exponent
(black tick line), denoted by $\lambda$, and $\langle H_{KS}\rangle$ (red
pluses) calculated from Eq. (19).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-23T08:45:42 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.916938 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Murilo S. Baptista, Dariel M. Maranhao, Jose C. Sartorelli",
"submitter": "Murilo Baptista S.",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3596"
} |
0805.3617 | # Spin filtering by a periodic nanospintronic device
Amnon Aharony Also at Tel Aviv University. Department of Physics and the
Ilse Katz Center for Meso- and Nano-Scale Science and Technology, Ben Gurion
University, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel Ora Entin-Wohlman Also at Tel Aviv
University. Department of Physics and the Ilse Katz Center for Meso- and
Nano-Scale Science and Technology, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva 84105,
ISRAEL Yasuhiro Tokura NTT Basic Research Laboratories, NTT Corporation,
Atsugi-shi, Kanagawa 243-0198, Japan Shingo Katsumoto Institute of Solid
State Physics, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8581, Japan
###### Abstract
For a linear chain of diamond-like elements, we show that the Rashba spin-
orbit interaction (which can be tuned by a perpendicular gate voltage) and the
Aharonov-Bohm flux (due to a perpendicular magnetic field) can combine to
select only one propagating ballistic mode, for which the electronic spins are
fully polarized along a direction that can be controlled by the electric and
magnetic fields and by the electron energy. All the other modes are
evanescent. For a wide range of parameters, this chain can serve as a spin
filter.
###### pacs:
71.70.Ej, 72.25.-b, 73.23.Ad
## I Introduction
In addition to their charge, electrons also carry a spin, which is the quantum
relativistic source for the electron’s intrinsic magnetic moment. Future
device technology and quantum information processing may be based on
spintronics, 1 where one manipulates the electron’s spin (and not only its
charge). One major aim of spintronics is to build mesoscopic spin valves (or
spin filters), which generate a tunable spin-polarized current out of
unpolarized sources. Much recent research aims to achieve this goal by using
narrow-gap semiconductor heterostructures, where the spins are subject to the
Rashba 3 spin-orbit interaction (SOI): in a two-dimensional electron gas
confined by an asymmetric potential well, the strength of this SOI can be
varied by an electric field perpendicular to the plane in which the electrons
move. koga An early proposal of a spin field-effect transistor 2 used the
Rashba SOI to control the spin precession of electrons moving in quasi-one-
dimensional wires. Placed between two ferromagnets, the transport of polarized
electrons through such a semiconductor could be regulated by the electric
field. However, such devices are difficult to make, due to the metal-
semiconductor conductivity mismatch.
Some of the most striking quantum effects arise due to interference, which is
best demonstrated in quantum networks containing loops. Indeed, interference
due to the Rashba SOI has been measured on a nanolithographically-defined
square loop array. koga06 Here we discuss the possibility to construct a spin
filter from such loops. Recently, several groups proposed spin filters based
on a single loop, subject to both an electric and a magnetic [Aharonov-Bohm
(AB) AB ] perpendicular fields. citro ; hatano ; oreg However, such devices
produce a full polarization of the outgoing electrons only for special values
of the two fields. In the present paper we consider a chain of such loops, as
shown in Fig. 1. The effects of the Rashba SOI on the spectrum of the diamond
chain of Fig. 1 was studied by Bercioux et al.. berc1 They found a strong
variation of the averaged (over energies) conductance with the strength of the
SOI, which they associated with localization of the electron due to
interference between different paths in each diamond. Later, this group berc2
found similar effects due to both the SOI and an AB flux. However, the
possibility to use such networks to achieve spin filtering has not been
considered. As we show below, the polarization of the outgoing electrons
depends on the energy. Therefore, averaging over energies mixes different
polarization directions and eliminates the possibility of obtaining full
polarization.
Figure 1: Chain of diamonds.
We find that both the ballistic conductance and the spin polarization of the
electrons going through the device can be sharply varied by an electric field
(determining the SOI koga ), a magnetic field (determining the AB phases of
the orbital electronic wave functions) and the electrons’ energy (set by the
chemical potential in the source). Varying these three parameters, we find
large parameter ranges where all the energy eigenstates of the device except
one become evanescent and decay exponentially, forming the localized states
discussed in Refs. berc1, and berc2, . However, the electrons in the
remaining single mode propagate with fully polarized spins. Thus, electrons
which enter with arbitrary spins exit fully polarized. Since this polarization
can be tuned by the parameters, our system is an ideal spin filter.
Section II outlines the tight binding model which we use for solving the
Schrödinger equation on the periodic chain of diamonds. Section III presents
results for the ballistic conductance and for the polarization of the
electrons in the regions where they are fully polarized. Finally, Sec. IV
contains a discussion of our results, including a comparison with the case of
a single diamond and a discussion of the application of our results to a
finite chain.
## II Tight binding model
With SOI, we need to solve for the two-component spinor at each point on the
network. Bercioux et al. berc1 ; berc2 treated each bond of the network as a
continuous one-dimensional (1D) wire. Having expressed the solutions along
each bond in terms of the spinors of the nodes at its two ends, they used the
Neumann boundary conditions at the nodes to derive discrete equations for the
spinors at these nodes. As we discuss elsewhere, deG these boundary
conditions are sufficient but not necessary for current conservation at the
nodes. A more systematic way to treat such network replaces each continuous
bond bond by a discrete sequence of sites, and then studies the tight binding
model for the wave functions on these sites (and on the original nodes). As
the number of these intermediate sites increases, one has more sites per unit
cell, and therefore one ends up with more energy bands for the solutions which
contain waves moving along the main axis of the network [i.e. along the
(1,1,0) direction in Fig. 1]. Qualitatively, we find that all these bands are
similar to each other, and also similar to those found for the continuous
network used in Refs. berc1, and berc2, . Therefore, we choose to report here
only on the simplest case, with no intermediate sites within the bonds. Thus,
we treat a simple tight-binding model, with sites $\\{u\\}$ only on the
corners of the diamonds. The latter model could also describe a network of
quantum dots or anti-dots, located at these nodes. kats The stationary
spinors $\Psi_{u}$, with energy $\epsilon$, obey the Schrödinger equations,
$\displaystyle i\hbar(\partial/\partial
t)\Psi_{u}=\epsilon\Psi_{u}=-J\sum_{v}U_{uv}\Psi_{v},$ (1)
where the sum is over the nearest-neighbor nodes $\\{v\\}$, $J$ is the (real)
hopping matrix element (in the absence of fields) and
$\displaystyle U_{uv}\equiv
U^{\dagger}_{vu}=\exp[i(\phi^{AB}_{uv}+\phi^{SO}_{uv})]$ (2)
is a unitary $2\times 2$ matrix, representing the phase factors due to the AB
flux and to the SOI, $\phi^{AB}_{uv}$ and $\phi^{SO}_{uv}$ respectively. For
our structure, all bonds are in the $xy-$plane, and both the uniform magnetic
field ${\bf H}=H{\bf{\hat{z}}}$ and the potential asymmetry which creates the
SOI are along the ${\bf z}$-axis. As can be seen from Fig. 1, the $n$’th unit
cell contains three sites, and Eq. (1) reduces to equations for the related
spinors, $\Psi_{a}(n),~{}\Psi_{b}(n)$ and $\Psi_{c}(n)$. Choosing the edges of
the diamonds along the $x-$ and $y-$ axes (see Fig. 1), so that site $a_{n}$
is located at ${\bf r}_{n}=(n,n,0)L$ ($L$ is the length of each edge), the
unitary hopping matrices within the $n$’th diamond are given by TBSOI
$\displaystyle U_{ab}(n)=U^{\dagger}_{ba}(n)\equiv
e^{in\phi/2}e^{i\alpha\sigma_{x}},$ $\displaystyle
U_{ac}(n)=U^{\dagger}_{ca}(n)\equiv e^{-in\phi/2}e^{-i\alpha\sigma_{y}},$ (3)
where $\sigma$ is the vector of Pauli matrices, $\alpha=k_{SO}L$ ($k_{SO}$
measures the strength of the ‘microscopic’ SOI,
$(\hbar/m)k_{SO}{\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}\times{\bf p}$) and $\phi=2\pi
HL^{2}/\Phi_{0}$ represents the AB phase associated with a single square
diamond (here, $\Phi_{0}=hc/e$ is the flux unit; $h$ is Planck’s constant, $c$
is the speed of light and $e$ is the electron charge). Note that the
dependence of $U_{ab}(n)$ and of $U_{ac}(n)$ on $n$ results from our choice of
gauge for the vector potential. The net flux through each diamond is equal to
$\phi$, independent of $n$.
For $\epsilon=0$ one encounters dispersionless modes, for which
$\Psi_{a}(n)\equiv 0$. Since these solutions have zero velocity, and therefore
carry no current, we ignore them in the following discussion. We next
eliminate the spinors $\Psi_{b}(n)$ and $\Psi_{c}(n)$ from the equations, and
end up with effective one-dimensional equations,
$\displaystyle 4\Lambda\Psi_{a}(n)={\bf V}^{\dagger}\Psi_{a}(n-1)+{\bf
V}\Psi_{a}(n+1),$ (4)
with $4\Lambda=(\epsilon/J)^{2}-4$ and
$\displaystyle{\bf V}=U_{ab}(n)U_{ac}(n+1)+U_{ac}(n)U_{ab}(n+1)$
$\displaystyle=e^{-i\phi/2}e^{i\alpha\sigma_{x}}e^{-i\alpha\sigma_{y}}+e^{i\phi/2}e^{-i\alpha\sigma_{y}}e^{i\alpha\sigma_{x}}.$
(5)
Unlike the individual $U_{uv}$’s, the ‘renormalized’ hopping matrix ${\bf V}$
is not unitary. This lack of unitarity reflects interference between the two
paths in a diamond, which may decrease the current along the chain.
In the following we concentrate on propagating waves,
$\displaystyle\Psi_{a}(n)=Ae^{iq{\bar{L}}n}\chi_{a}(q),$ (6)
where ${\bar{L}}=L\sqrt{2}$ is the lattice constant of the diamond system
along its axis $(1,1,0)$, the (real) wave-vector $q$ is in the range
$-\pi/2<q{\bar{L}}<\pi/2$ and $\chi_{a}$ is a normalized spinor (which depends
on $q$). For such solutions, Eq. (4) implies that $\chi_{a}$ must obey the
eigenvalue equation ${\cal H}\chi_{a}(q)=\Lambda\chi_{a}(q)$, with the
$2\times 2$ hermitian matrix
$\displaystyle 4{\cal H}=e^{-iq{\bar{L}}}{\bf V}^{\dagger}+e^{iq{\bar{L}}}{\bf
V}.$ (7)
We next write
$\displaystyle{\cal H}=A+{\bf B}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}},$ (8)
with
$\displaystyle A=c^{2}\cos(q{\bar{L}})\cos(\phi/2),$ $\displaystyle{\bf
B}=-cs\sin(q{\bar{L}})\cos(\phi/2)$
$\displaystyle\times\bigl{(}1,-1,-\cot(q{\bar{L}})\tan(\phi/2)s/c\bigr{)},$
(9)
where $c=\cos\alpha,~{}s=\sin\alpha$. It follows that the spinor $\chi_{a}(q)$
must be an eigenvector of the spin component along ${\bf n}\equiv{\bf B}/|{\bf
B}|$: ${\bf n}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}\chi_{a}(q)=\mu\chi_{a}(q),\
\mu=\pm 1$. Thus, $\Lambda=A+\mu|{\bf B}|$. Given $\Lambda$, this equation can
be written as a quadratic equation in $x=\cos(q{\bar{L}})$. Denoting the
solutions by $x_{1,2}$, we end up with four solutions
$q^{\pm}_{1,2}=\pm\arccos x_{1,2}$. These solutions are propagating
(evanescent) if $q$ is real (complex). For each $q$ one then has
$\mu=(\Lambda-A)/|{\bf B}|$, so that $\mu$ is invariant under flipping the
sign of $q$.
Since $\chi_{a}(q)$ is an eigenvector of ${\bf
n}\cdot{\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}$, each solution with a given $q$ is
associated with a full polarization along the direction ${\bf n}$,
$\displaystyle{\bf
S}\equiv\langle\chi_{a}(q)|{\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}}|\chi_{a}(q)\rangle=\mu{\bf
n}.$ (10)
As usual for Rashba SOI, ${\bf n}$ is always perpendicular to the direction of
motion along the axis of the diamond chain, $(1,1,0)$. In the absence of an AB
flux (i.e. $\phi=0$) ${\bf n}$ remains in the direction $(1,-1,0)$. However,
the orbital AB flux causes a rotation of the polarization axis towards the
${\bf z}-$direction. Below we present results for $S_{z}$ and for
$S_{xy}\equiv(S_{x}-S_{y})/\sqrt{2}$. Since $n_{x,y}$ ($n_{z})$ is odd (even)
in $q$, flipping the sign of $q$ flips the sign of $S_{xy}$ but not that of
$S_{z}$.
The probability current from site $u$ to site $v$ is
$\displaystyle I(u\rightarrow
v)=(2J/\hbar)\Im\langle\Psi_{u}|U_{uv}|\Psi_{v}\rangle.$ (11)
The current from site $a_{n}$ to site $a_{n+1}$ on the diamond chain, equal to
the sum of the currents from $a_{n}$ to $b_{n}$ and to $c_{n}$, is thus found
to be
$\displaystyle I(n\rightarrow
n+1)=-(2J^{2}/\hbar\epsilon)\Im[\langle\Psi_{a}(n)|{\bf
V}|\Psi_{a}(n+1)\rangle].$ (12)
For a single propagating solution of the form (6), Eqs. (5) and (10) yield
$\displaystyle I(n\rightarrow n+1)$
$\displaystyle=-(4J^{2}/\hbar\epsilon)|A|^{2}\bigl{[}\sin(q{\bar{L}})\bigl{(}\cos(\phi/2)c^{2}$
$\displaystyle+\mu n_{z}\sin(\phi/2)s^{2}\bigr{)}$
$\displaystyle+\mu(n_{x}-n_{y})\cos(q{\bar{L}})\cos(\phi/2)sc\bigr{]}.$ (13)
It is easy to see that $I$ flips sign with $q$. When we have only a pair of
propagating modes, we thus concentrate on the one with $I>0$.
## III Results
Figure 2 shows the spectrum $\epsilon(q)$ of the propagating solutions (real
$q$’s), for several values of $\phi$ and $\alpha$. The left column shows
results for $\phi=0$, similar to Ref. berc1, : increasing $\alpha$ splits the
energy band vertically, and changes its width. Thus, the SOI can turn
propagating waves into evanescent ones, with complex $q$ (our figures show
only the solutions with real $q$). However, whenever the energy $\epsilon$
allows for real values of $q$, there exist four such values, forming pairs
which move in opposite directions and have opposite spins along $(1,-1,0)$.
The situation becomes more interesting when we have both the SOI and the AB
flux. Adding only the latter (upper plot on the right hand side of Fig. 2)
creates a gap (i.e. evanescent states) around $\epsilon=0$. The degeneracy of
the propagating solutions is not lifted, since the two spin directions have
exactly the same energies. As seen in the right column in Fig. 2, increasing
$\alpha$ at fixed $\phi=0.4\pi$ causes the splitting of each sub-band
horizontally.
We next discuss the ballistic conductance of our device, $G$. For an ideal
conductor, this conductance is given by $G=(e^{2}/h)g$, where $g$ is the
number of right-moving (or left-moving) propagating modes at a given energy.
land ; Imry ; MV This formula clearly applies for the infinite periodic chain
of diamonds discussed here. Below we argue that the filtering effect which we
find also survives for a finite chain, under certain conditions. As Fig. 2
shows, at a given energy $\epsilon$ one can encounter zero, two or four
propagating solutions. The number $g$ can be read directly from Fig. 2: on the
left hand side of this figure, the number of real $q$’s (both left-moving and
right-moving) is always zero or four, and thus $g=0$ or $2$. In contrast, the
right hand side of Fig. 2 shows 0, 2 or 4 real $q$’s, i.e. $g=0,~{}1$ or $2$,
depending on the parameters $\epsilon,~{}\phi$ and $\alpha$.
Figure 2: (Color online) The spectrum ($q$ versus $\epsilon$) of the
propagating solutions. Here, $J=1$ and the wave vector $q$ is in units of
$\pi{\bar{L}}$. Left: $\phi=0$. Right: $\phi=0.4\pi$. Top to bottom:
$\alpha=0,~{}0.2\pi,~{}0.4\pi$. The vertical lines indicate boundaries at
which the number of propagating solutions changes.
We next consider electrons coming with arbitrary spin directions from a
reservoir at $-\infty$, with energy $\epsilon$ equal to their chemical
potential in that reservoir. For each electron, its spinor will become a
combination of the eigenmodes of the problem inside the system. In fact, the
same will happen to electrons which enter into a finite but long chain from
the left hand side: their spinor within the chain will become a similar
combination of the four eigensolutions there, multiplied by some transmission
coefficients. When all four $q$’s have non-zero imaginary parts, all of these
modes are evanescent, and the wave function will decay to zero, resulting with
zero current. In that case there are no propagating modes, and $g=0$. When all
four $q$’s are real, i.e. $g=2$, the incoming wave function is a combination
of two right-moving modes, and it has no definite spin. However, for $g=1$ the
wave function of the right moving electron is a linear combination of one
propagating and one evanescent modes. The latter will decay, and the spinor
will converge to that of the single propagating solution, which has a uniquely
polarized spin, see Eq. (10). Without the AB flux, we always had $g=2$ or
$g=0$. For $\phi\neq 0$, we find regions of energy where $g=1$. Figure 3 shows
contour plots of $g$ in the $\phi-\alpha$ plane, for several values of
$\epsilon$. As one can see, for energies $\epsilon=-1.2J$ and $\epsilon=-2.4J$
there are large regions where $g=1$. In these regions, the electron will have
a well defined polarization, which depends only on $\epsilon,~{}\phi$ and
$\alpha$.
We next consider specific cuts through these contour plots. Figure 4 shows
results as a function of $\alpha$ for fixed energy $\epsilon/J=-2.4$ and AB
phase $\phi=0.29\pi$. The plots show only the ($g=1$ or $g=2$) right-moving
modes ($I>0$). The other propagating modes have opposite signs for $q$, $I$
and $S_{xy}$. The dashed curves represent the second mode, which arises only
when $g=2$. For our purposes, we concentrate on the regions where $g=1$, where
one has only the dotted lines. The top plots show the solutions for $q$ and
the corresponding currents $I$. The bottom plots show the spin components
$S_{xy}$ and $S_{z}$. The variation of $S_{xy}$ with $\alpha$ is striking: the
spins of the propagating electrons switch the sign of their in-plane component
with a small change of $\alpha$ near $\alpha=\pm 0.5\pi$. Note also the
flipping of $S_{xy}$ as $\alpha$ crosses $\pm\pi$. This flipping persists as
$\phi$ increases, and the range with $g=2$ near these points narrows. Figure 5
shows results as a function of $\phi$, for the same energy, but at fixed SO
strength $\alpha=0.75\pi$. Clearly, even a relatively small AB flux already
yields a single right-moving propagating mode ($g=1$) and therefore fully
polarized spins. At small $\phi$, the polarization starts close to the
$(1,-1,0)$ direction, but it then rotates towards the $z-$direction as $\phi$
increases towards $\pm\pi$, and flips sign after crossing these points.
Figure 3: (Supplied separately) Contour plots of the ballistic conductance (in
units of $e^{2}/h$) in the $\phi-\alpha$ plane (the AB phase $\phi$ and the SO
strength $\alpha$ are in units of $\pi$). The values $g=0,1,2$ are represented
by dark, medium and bright areas. The number above each plot is the energy
$\epsilon$ (in units of $J$). Figure 4: (Color online) Wave vectors $q$ (in
units of $\pi{\bar{L}}$), currents $I$, and spin components $S_{xy}$ and
$S_{z}$, for right-moving modes, as functions of the SO strength $\alpha$ (in
units of $\pi$), for $\epsilon/J=-2.4$ and $\phi=0.29\pi$. For values of
$\alpha$ at which $g=1$, the figures show only one mode (dotted line). When
$g=2$, the figures show two modes (dotted and dashed lines). Figure 5: (Color
online) Same as Fig. 4, for $\epsilon/J=-2.4$ and for fixed SO strength
$\alpha=0.75\pi$, as functions of $\phi$ (in units of $\pi$).
## IV Discussion
Given the above analysis, we may compare our system with that of the single
diamond, Ref. hatano, . As we report elsewhere, future the single diamond
generates fully polarized electrons, along a controllable direction, whenever
$\sin^{4}\alpha=\cos^{2}(\phi/2)$ and for any $\epsilon$. Although this
condition is less restrictive than that given in Ref. hatano, , it is still
much more restrictive than the conditions we found above. The literature
contains many other proposals for spin filters, also based on the Rashba SOI.
Usually, these give only a partial polarization. Some of these devices also
require a large Zeeman field. In contrast, our filter can work at a relatively
low (and fixed) magnetic field (as apparently desired technologically), so
that the Zeeman energy is negligible. Note also that both $\alpha$ and $\phi$
depend on the diamond size $L$, and therefore one can choose a geometry which
corresponds to the available ranges of the magnetic field and the microscopic
Rashba parameters.
In real experiments it is not realistic to use an infinite chain of diamonds.
We now argue that under appropriate conditions it is sufficient to use a
finite chain, as long as it is longer than the decay lengths of the evanescent
modes. For the electrons coming in from the left we don’t need to worry about
the details of the connection between the incoming lead and the chain: even if
some of the electrons are reflected back into that lead, those which are
transmitted into the chain will split into a sum of the four modes there, and
when $g=1$ we still remain with fully polarized electrons (although their
overall amplitude may involve a transmission factor with magnitude smaller
than 1). The situation on the right hand end of the chain is more delicate.
Here we should avoid reflections, since they may modify the outgoing spinors
and change their polarization. A standard way to avoid reflections is to use
adiabatic contacts. This is usually done for retaining the ballistic
conductance of mesoscopic devices. Imry One way to avoid reflections is to
have a large leakage to the ground near the exit channel, so that only a small
fraction of electrons enter into the exit lead.
For our filter to be useful, one also needs to measure the outgoing spins, or
to relate the outgoing spin polarization to some measurement of a voltage or a
current. This issue is common to many proposed filters, and it requires
separate research. For the present purposes, we mention just a few
possibilities. First, one can follow the original proposal of Datta and Das, 2
and connect the right hand end of the device adiabatically to a ferromagnetic
lead, whose magnetization can be tuned. The outgoing current will decrease
with the angle between the electron polarization and this magnetization.
Second, to avoid connections to ferromagnets, one can also connect our filter
adiabatically to another such filter, with different parameters which may
block the polarized electrons coming from the first filter.
Another way to test the spin polarization, is to couple one of the $a$-nodes
(Fig. 1) to a side quantum dot, that is in a Pauli spin blockade region. ono
After a while, the side dot will capture one of the polarized electrons, and
this will block the current (which contains electrons with the same
polarization). Changing the parameters will then change the spin direction of
the propagating electrons, and allow some current until the next blocking
occurs.
In conclusion, we propose a simple spin filter, which yields a full
polarization over a broad range of parameters. For given energy $\epsilon$ and
magnetic flux $\phi$ (which need not be very large), the polarization of the
outgoing electrons can be tuned by varying the electric field which determines
the SOI strength $\alpha$.
We acknowledge discussions with Joe Imry. AA and OEW acknowledge the
hospitality of NTT and of the ISSP, where this project started, and support
from the ISF and from the DIP.
## References
* (1) S. A. Wolf et al., Science 294, 1488 (2001).
* (2) E. I. Rashba, Fiz. Tverd. Tela (Leningrad) 2, 1224 (1960) [Sov. Phys. Solid State 2, 1109 (1960)]; Y. A. Bychkov and E. I. Rashba, J. Phys. C 17, 6039 (1984).
* (3) T. Koga, J. Nitta, T. Akazaki, and H. Takayanagi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 046801 (2002).
* (4) S. Datta and B. Das, Appl. Phys. Lett. 56, 665 (1990).
* (5) T. Koga, Y. Sekine, and J. Nitta, Phys. Rev. B 74, 041302 (2006).
* (6) Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959).
* (7) R. Citro, F. Romero and M. Marinaro, Phys. Rev. B 74, 115329 (2006).
* (8) N. Hatano, R. Shirasaki, and H. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. A 75, 032107 (2007).
* (9) In fact, many of the results of Ref. hatano, were already found by Y. Oreg and O. Entin-Wohlman, Phys. Rev. B 46, 2393 (1992).
* (10) D. Bercioux, M. Governale, V. Cataudella, and V. M. Ramaglia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 056802 (2004).
* (11) D. Bercioux, M. Governale, V. Cataudella, and V. M. Ramaglia, Phys. Rev. B 72, 075305 (2005).
* (12) A. Aharony and O. Entin-Wohlman, J. Phys. Chem. (in press); ArXiv:0807.4088.
* (13) Y. Iye, M. Ueki, A. Endo and S. Katsumoto, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 73, 3370 (2004); M. Kato, H. Tanaka, A. Endo, S. Katsumoto and Y. Iye, Physica E 34, 112 (2006); M. Kato, A. Endo, S. Katsumoto and Y. Iye, Phys. Rev. B 77, 155318 (2008).
* (14) Y. Meir, Y. Gefen, and O. Entin-Wohlman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 798 (1989).
* (15) R. Landauer, IBM J. Res. Dev. 1, 253 (1957); R. Landauer, Philos. Mag. 21, 863 (1970).
* (16) Y. Imry, Introduction to Mesoscopic Physics (Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1997).
* (17) A similar ballistic conductance was also calculated by A. V. Moroz and C. H. W. Barnes, Phys. Rev. B 60, 14272 (1999), for a continuous quasi-one-dimensional strip with the Rashba spin orbit interaction. Unlike their Eq. (45), we believe that $g$ counts only the propagating modes at a given energy. Interestingly, they also find intermediate ranges of energy where $g$ increases and then decreases back, due to the spin-orbit interactions.
* (18) A. Aharony et al., unpublished.
* (19) K. Ono, D. G. Austing, Y. Tokura, and S. Tarucha, Science 297, 1313 (2002).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-23T11:54:54 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.923269 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Amnon Aharony, Ora Entin-Wohlman, Yasuhiro Tokura and Shingo Katsumoto",
"submitter": "Amnon Aharony",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3617"
} |
0805.3618 | 11institutetext: 1Atomic Energy Research Institute (AEKI) of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences,
P.O. Box 49, H-1525 Budapest, Hungary, EU
2 Research Institute for Solid State Physics and Optics of the Hungarian
Academy of Sciences,
P.O. Box 49, H-1525 Budapest, Hungary, EU
# Two-phase flow model for energetic proton beam induced pressure waves in
mercury target systems in the planned European Spallation Source
I. F. Barna1 A. R. Imre1 L. Rosta2 and F. Mezei2
(Received: date / Revised version: date)
###### Abstract
Two-phase flow calculations are presented to investigate the thermo-
hydraulical effects of the interaction between 300 kJ proton pulses (2 ms
long, 1.3 GeV) with a closed mercury loop which can be considered as a model
system of the target of the planned European Spallation Source(ESS) facility.
The two-fluid model consists of six first-order partial differential equations
that present one dimensional mass momentum and energy balances for mercury
vapour and liquid phases are capable to describe quick transients like
cavitation effects or shock waves. The absorption of the proton beam is
represented as instantaneous heat source in the energy balance equations.
Densities and internal energies of the mercury liquid-vapour system are
calculated from van der Waals equation, and the general method how to obtain
such properties is also presented. A second order accurate high-resolution
shock-capturing numerical scheme is applied with different kinds of limiters
in the numerical calculations. Our analysis show that even 75 degree
temperature heat shocks cannot cause considerable cavitation effects in
mercury in 2ms long pulses
###### pacs:
47.55BxCavitation, and 47.55KfMultiphase and particle-laden flows and
47.90a+Other topics in fluid dynamics
## 1 Introduction
One non-destructive material research method is neutron scattering. Free
neutrons for neutron beams for research purposes need to be extracted from
their bound states of atomic nuclei. Energetic neutron beams can be produced
in fission of heavy elements (e.g. ${}^{235}U$) or by spallation. In fission
of ${}^{235}U$ 190 MeV heat is released for each extracted fast neutron while
in the spallation process only about 30 MeV heat is deposited per fast
neutron. The deposited heat has to be removed by cooling and it ultimately
becomes a limiting thermodynamic factor for the amount of neutrons produced.
As a second distinct advantage of pulsed spallation sources over continuous
ones is that a larger part of the neutrons produced can be delivered to the
sample in monochromatic beams. These two advantages of spallation sources make
is possible to construct more powerful neutron sources with larger neutron
flux than ever before. The simple goal of the planed European Spallation
Source(ESS) is to provide Europe with the most powerful neutron facility. A
choice of a 5 MW proton beam power at 1.3 GeV proton energy with 111 mA proton
beam current and with 16.66 Hz repetition rate of 2 ms long neutron pulses
will produce time average thermal neutron flux density of $3.1\times
10^{14}n/cm^{2}s$ in the ESS mercury target. The proton pulse causes a thermal
and a pressure shock in the target which may cause cavitation or tensile
stress. The question of cavitation erosion futak1 has crucial importance in
the constructional planning of any spallation neutron source target facility.
A detailed analysis of the planned ESS can be found elsewhere ess . In the
following study we present and analyze a one-dimensional six-equation two-
fluid model which is capable to describe transients like pressure waves, quick
vapour void fraction creation and annihilation which is proportional to
cavitation caused by energetic proton interaction in mercury target.
Our model has a delicate numerical scheme and capable to capture shock waves
and describe transient waves which may propagate quicker than the local speed
of sound izt . Most of the two-phase models have numerical methods which
describes usual flow velocities.
Our model can successfully reproduce the experimental data of different one-
or two-phase flow problems such as ideal gas Riemann problem, critical flow of
ideal gas in convergent-divergent nozzle, column separation or cavitation
induced water hammer, rapid depressurization of hot liquid from horizontal
pipes or even steam condensation induced water hammer waha .
According to our knowledge there is no real two-phase flow calculation for
mercury flow system. Some timorous attempts were presented with the help of
some commercial three dimensional industrial codes like Fluent or ANSYS zurzi
; 05KOGISH but the results are questionable. Some results show complete and
immediate vaporization during the first proton pulse, which is contradictory
to experimental observations. There are some studies for three dimensional
numerical simulation of magnetohydrodynamic processes in the muon colliders
mercury target. These studies take strong external magnetic fields into
account samul but consider single phase only, neglecting vaporization or
condensations. The liquid phase of mercury was modeled using the stiffened
politropic equation of state and the vapour phase was considered to be ideal
gas. There is a literature survey on various fluid flow data for mercury from
the politropic equation state cords which can be directly applied in
calculations. There are also different equations of state (EOS) available for
mercury from microscopic molecular simulation kitamura ; raabe of from
macroscopic theories like virial expansion mehdipour or from generalized van
der Waals equation like the Redlich-Kwong equation morita or the like marti .
Thermodynamical and flow properties of other liquid metals are also in the
focus of recent scientific interest nagr ; morita .
In the next sections we introduce our applied model, give a detailed analysis
about phase transitions and present pressure wave results.
## 2 Theory
### 2.1 Theory of two-phase flow
There is a large number of different two-phase flow models with different
levels of complexity stew ; meni which are all based on gas dynamics and
shock-wave theory. In the following we present our one dimensional six-
equation equal-pressure two-fluid model. The density, momentum and energy
balance equations for both phases are the following:
$\displaystyle\frac{\partial A(1-\alpha)\rho_{l}}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial
A(1-\alpha)\rho_{l}(v_{l}-w)}{\partial x}=-A\Gamma_{g}$ (1)
$\displaystyle\frac{\partial A\alpha\rho_{g}}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial
A\alpha\rho_{g}(v_{g}-w)}{\partial x}=A\Gamma_{g}$ (2)
$\displaystyle\frac{\partial A(1-\alpha)\rho_{l}v_{l}}{\partial
t}+\frac{\partial A(1-\alpha)\rho_{l}v_{l}(v_{l}-w)}{\partial x}+$
$\displaystyle A(1-\alpha)\frac{\partial p}{\partial x}-A\cdot CVM-
Ap_{i}\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial x}=AC_{i}|v_{r}|v_{r}$
$\displaystyle-A\Gamma_{g}v_{i}+A(1-\alpha)\rho_{l}cos\theta-AF_{l,wall}$ (3)
$\displaystyle\frac{\partial A\alpha\rho_{g}v_{g}}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial
A\alpha\rho_{g}v_{g}(v_{f}-w)}{\partial x}+A\alpha\frac{\partial p}{\partial
x}+$ $\displaystyle A\cdot CVM+Ap_{i}\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial x}=$
$\displaystyle-AC_{i}|v_{r}|v_{r}+A\Gamma_{g}v_{i}+A\alpha\rho_{g}cos\theta-
AF_{g,wall}$ (4) $\displaystyle\frac{\partial
A(1-\alpha)\rho_{l}e_{l}}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial
A(1-\alpha)\rho_{l}e_{l}(v_{l}-w)}{\partial x}+$ $\displaystyle
p\frac{\partial A(1-\alpha)}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial
A(1-\alpha)p(v_{l}-w)}{\partial x}=AQ_{il}$
$\displaystyle-A\Gamma_{g}(h_{f}+v_{l}^{2}/2)+A(1-\alpha)\rho_{l}v_{l}gcos\theta+E_{l,pulse}(x,t)$
$\displaystyle\frac{\partial A\alpha\rho_{g}e_{g}}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial
A\alpha\rho_{g}e_{g}(v_{l}-w)}{\partial x}+p\frac{\partial A\alpha}{\partial
t}+\frac{\partial A\alpha p(v_{l}-w)}{\partial x}$
$\displaystyle=AQ_{ig}+A\Gamma_{g}(h_{g}+v_{g}^{2}/2)+A\alpha\rho_{g}v_{g}gcos\theta+E_{g,pulse}(x,t)$
Index l refers to the liquid phase and index g to the gas phase. Nomenclature
and variables are described in Table I. Left hand side of the equations
contain the terms with temporal and spatial derivatives. Hyperbolicity of the
equation system is ensured with the virtual mass term CVM and with the
interfacial term (terms with $p_{i}$). Terms on the right hand side are terms
describing the inter-phase heat, mass(terms with $\Gamma_{g}$ vapour
generation rate) volumetric heat fluxes $Q_{ig}$, momentum transfer (terms
with $C_{i}$), wall friction $F_{g_{w}all}$, and gravity terms. A detailed
analysis of the source terms can be found in waha . The last term in the
energy equations $E_{i,pulse}(x,t)$ represents the deposited energy from the
proton beam and will be specified later on.
Two additional equations of state (EOS) are needed to close the system of
equations (Eq. 1-6)
$\rho_{k}=\left(\frac{\partial\rho_{k}}{\partial
p}\right)_{u_{k}}dp+\left(\frac{\partial\rho_{k}}{\partial
u_{k}}\right)_{p}du_{k}.$ (7)
Partial derivatives in Eq. 7 are expressed using pressure and specific
internal energy as an input. In the following we show how the liquid-steam
table - a sixfold numerical table - ($p,T,\rho_{l},u_{l},\rho_{g},u_{g}$) can
be created for mercury from an arbitrary EOS. To avoid technical difficulties
we do not modify (Eq. 1-6) including the used analytic EOS, just create a
numerical liquid-steam table. In this manner arbitrary two phase-flow systems
can be investigated with the same model in the future (e.g. lead-bismuth
eutectic, liquid Li or He). Liquid metal systems can operate on low (some bar)
pressure and have larger heat conductivity than water which can radically
enhance thermal efficiency.
We start with the usually parameterized van der Waals EOS from
$p=\frac{RT}{V-b}-\frac{a}{V^{2}}$ (8)
where R=8.314 J/mol/K is the universal gas constant and parameters a and b are
related with the critical molar volume ($V_{c}$) temperature ($T_{c}$) and
pressure ($p_{c}$) of the considered fluid: $a=9P_{c}V_{c}^{2}\>\>b=V_{c}/3$
For the critical temperature and pressure of Hg the $T_{C}=1733\pm 50K$ and
$p_{C}=160.8\pm 5MPa$ data were taken from morita . T, p and V are the
temperature the pressure and the volume, respectively. (We mention than in
morita the parameter $a(=9P_{c}V_{c}^{2})$ is uncorectly given.) The fluid
density with the corresponding saturated vapour density can be easily
determined from the EOS with the well-known Maxwell construction. To obtain
the internal energies for both phases is a bit more difficult task. We start
with the second law of thermodynamics
$du=Tds-pdV$ (9)
where s is the entropy and u is the internal energy. With the Maxwell
relations $\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial
V}\right)_{s}=-\left(\frac{\partial P}{\partial s}\right)_{V}$ we end up with
the following working equation
$du=c_{V}dT+\left[T\left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial T}\right)_{V}-p\right]dV.$
(10)
The internal energy is a thermodynamical potential therefore the choice of the
zero point can be defined arbitrary, we took $T=253.14K$ which is 10 degree
above the melting point of solid mercury at normal pressure. The heat capacity
at constant volume $c_{v}$ may in turn be calculated from the heat capacity at
constant pressure $c_{p}$with the thermodynamic relation
$c_{p}=c_{V}+T\left(\frac{\partial V}{\partial
T}\right)^{2}_{p}\left(\frac{\partial p}{\partial V}\right)_{T}$ (11)
where $\frac{1}{V}\frac{\partial V}{\partial T}=\alpha_{T}$ is the thermal
expansion coefficients. (To avoid further misunderstanding in this study we
use $\alpha_{T}$ for the thermal expansion coefficient and $\alpha$ for vapour
void fraction.) Polynomial fits for the temperature dependence of experimental
data of heat capacity $c_{p}$ and expansion coefficient $\alpha_{T}$ lance (or
cords ) help us to calculate the internal energy of the liquid state. Finally,
the internal energy of the corresponding gas phase has to be determined. The
critical temperate of mercury is at $T_{C}=1733\pm 50K$. In the temperature
range of 270-500 K (which is our recent interest) the experimental heats of
vapourization data raabe can be satisfactory fitted with a linear function.
With this method a two-phase liquid-steam table was constructed between
270-500 Kelvin of temperatures and 7 to $7\cdot 10^{7}$ Pascal pressure.
Additional flow properties of mercury like dynamic viscosity and heat transfer
coefficients are approximated with piecewise continuous temperature dependent
functions from cords . The surface tension was considered as a linear function
of temperature jasp .
The effect of the 300 kJ proton pulse was treated as a sudden thermal shock
which means an additional source terms in both energy equations
$E_{i,pulse}(x,t)$. The deposited energy of the proton beam in the mercury
target is proportional to the density. With the introduction of the mixture
density $\rho_{m}=\alpha\rho_{g}+(1-\alpha)\rho_{f}$ the interaction between
the proton-mercury two-phase flow can be further improved. According to
experimental proton beam analysis the spatial energy distribution
perpendicular to the propagation direction has a parabolic shape ni ; fut
with a diameter of 20 cm. To describe well-defined finite duration we use
$sin^{2}$ envelope with $\tau=2ms$.
$E_{g,pulse}(x,t)=\frac{\rho_{g}\alpha}{\rho_{m}}E_{0}sin^{2}\left(\frac{\pi
t}{\tau}\right)(1-(x/x_{s})^{2})$ (12)
$E_{f,pulse}(x,t)=\frac{\rho_{f}(1-\alpha)}{\rho_{m}}E_{0}sin^{2}\left(\frac{\pi
t}{\tau}\right)(1-(x/x_{s})^{2})$ (13)
The effective range of 1.3 GeV protons in mercury can be calculated with the
Bragg theory and gives 41 cm srim . Experimental consideration state that 47
percent of the original 5 MW beam power is absorbed in the target which is
2.37 MW. In the planned ESS facility a train of 16.66 proton pulses will come
with 2ms long pulse duration and the total sum of these pulses give the 5 MW
beam power. Hence, the peak power parameter $E_{0}$ has to be normalized in
such a way that the spatial and time integral of $E_{i,pulse}(x,t)$ gives the
absorbed 2.37 MW power of the original 5 MW beam. The system of Eqs. (1-6)
represents the conservation laws and can be formulated in the following
vectorial form
${\bf{A}}\frac{\partial{\vec{\Psi}}}{\partial
t}+{\bf{B}}\frac{\partial{\vec{\Psi}}}{\partial x}={\vec{S}}$ (14)
where ${\vec{\Psi}}$ represents the vector of the independent nonconservative
variables ${\vec{\Psi}}(p,\alpha,v_{f},v_{g},u_{f},u_{g})$, ${\bf{A}}$ and
${\bf{B}}$ are the matrices of the system and ${\vec{S}}$ is the source vector
of non-differential terms. These three quantities ${\bf{A}}$, ${\bf{B}}$ and
${\vec{S}}$ can be obtained from Eq. (1-6) with some algebraic manipulation.
In this case the system eigenvalues which represent wave propagation
velocities are given by the determinant $det({\bf{B}}-\lambda{\bf{A}})$. An
improved characteristic upwind discretization method is used to solve the
hyperbolic equation system (14). The problem is solved with the combination of
the first- and second-order accurate discretization scheme by the so-called
flux limiters to avoid numerical dissipation and unwanted oscillations which
appear in the vicinity of the non-smooth solutions. Exhaustive details about
the numerical scheme can be found in waha ; izt .
### 2.2 Liquid-vapour phase transition in the metastable region
Water boils at 100 Celsius (373.15 K) under atmospheric pressure; this is a
well-known, but not entirely correct piece of the common knowledge. Boiling is
usually defined (at least phenomenologically) when liquid-vapour phase
transition happens not only at the already existing interfaces, but within the
bulk liquid too. For water, it happens usually at the already mentioned 100
Celsius, but not always. Overheating of liquids is a phenomenon, known for
every chemistry students; one can exceed the boiling point with a few degrees,
without getting boiling, but then it can happen suddenly, exploding the whole
amount of liquid (and often the container too) deb . In the following, we are
going to explain this phenomenon and show its importance in the cavitation of
mercury. Liquid can co-exists with the vapour of the same material, without
any problem. The conditions (temperature and pressure) where they co-exist are
described the vapour pressure curve (also called saturation or co-existence
curve). Liquid and vapour states can be described by EOS; like van der Waals.
A schematic isotherm (describing pressure and volume on a constant
temperature) can be seen on Figure 1/a. The isotherm has two extrema (marked
as B and D), these are the so-called spinodal points (liquid-vapour and
vapour-liquid; LV and VL spinodals). Between the two spinodals, the system
would be unstable, due to the negative compressibility, therefore these states
(the ones on the curve between points B and D) cannot exist. The equilibrium
conditions can be calculated by using the Maxwell construction: a line
(parallel to the V-axis) has to be drawn in a way that the area between the
isotherm and the Maxwell-line between points A and C and C and E has to be
equal. Then the intersects (A and E) gives the co-existing liquid and vapour
volumes (or densities) and the equilibrium pressure on the given temperature.
Plotting the pressures on different temperatures, one would obtain the vapour
pressure curve, like the solid line on Figure 1/b. It can be seen that points
A and E are not special points of the isotherm. The liquid is not forced to
boil at point A; it would be forced only at point B (where liquid phase cannot
exists any more). Plotting Bs at different temperature, one would obtain the
so-called liquid-vapour spinodal (dashed line on figure 1/b), the stability
limit of liquid state. The vapour-liquid spinodal (dot-dash line on figure
1/b) is important when we have over-saturated vapour; we are going to neglect
it here. The AB and DE parts on the isotherm are metastable; on Figure 1/b
these parts are represented by the region between the vapour pressure curve
and the LV spinodal. Liquid (without co-existing vapour phase) can exist in
this region; even can exist under negative pressure deb ; tre The real
boiling happens in this metastable region. Close to the vapour pressure curve
the liquid is only slightly metastable, can live for long time without
nucleating vapour bubbles; far away from it (close to the spinodal) the liquid
will be very metastable and cavitate (boil) with higher probability. The
bubble nucleation can happen in two different ways. The heterogeneous
nucleation happens when the liquid already has a nucleus, usually a tiny
bubble hidden in a crevice of the wall or stuck onto a floating particle. Due
to the small size (i.e. high curvature) the micro-bubble can be in equilibrium
with a metastable liquid for a while, but when the temperature is too high or
the pressure is too low, it will initiate boiling. The other process is the
homogeneous nucleation. In that case, the initial micro-bubble will be
produced by the density fluctuations of the liquid; when the fluctuation is
big enough to call it ”bubble”, then it will initiate the boiling. In everyday
life, boiling happens by heterogeneous nucleation, practically in the
immediate vicinity of the vapour pressure curve. In clean liquids (like
distilled water) the boiling can happen much farther. It is a well-known
practice to avoid overheating (and the explosion-like boiling, following it)
to put some bubble seed into the liquid, like a few pieces of sponge-like
pumice (or boiling-) stones. In these nucleation processes -especially in
homogeneous nucleation - time is also an important factor; a liquid can endure
high overheating/stretching for a small period of time deb ; tre ; imrmar ;
imrmar2 . Therefore one cannot draw a well-defined line as nucleation limit
onto the phase diagram (Figure 1); the line drawn by us is only for
demonstration. the exact location depends on the purity of liquid, the amount
of external disturbances (even cosmic rays can generate bubbles in metastable
liquids) and - in a great extent - on the time scale. On Figure 1/c, a
magnified part of Figure 1/b (without the VL spinodal, which is irrelevant in
our case) can be seen. K marks a state, where the liquid is in stable liquid
phase; there is no vapour phase present. To obtain phase transition, the
temperature can be increased or the pressure has to be decreased. By
increasing the temperature (and keeping a constant pressure), the vapour
pressure curve will be reached at point L. This is the first point, where the
liquid can boil and vapour phase might appear, but in clear and undisturbed
liquid, the probability of boiling here is very small. Increasing the
temperature further, the nucleation limit will be reached (point M); here the
phase transition will surely happen, due to heterogeneous or homogeneous
nucleation, forming initially small, but continuously growing separated
bubbles, which later can merge into a continuous vapour phase. When the liquid
is perfectly clean, all disturbances are suppressed and the heating is very
fast, etc., then this nucleation limit can be pushed very close to spinodal
limit (point N), where liquid phase cannot exist any more. When the phase
transition happens at the spinodal limit, one will obtain two bi-continuous
phases (liquid and vapour), instead of a continuous (liquid) and an separated
(vapour bubbles) one, obtained during nucleation. We should remark, that for
the first appearance of the vapour phase, the system will jump back to the
vapour pressure curve (which will be detected as a pressure jump). Changing
the pressure at constant temperature, one would reach the vapour pressure
curve at point O, then the nucleation limit at point P, finally the spinodal
limit at point Q, with the same results as it happens with temperature
increase. To see the extent of the effect, we will give numerical examples for
water and for mercury. For water, starting from room temperature (293.15 K, 1
bar), we will reach the vapour pressure curve 373.15 K. Increasing the
temperature, boiling might happen any time; the highest experimentally
obtained value for overheating (i.e. point M) was around 570 K 91ZHEDUR
giving almost 200 K overheat. The spinodal temperature for water on
atmospheric pressure is still debated, it has to be located above the
previously mentioned overheating limit, but certainly below the critical
temperature of $1733\pm 50$ K. Also for water, by decreasing the pressure, the
vapour pressure curve (point O) would be reached at 0.025 bar pressure. The
experimental limit of stretching is -1200 bar 91ZHEDUR , where the estimated
spinodal (depending on the model) is between -2000 and -4000 bar. For mercury
at 7 bar (which is the working pressure for the mercury in the ESS) the
boiling point is at 760 K, it is very far from the working temperature (which
is close to room temperature, 300 K). The limit of overheating is not known,
but surely below the critical temperature, which is around 1700 K. Concerning
pressure drop, the vapour pressure of mercury around room temperature is
almost zero (less than 2*10-6 bar); concerning the fact that the working
pressure is 7 bar, the possibility of a pressure drop of this extent is very
improbable. The measured nucleation limit of mercury at room temperature is in
the -2 to -425 bar range depending on purity53BRI ; therefore to get bubbles,
the pressure should drop from +7 bar to ¡-2 bar for a longer period. The
absolute (spinodal) limit is unknown. Although in the ESS, pressure decrease
and temperature increase happens simultaneously, the working conditions are so
far from the beginning of the boiling region (vapour pressure curve) that the
possibility to reach it is negligible, except under special circumstances.
First, there is a possibility for fast pressure oscillation after the proton
pulse; the amplitude can be even 300 bar 01TALMOR , which would be enough to
cause cavitation. The other scenario would require gas-contamination (pre-
existing gas bubbles in the mercury); in that case even a tiny pressure
decrease or temperature increase can cause the growing of these micro-bubbles,
mimicking boiling 01TALMOR . Non-uniform temperature and pressure distribution
can cause shear stresses, which can also cause cavitation in the liquid.
Finally, the proton beam itself can initiate cavitation, but only when the
metastable states are already reached. We can conclude, that with a few bar
pressure drop and a few tens of K temperature increase, the cavitation in the
pure mercury target has low possibility. On the other hand, concerning the
reported cases of cavitation in similar facilities 05DATFUT indicate, that
either the conditions (T,p) might change more drastically or some phenomena,
neglected by us (like pressure oscillation, shear stresses, etc.) can play
more important role.
Figure 1: A subcritical isotherm of a van der Waals type fluid
## 3 Results and discussion
The ESS mercury target loop is a complex facility with various pumps, heat
exchangers and tanks ess . We model however with a simple six-sided closed
loop (see Figure 1.) of a pipe with diameter of 5 cm and total length of 5 m.
The original temperature of the mercury is $T=300$ K with pressure of 7 bar
and flow velocity of $v=4.6$ m/s. The proton beam interacts with a mercury via
a $20\times 5\>cm^{2}$ window. A simple calculation shows that (47 % of 300 kJ
=) 141 kJ of energy will heat up 10 kg of mercury. The temperature jump of
$\Delta t=75K$ is expected for ESS proton beam pulses. We applied a single
pulse shot at time equal to zero and propagated Eqs. (14) to
$t_{max}=4*10^{-2}$ sec. A second order numerical scheme was used with the
MINMOD flux limiter izt . For a satisfactory convergence the Courant number
which measures the relative wave propagation speeds of the exact solution and
the numerical solutions was set to CFL = 0.6. The pressure history of the
beam-target interaction point is presented in Fig 2. After the initial pulse
at $t=1.6$ms the pressure reaches its maximal value which is 50 percent higher
than the original pressure. After the pulse the pressure does not fall below
the initial pressure and the temperature will cool down to 300 K. The mercury
vapour void fraction was originally set to zero ($\alpha=10^{-12}$) which did
not chang during the time propagation allowing only ”nanobubbles”, too small
to act as cavitation nuclei. If we consider one or two percent initial vapor
void fraction (as a model for small bubbles) than a quick condensation can be
observed. If we apply an elastic pipe with an elasticity of $2\times
10^{11}N/m^{2}$ Young’s modulus (which are usual for steel) or/and include or
exclude any kind of additional wall friction waha for the fluid the pressure
peaks will not be changed. This is clear fingerprint that the tube is still
rigid enough. There is a strong indication that mercury is a non-wetting fluid
on steel surface so the wall friction is negligible.
Figure 2: The schematic geometrical model of the ESS target
## 4 Summary and outlook
With the help of a one dimensional two-phase flow model we calculated the
induced pressure waves and vapour void fractions in mercury induced by
energetic proton beams. Our analysis showed that no vapour bubbles or
cavitation effects can be seen after the first absorbed proton pulse. Further,
in depth analysis is in progress to investigate geometrical effects of the
mercury target loop which is a complex facility with various pumps, heat
exchangers and tanks ess . Our model can include abrupt area changes, or
convergent-divergent pipe cross section changes, or even heat exchangers. We
modeled however with a simple six-sided closed loop (see Figure 1.) of a pipe
with diameter of 5 cm and total length of 5 m. The original temperature of the
mercury is $T=300$ K with pressure of 7 bar and flow velocity of $v=4.6$ m/s.
The proton beam interacts with a mercury via a $20\times 5\>cm^{2}$ window. A
simple calculation shows that 141k J of energy will heat up 10 kg of mercury
with a $\Delta t=75K$. We applied a single pulse shot at time equal to zero
and propagated Eqs. (14) to $t_{max}=4*10^{-2}$ sec. A second order numerical
scheme was used with the MINMOD flux limiter izt . The Courant number which
measures the relative wave propagation speeds of the exact solution and the
numerical solutions was set to CFL = 0.6. The pressure history of the beam-
target interaction point is presented in Fig 3. After the initial pulse at
$t=1.6$ms the pressure reaches its maximal value which is 50 percent higher
than the original pressure. After the pulse the pressure does not fall below
the initial pressure and the temperature will cool down to 300 K. The mercury
vapour void fraction was originally set to zero ($\alpha=10^{-12}$) which did
not changed during the time propagation allowing only ”nanobubbles”, too small
to act as nucleus for cavitation. The question of the vapor void fraction,
pipe elasticity or the liquid wall friction was examined also.
We would like to emphasize that further in-depth analysis is needed to clear
up the question of a long pulse train. The question of different equations of
state will be investigated also. As a long term interest we also planned to
investigate other liquid metal (e.g. bismuth-lead eutectic or liquid lithium)
or liquid helium systems which can be interesting as a cooling media for new
type of nuclear reactors. Liquid metal systems can operate on low (some bar)
pressure and have much larger heat conductivity than water which can radically
enhance thermal efficiency.
Figure 3: Time history of pressure at the point of the proton impact for the
model in Fig. 2. with rigid tube walls.
## References
* (1) Futakava M., Naoe T., Tsai C.C., Kogawe H., Ishikura S., Ikeda Y., Soyama H., and Date H. H. Cavitation Erosion in Mercury Target of Spallation Neutron Source Fifth International Symposium on Cavitation (cav2003) Osaka, Japan, November 1-4, 2003
* (2) The European Spallation Source Project, Technical Report
$http://neutron.neutron-eu.net/n\\_ess$
* (3) Tiselj I. and Petelin S., J. Comp. Phys. 136, 503-521 (1997).
* (4) Tiselj I., Horvath A., Cerne G., Gale J., Parzer I., Mavko B., Giot M., Seynhaeve J.M., Kucienska B. and Lemonnier H. WAHA3 code manual, Deliverable D10 of the WAHALoads project, March 2004
* (5) 3rd High-Power Targetry Workshop, September 10-14, 2007 Bad Zurzach, Switzerland $http://asq.web.psi.ch/hptrgts/index$
* (6) Hiroyuki Kogawa, et all. Journ. of Nucl. Mat. 34, 3178-183 (2005)
* (7) Samuliak R. Numerical simulation of hydro- and magneto-hydrodynamical properties in the Muon Collider target. Lecture Notes in Comp. Sci, Vol. 2331 Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York (2002) 391-400
* (8) Cords H. A Literature Survey on Fluid Data for Mercury - Constitutive Equation
$http://neutron.neutron-eu.net/n\\_ess$
* (9) Kitamura H., Journal of Chemical Physics 126, 134509 (2007)
* (10) Raabe G. and Sadus R.J. Journ. of Chem. Phys. 119, 6691 (2003)
* (11) Mehdipour N. and Bousheri A., Int. Journ. of Thermo-physics 18, 1329 (1997)
* (12) Morita K., Sobolev V. and Flad M., Journ.l of Nucl. Mat. 362, 227-234 (2007)
* (13) Martynyuk M.M.Z., Fiz. Khim. 65, 1716 (1981)
* (14) Mehdipour N., Boushehri A. and Eslami H., Journ. of Non-Cryst. Sol. 351, 1333 (2005)
* (15) Stewart H.B. and Wendroff B., J. Comp. Phys. 56, 363 (1984)
* (16) Menikoff R. and Plohr. B., Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 75-130 (1989)
* (17) Davis L.A. and Gordon R.B., Journ. Chem. Phys. 46, 2650 (1967)
* (18) Jasper J.J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 1, 841 (1972)
* (19) Ni L., Bauer G.S. and Spitzer H., Nucl. Instr. Meth. in Phys. Res. A 425, 57 (1999)
* (20) Futakawa M., Kikuchi K., Conrad H. and Stechmesser H., Nucl. Instr. Meth. in Phys. Res. A 439, 1 (2000)
* (21) Ziegler J.F., Biersack J.P. and Littman U., The stopping and Ranges of Ions in Matter, Pergamon Press, Oxford (1985)
* (22) Debenedetti P.G. 1996 Metastable Liquids: Concepts and Principles (Princeton University Press, Princeton)
* (23) Trevena D.H. 1987 Cavitation and Tension in Liquids (Adam Hilger, Bristol)
* (24) Imre A., Martiás K. and Rebelo L.P.N. J. Non-Equilib. Thermodyn. 23, 351 (1998)
* (25) Imre A R, Maris H J and Williams P R (Eds.) 2002 Liquids Under Negative Pressure (NATO Science Series, Kluwer, Dordrecht)
* (26) Briggs L.J., J. Appl. Phys., 24, 488-490 (1953)
* (27) Zheng Q., Durben D.J., Wolf G.H. and Angell C.A. Science 254, 829 (1991)
* (28) Hidefumi D. and Futakawa M., Int. Journ. Imp. Eng. 32, 118-129 (2005)
* (29) Taleyarkhan R.P. and Moraga F., Nucl. Eng. and Des. 207, 181-188 (2001)
Table 1: Nomenclature used in the two-phase flow equations(Eq. 1-6. ) A pipe
cross section $(m^{2})$
---
$C_{i}$ internal friction coefficient $(kg/m^{4})$
CVM virtual mass term $(N/m^{3})$
$e_{i}$ specific total energy [e = u + $v^{2}/2$] $(J/kg)$
$F_{f,wall}$ wall friction per unit volume $(N/m^{3})$
g gravitational acceleration$(m/s^{2})$
$h_{i}$ specific enthalpy [h = u + $p/\rho$] $(J/kg)$
$p$ pressure (Pa)
$p_{i}$ interfacial pressure $p_{i}=p\alpha(1-\alpha)$ (Pa)
$Q_{ig}$ interf.-liq./gas heat transf. per vol. rate $(W/m^{3})$
t time (s)
$u_{i}$ specific internal energy $(J/kg)$
$v_{i}$ velocity $(m/s)$
$v_{r}$ relative velocity [$v_{r}=v_{g}-v_{f}$ ]$(m/s)$
w pipe velocity in flow direction $(m/s)$
x spatial coordinate (m)
$\Gamma$ vapour generation rate $(kg/m^{3})$
$\alpha$ vapour void fraction
$\rho_{i}$ density $(kg/m^{3})$
$\theta$ pipe inclination
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-23T11:55:21 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.928083 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Imre Ferenc Barna, Attila Richard Imre, Laszlo Rosta, Ferenc Mezei",
"submitter": "Imre Ferenc Barna Dr.",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3618"
} |
0805.3795 | # Approximating with Gaussians
Craig Calcaterra and Axel Boldt
Metropolitan State University
craig.calcaterra@metrostate.edu
###### Abstract
Linear combinations of translations of a single Gaussian, $e^{-x^{2}}$, are
shown to be dense in $L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$. Two algorithms for
determining the coefficients for the approximations are given, using
orthogonal Hermite functions and least squares. Taking the Fourier transform
of this result shows low-frequency trigonometric series are dense in $L^{2}$
with Gaussian weight function.
Key Words: Hermite series, Gaussian function, low-frequency trigonometric
series
AMS Subject Classifications: 41A30, 42A32, 42C10
## 1 Linear combinations of Gaussians with a single variance are dense in
$L^{2}$
$L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ denotes the space of square integrable
functions $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ with norm
$\left\|f\right\|_{2}:=\sqrt{\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left|f\left(x\right)\right|^{2}dx}$.
We use $f\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}g$ to mean
$\left\|f-g\right\|_{2}<\epsilon$. The following result was announced in [4].
###### Theorem 1
For any $f\in L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ and any $\epsilon>0$ there exists
$t>0$ and $N\in\mathbb{N}$ and $a_{n}\in\mathbb{R}$ such that
$f\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}\
\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}e^{-\left(x-nt\right)^{2}}\text{.}$
Proof. Since the span of the Hermite functions is dense in
$L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ we have for some $N$
$f\underset{\epsilon/2}{\approx}\
\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}b_{n}\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}\left(e^{-x^{2}}\right)\text{.}$
(1)
Now use finite backward differences to approximate the derivatives. We have
for some small $t>0$
$\displaystyle\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}b_{n}\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}\left(e^{-x^{2}}\right)$
$\displaystyle\underset{\epsilon/2}{\approx}b_{0}e^{-x^{2}}+b_{1}\tfrac{1}{t}\left[e^{-x^{2}}-e^{-\left(x-t\right)^{2}}\right]+b_{2}\tfrac{1}{t^{2}}\left[e^{-x^{2}}-2e^{-\left(x-t\right)^{2}}+e^{-\left(x-2t\right)^{2}}\right]$
$\displaystyle+b_{3}\tfrac{1}{t^{3}}\left[e^{-x^{2}}-3e^{-\left(x-t\right)^{2}}+3e^{-\left(x-2t\right)^{2}}-e^{-\left(x-3t\right)^{2}}\right]+\cdots$
$\displaystyle=\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}b_{n}\frac{1}{t^{n}}\overset{n}{\underset{k=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}\left(-1\right)^{k}\binom{n}{k}e^{-\left(x-kt\right)^{2}}\text{.}$
(2)
This result may be surprising; it promises we can approximate to any degree of
accuracy a function such as the following characteristic function of an
interval
$\chi_{\left[-11,-10\right]}\left(x\right):=\left\\{\begin{array}[c]{l}1\\\
0\end{array}\right.\begin{array}[c]{l}\text{for }x\in\left[-10,-11\right]\\\
\text{otherwise}\end{array}$
with support far from the means of the Gaussians $e^{-\left(x-nt\right)^{2}}$
which are located in $\left[0,\infty\right)$ at the points $x=nt$. The graphs
of these functions $e^{-\left(x-nt\right)^{2}}$ are extremely simple
geometrically, being Gaussians with the same variance. We only use the right
translates, and they all shrink precipitously (exponentially) away from their
means.
$\sum a_{n}e^{-\left(x-nt\right)^{2}}\approx$ characteristic function?
Surely there is a gap in this sketchy little proof?
No. We will, however, flesh out the details in section 2. The coefficients
$a_{n}$ are explicitly calculated and the $L^{2}$ convergence carefully
justified. But these details are elementary. We include them in the interest
of appealing to a broader audience.
Then is this merely another pathological curiosity from analysis? We probably
need impractically large values of $N$ to approximate any interesting
functions.
No, $N$ need only be as large as the Hermite expansion demands. Certainly this
particular approach depends on the convergence of the Hermite expansion, and
for many applications Hermite series converge slower than other Fourier
approximations–after all, Hermite series converge on all of $\mathbb{R}$
while, e.g., trigonometric series focus on a bounded interval. Hermite
expansions do have powerful convergence properties, though. For example,
Hermite series converge uniformly on finite compact subsets whenever $f$ is
twice continuously differentiable (i.e., $C^{2}$) and
$O\left(e^{-cx^{2}}\right)$ for some $c>1$ as $x\rightarrow\infty$.
Alternately if $f$ has finitely many discontinuities but is still $C^{2}$
elsewhere and $O\left(e^{-cx^{2}}\right)$ the expansion again converges
uniformly on any closed interval which avoids the discontinuities [15], [16]:.
If $f$ is smooth and properly bounded, the Hermite series converges faster
than algebraically [7].
Then is the method unstable?
Yes, there are two serious drawbacks to using Theorem 1.
1\. Numerical differentiation is inherently unstable. Fortunately we are
estimating the derivatives of Gaussians, which are as smooth and bounded as we
could hope, and so we have good control with an explicit error formula. It is
true, though, that dividing by $t^{n}$ for small $t$ and large $n$ will
eventually lead to huge coefficients $a_{n}$ and round-off error. There are
quite a few general techniques available in the literature for combatting
round-off error in numerical differentiation. We review the well-known
$n$-point difference formulas for derivatives in section 6.
2\. The surprising approximation is only possible because it is weaker than
the typical convergence of a series in the mean. Unfortunately
$f\left(x\right)\neq\overset{\infty}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}e^{-\left(x-nt\right)^{2}}$
Theorem 1 requires recalculating all the $a_{n}$ each time $N$ is increased.
Further, the $a_{n}$ are not unique. The least squares best choice of $a_{n}$
are calculated in section 3, but this approach gives an ill-conditioned
matrix. A different formula for the $a_{n}$ is given in Theorem 3 which is
more computationally efficient.
Despite these drawbacks the result is worthy of note because of the new and
unexpected opportunities which arise using an approximation method with such
simple functions. In this vein, section 4 details an interesting corollary of
Theorem 1: apply the Fourier transform to see that low-frequency trigonometric
series are dense in $L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ with Gaussian weight
function.
## 2 Calculating the coefficients with orthogonal functions
In this section Theorem 3 gives an explicit formula for the coefficients
$a_{n}$ of Theorem 1. Let’s review the details of the Hermite-inspired
expansion
$f\left(x\right)=\overset{\infty}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}b_{n}\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}\left(e^{-x^{2}}\right)$
claimed in the proof. The formula for these coefficients is
$b_{n}:=\tfrac{1}{n!2^{n}\sqrt{\pi}}\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}f\left(x\right)e^{x^{2}}\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}\left(e^{-x^{2}}\right)dx\text{.}$
Be warned this is not precisely the standard Hermite expansion, but a simple
adaptation to our particular requirements. Let’s check this formula for the
$b_{n}$ using the techniques of orthogonal functions.
Remember the following properties of the Hermite polynomials $H_{n}$ ([16],
e.g.). Define
$H_{n}\left(x\right):=\left(-1\right)^{n}e^{x^{2}}\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}e^{-x^{2}}$.
The set of Hermite functions
$\left\\{h_{n}\left(x\right):=\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{n!2^{n}\sqrt{\pi}}}H_{n}\left(x\right)e^{-x^{2}/2}:n\in\mathbb{N}\right\\}$
is a well-known basis of $L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ and is orthonormal
since
$\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}H_{m}\left(x\right)H_{n}\left(x\right)e^{-x^{2}}dx=n!2^{n}\sqrt{\pi}\delta_{m,n}\text{.}$
(3)
This means given any $g\in L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ it is possible to
write
$g\left(x\right)=\overset{\infty}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}c_{n}\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{n!2^{n}\sqrt{\pi}}}H_{n}\left(x\right)e^{-x^{2}/2}$
(4)
$($equality in the $L^{2}$ sense$)$ where
$c_{n}:=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{n!2^{n}\sqrt{\pi}}}\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}g\left(x\right)H_{n}\left(x\right)e^{-x^{2}/2}dx\in\mathbb{R}\text{.}$
The necessity of this formula for $c_{n}$ can easily be checked by multiplying
both sides of $\left(\ref{ExHermite10}\right)$ by
$H_{n}\left(x\right)e^{-x^{2}/2}$, integrating and applying
$\left(\ref{ExHermite2}\right)$. However, we want
$f\left(x\right)=\overset{\infty}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}b_{n}\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}e^{-x^{2}}$
so apply this process to $g\left(x\right)=f\left(x\right)e^{x^{2}/2}$. But
$f\left(x\right)e^{x^{2}/2}$ may not be $L^{2}$ integrable. If it is not, we
must truncate it:
$f\left(x\right)e^{x^{2}/2}\chi_{\left[-M,M\right]}\left(x\right)$ is $L^{2}$
for any $M<\infty$ and
$f\cdot\chi_{\left[-M,M\right]}\underset{\epsilon/3}{\approx}f$ for a
sufficiently large choice of $M$. Now we get new $c_{n}$ as follows
$\displaystyle
f\left(x\right)e^{x^{2}/2}\chi_{\left[-M,M\right]}\left(x\right)$
$\displaystyle=\overset{\infty}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}c_{n}\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{n!2^{n}\sqrt{\pi}}}H_{n}\left(x\right)e^{-x^{2}/2}\text{\qquad
so}$ $\displaystyle f\left(x\right)\chi_{\left[-M,M\right]}\left(x\right)$
$\displaystyle=\overset{\infty}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}c_{n}\tfrac{\left(-1\right)^{n}}{\sqrt{n!2^{n}\sqrt{\pi}}}\left(-1\right)^{n}H_{n}\left(x\right)e^{-x^{2}}=\overset{\infty}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}b_{n}\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}e^{-x^{2}}$
where
$\displaystyle c_{n}$
$\displaystyle=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{n!2^{n}\sqrt{\pi}}}\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}f\left(x\right)e^{x^{2}/2}\chi_{\left[-M,M\right]}\left(x\right)H_{n}\left(x\right)e^{-x^{2}/2}\left(x\right)dx$
$\displaystyle=\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{n!2^{n}\sqrt{\pi}}}\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}f\left(x\right)\chi_{\left[-M,M\right]}\left(x\right)H_{n}\left(x\right)dx$
so we must have
$b_{n}=c_{n}\tfrac{\left(-1\right)^{n}}{\sqrt{n!2^{n}\sqrt{\pi}}}=\tfrac{1}{n!2^{n}\sqrt{\pi}}\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}f\left(x\right)\chi_{\left[-M,M\right]}\left(x\right)e^{x^{2}}\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}e^{-x^{2}}dx\text{.}$
(5)
Now the second step of the proof of Theorem 1 claims that the Gaussian’s
derivatives may be approximated by divided backward differences
$\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}e^{-x^{2}}\approx\frac{1}{t^{n}}\overset{n}{\underset{k=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}\left(-1\right)^{k}\binom{n}{k}e^{-\left(x-kt\right)^{2}}$
in the $L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ norm. We’ll use the “big oh” notation:
for a real function $\Psi$ the statement “
$\Psi\left(t\right)=O\left(t\right)$ as $t\rightarrow 0$ ” means there exist
$K>0$ and $\delta>0$ such that
$\left|\Psi\left(t\right)\right|<K\left|t\right|$ for
$0<\left|t\right|<\delta$.
###### Proposition 2
For each $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and $p\in\left(0,\infty\right)$
$\left(\underset{\mathbb{R}}{\int}\left|\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}e^{-x^{2}}-\frac{1}{t^{n}}{\textstyle\sum_{k=0}^{n}}\left(-1\right)^{k}\binom{n}{k}e^{-\left(x-kt\right)^{2}}\right|^{p}dx\right)^{1/p}=O\left(t\right)\text{.}$
Proof. In Appendix 6 the pointwise formula is derived:
$\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}g\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{t^{n}}{\textstyle\sum_{k=0}^{n}}\left(-1\right)^{k}\binom{n}{k}g\left(x-kt\right)-\dfrac{t}{\left(n+1\right)!}\overset{n}{\underset{k=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}\left(-1\right)^{k}\binom{n}{k}k^{n+1}g^{\left(n+1\right)}\left(\xi_{k}\right)$
where all of the $\xi_{k}$ are between $x$ and $x+nt$. Therefore the
proposition holds with $g\left(x\right)=e^{-x^{2}}$ since
$g^{\left(n+1\right)}\left(\xi_{k}\right)$ is integrable for each $k$. This is
not perfectly obvious because we don’t have explicit formulae for the
$\xi_{k}$. But the tails of $g^{\left(n+1\right)}$ vanish exponentially, the
continuity of $g^{\left(n+1\right)}$ guarantees a finite maximum on the
bounded interval between the tails, and
$\left|\xi_{k}-x\right|<k\left|t\right|$.
Continuing the derivation of the coefficients $a_{n}$ we now have for
sufficiently small $t\neq 0$
$f\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}\
\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}b_{n}\frac{1}{t^{n}}\overset{n}{\underset{k=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}\left(-1\right)^{k}\binom{n}{k}e^{-\left(x-kt\right)^{2}}=\overset{N}{\underset{k=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}\left[\overset{N}{\underset{n=k}{{\textstyle\sum}}}b_{n}\frac{\left(-1\right)^{k}}{t^{n}}\binom{n}{k}\right]e^{-\left(x-kt\right)^{2}}$
(6)
In the last equality we just switched the order of summation (see [9], section
2.4 for an overview of such tricks). Combining $\left(\ref{Line b_n}\right)$
and $\left(\ref{Line f approxi}\right)$ we have
###### Theorem 3
For any $f\in L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ and any $\epsilon>0$ there exist
$N\in\mathbb{N}$ and $t_{0}>0$ such that for any $t\neq 0$ with
$\left|t\right|<t_{0}$
$f\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}\
\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}e^{-\left(x-nt\right)^{2}}$
for some choice of $a_{n}\in\mathbb{R}$ dependent on $N$ and $t$.
If $f\left(x\right)e^{x^{2}/2}$ is integrable, then one choice of coefficients
is
$a_{n}=\frac{\left(-1\right)^{n}}{n!\sqrt{\pi}}\overset{N}{\underset{k=n}{{\textstyle\sum}}}\tfrac{1}{\left(k-n\right)!\left(2t\right)^{k}}\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}f\left(x\right)e^{x^{2}}\frac{d^{k}}{dx^{k}}\left(e^{-x^{2}}\right)dx\text{.}$
If $f\left(x\right)e^{x^{2}/2}$ is not integrable, replace $f$ in the above
formula with $f\cdot\chi_{\left[-M,M\right]}$ where $M$ is chosen large enough
that $\left\|f-f\cdot\chi_{\left[-M,M\right]}\right\|_{2}<\epsilon$.
###### Remark 4
The approximation in Theorem 3 also holds on $C\left[a,b\right]$ with the
uniform norm since the Hermite expansion is uniformly convergent on
$C^{2}\left[a,b\right]$ (see [15], [16]) and the finite difference formula’s
error term from Appendix 6 converges to 0 uniformly as $t\rightarrow 0^{+}$.
The Stone-Weierstrass Theorem does not apply in this situation because linear
combinations of Gaussians with a single variance do not form an algebra.
###### Remark 5
As a consequence of Theorem 3 for any $\epsilon>0$ the closed linear span of
$\left\\{e^{-\left(x-s\right)^{2}}:s\in\left[0,\epsilon\right)\right\\}$ is
$L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$. It is even sufficient to replace
$\left[0,\epsilon\right)$ with
$\left\\{\frac{i}{2^{j}}:i,j\in\mathbb{N}\right\\}\cap\left[0,\epsilon\right)$.
Let’s explore some concrete examples in applying Theorem 3. Choose an
interesting function with discontinuities and some support negative:
$f\left(x\right):=\left(x-1\right)^{2}\chi_{\left[-1,2\right]}\left(x\right):=\left\\{\begin{array}[c]{l}\left(x-1\right)^{2}\\\
0\end{array}\right.\begin{array}[c]{l}\text{for }x\in\left[-1,2\right]\\\
\text{otherwise}\end{array}$
and observe graphically:
$f\left(x\right):=\left(x-1\right)^{2}\chi_{\left[-1,2\right]}\left(x\right)$
Hermite series $N=20$ Hermite $N=40$
Theorem 3 $N=20$, $t=.05$ Theorem 3 $N=20$, $t=.01$ Theorem 3 $N=40$, $t=.01$
The Hermite approximation is slowed by discontinuities, but does converge. The
next choice of $f$ is continuous but not smooth.
$f\left(x\right):=\left(\sin
x\right)\chi_{\left[-\pi,\pi\right]}\left(x\right)$ Hermite expansion $N=10$
Hermite expansion $N=20$ Theorem 3 $N=10$, $t=.01$ Theorem 3 $N=20$, $t=.05$
Theorem 3 $N=20$, $t=.01$
In section 6 we review a standard technique accelerating this convergence in
$t$. In our experiments, though, we’ve found the Hermite expansion is
generally the bottleneck, not the round-off error of the derivative
approximations for $e^{-x^{2}}$.
Hermite expansion $N=60$ Hermite expansion $N=100$ Hermite expansion $N=120$
We need about 120 terms before visual accuracy is achieved for this simple
function. There is a host of methods in the literature for improving
convergence of the Hermite expansion, but generally we have better success
with functions that are smooth and bounded [7]. Our last examples in this
section illustrate how convergence is faster for functions which are smooth
and “clamped off”, meaning multiplied by
$\left(x-a\right)^{n}\left(x+a\right)^{n}\chi_{\left[-a,a\right]}$ whether or
not they are positive or symmetric.
Hermite $N=10$
Hermite $N=25$
Hermite $N=10$
Hermite $N=25$
## 3 Calculating the coefficients with least squares
Theorem 1 promises any $L^{2}$ function can be approximated
$f\left(x\right)\approx\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{\sum}}a_{n}e^{-\left(x-nt\right)^{2}}$.
Theorem 3 gives a formula for the coefficients $a_{n}$ but this formula is not
unique, and in fact is not “best” according to the classical continuous least
squares technique.
Least squares approximation
---
$N=5$, $t=.01$
Theorem 3 approximation
---
$N=5$, $t=.01$
In least squares we minimize the error function
$E_{2}\left(a_{0},...,a_{N}\right):=\underset{\mathbb{R}}{\int}\left|f\left(x\right)-\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{\sum}}a_{n}e^{-\left(x-nt\right)^{2}}\right|^{2}dx$
by setting $\frac{\partial E_{2}}{\partial a_{j}}=0$ for $j=0,...,N$ and
solving for the $a_{n}$. These $N+1$ linear equations are called the normal
equations. The matrix form of this system is
$M\overrightarrow{v}=\overrightarrow{b}$ where $M$ is the matrix
$M=\left[\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2}}e^{-\left(k^{2}+j^{2}-\frac{\left(k+j\right)^{2}}{2}\right)t^{2}}\right]_{j,k=0}^{N}$
and
$\overrightarrow{v}=\left[a_{j}\right]_{j=0}^{N}\text{\qquad
and\qquad}\overrightarrow{b}=\left[\underset{\mathbb{R}}{\int}f\left(x\right)e^{-\left(x-jt\right)^{2}}dx\right]_{j=0}^{N}$
$M$ is symmetric and invertible, so we can always solve for the $a_{n}$. But
these least squares matrices are notorious for being ill-conditioned when
using non-orthogonal approximating functions. The Hilbert matrix is the
archetypical example. The current application is no exception since the matrix
entries are very similar for most choices of $N$ and $t$, so round-off error
is extreme. Choosing $N=7$ instead of $5$ in the graphed example above
requires almost 300 significant digits.
## 4 Low-frequency trig series are dense in $L^{2}$ with Gaussian weight
For $f\in L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C}\right)$ define the norm
$\left\|f\right\|_{2,G}:=\left(\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}\left|f\left(x\right)\right|^{2}e^{-x^{2}}dx\right)^{1/2}\text{.}$
Write $f\underset{\epsilon,G}{\approx}$ $g$ to mean
$\left\|f-g\right\|_{2,G}<\epsilon$.
###### Theorem 6
For every $f\in L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C}\right)$ and $\epsilon>0$
there exists $N$ $\in\mathbb{N}$ and $t_{0}>0$ such that for any $t\neq 0$
with $\left|t\right|<t_{0}$
$f\left(x\right)\underset{\epsilon,G}{\approx}\text{
}\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}e^{-intx}$
for some choice of $a_{n}\in\mathbb{C}$ dependent on $N$ and $t$.
Proof. We use the Fourier transform with convention
$\mathcal{F}\left[f\right]\left(s\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}f\left(x\right)e^{-isx}dx\text{.}$
$\mathcal{F}$ is a linear isometry of
$L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C}\right)$ with
$\displaystyle\mathcal{F}\left[e^{-\alpha x^{2}}\right]$
$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\alpha}}e^{-\frac{s^{2}}{4\alpha}}\text{,}$
$\displaystyle\mathcal{F}\left[f\left(x+r\right)\right]$
$\displaystyle=e^{-irs}\mathcal{F}\left[f\left(x\right)\right]\text{\qquad
and}$ $\displaystyle\mathcal{F}\left[g\ast h\right]$
$\displaystyle=\sqrt{2\pi}\mathcal{F}\left[g\right]\mathcal{F}\left[h\right]\text{.}$
where $\ast$ is convolution.
Let $f\in L^{2}$ and we now show
$f_{2}\left(x\right):=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-x^{2}}\ast\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[f\right]\left(x\right)\in
L^{2}$. Notice $g:=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[f\right]\in L^{2}$ and
$\displaystyle\left\|f_{2}\right\|_{2}^{2}$
$\displaystyle=\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}\left|\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}g\left(x-y\right)e^{-y^{2}}dy\right|^{2}ds\leq\frac{1}{2\pi}\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}\left|g\left(x-y\right)\right|^{2}e^{-2y^{2}}dyds$
$\displaystyle=c\left\|\mathcal{W}_{t_{0}}\left[\left|g\right|^{2}\right]\right\|_{1}=c\left\|g^{2}\right\|_{1}=c\left\|g\right\|_{2}^{2}=c\left\|f\right\|_{2}^{2}<\infty$
for some $c>0$. Here $\mathcal{W}_{t}\left[h\right]$ is the solution to the
diffusion equation for time $t$ and initial condition $h$. (The notation
$\mathcal{W}$ refers to the Weierstrass transform.) The reason for the third
equality in the previous calculation is that $\mathcal{W}_{t}$ maintains the
$L^{1}$ integral of any positive initial condition $h$ for all time $t>0$
[17].
Now approximate the real and imaginary parts of $f_{2}$ with Theorem 3. Then
we get
$\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-x^{2}}\ast\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[f\right]\left(x\right)\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}\
\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}e^{-\left(x-nt\right)^{2}}\text{\qquad}a_{n}\in\mathbb{C}$
and applying $\mathcal{F}$ gives
$\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{-s^{2}/4}f\left(s\right)\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}\text{
}\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}e^{-ints}\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{-s^{2}/4}$
Hence
$f\left(s\right)\underset{\sqrt{2}\epsilon,G}{\approx}\text{
}\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}e^{-ints}$
using the fact that $e^{-s^{2}/4}>e^{-s^{2}}$.
This result is surprising, even in the context of this paper, because for
instance, series of the form
$\overset{N}{\underset{n=-N}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}e^{-i\left(x+nt\right)}$
for all $t$ and $a_{n}$ are not dense in $L^{2}$ and in fact only inhabit a
4-dimensional subspace of the infinite dimensional Hilbert space [3].
###### Corollary 7
On any finite interval $\left[a,b\right]$ for any $\omega>0$ the finite linear
combinations of sine and cosine functions with frequency lower than $\omega$
are dense in $L^{2}\left(\left[a,b\right],\mathbb{R}\right)$.
Proof. On $\left[a,b\right]$ the Gaussian is bounded and so the norms with or
without weight function are equivalent. Apply Theorem 6 to $f\in
L^{2}\left(\left[a,b\right],\mathbb{R}\right)$ and choose $t$ such that
$Nt<\omega$ to get
$f\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}\text{
}\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}\operatorname{Re}\left(a_{n}\right)\cos\left(ntx\right)+\operatorname{Im}\left(a_{n}\right)\sin\left(ntx\right)$
where
$a_{n}=\frac{\left(-1\right)^{n}}{n!2\pi}\overset{N}{\underset{k=n}{{\textstyle\sum}}}\tfrac{1}{\left(k-n\right)!\left(2t\right)^{k}}\underset{\mathbb{R}}{{\textstyle\int}}\left[e^{-x^{2}}\ast\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left[f\right]\left(x\right)\right]e^{x^{2}}\frac{d^{k}}{dx^{k}}\left(e^{-x^{2}}\right)dx\text{.}$
Applying Remark 5 to this result shows even discrete sets of positive
frequencies that approach 0 make the span of the corresponding sine and cosine
functions equal to$L^{2}\left(\left[a,b\right],\mathbb{R}\right)$.
Finally, low-frequency cosines span the even functions:
###### Proposition 8
On any finite interval $\left[0,b\right]$ for any $\omega>0$ the finite linear
combinations of cosine functions with frequency lower than $\omega$ are dense
in $L^{2}\left(\left[0,b\right],\mathbb{R}\right)$.
Proof. Let $f\in L^{2}\left(\left[0,b\right],\mathbb{R}\right)$ and extend it
as an even function on $\left[-b,b\right]$. Now use the previous corollary to
write
$f\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}\text{
}\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}\cos\left(ntx\right)+b_{n}\sin\left(ntx\right)\text{.}$
We’d like to conclude right now that the $b_{n}=0$ or $b_{n}\approx 0$, but
that is not true. However, every function $g$ on $\left[-b,b\right]$ may be
written uniquely as a sum of even and odd functions
$\displaystyle g$ $\displaystyle=g_{e}+g_{o}$ $\displaystyle
g_{e}\left(x\right)$
$\displaystyle=\frac{g\left(x\right)+g\left(-x\right)}{2}$ $\displaystyle
g_{e}\left(x\right)$
$\displaystyle=\frac{g\left(x\right)-g\left(-x\right)}{2}$
and so
$g\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}\text{
}h\text{\quad}\Rightarrow\text{\quad}g_{e}\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}\text{
}h_{e}\text{.}$
Therefore
$f=f_{e}\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}\text{
}\left[\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}\cos\left(ntx\right)+b_{n}\sin\left(ntx\right)\right]_{e}=\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}\cos\left(ntx\right)\text{.}$
Beware this last result; it’s not as strong as Fourier approximation. The
coefficients for the sine functions calculated above may be large; the
proposition merely promises the linear combination of the sine terms is small.
Using least squares, however, will have vanishing sine coefficients.
## 5 Origins and generalizations
The mathematical inspiration for Theorem 1 comes from geometrical
investigations in infinite dimensional control theory. We noticed that
function translation and vector translation in $L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$
do not commute. Specifically, “function translation” is a flow on the infinite
dimensional vector space $L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ given by the map
$F:L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow
L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ where
$F_{t}\left(f\right)\left(x\right):=f\left(x+t\right)$. “Vector translation”
in the direction of $g\in L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ is the flow
$G:L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow
L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ where $G_{t}\left(f\right):=f+tg$. Taking for
example $g\left(x\right):=e^{-x^{2}}$ and composing $F$ and $G$ we see
$F_{t}\circ G_{t}\neq G_{t}\circ F_{t}$ since for $f\equiv 0$
$F_{t}\circ G_{t}\left(f\right)\left(x\right)=te^{-\left(x+t\right)^{2}}\text{
\qquad while\qquad}G_{t}\circ
F_{t}\left(f\right)\left(x\right)=te^{-x^{2}}\text{.}$
Notice however the key fact
$\frac{F_{t}\circ G_{t}-G_{t}\circ
F_{t}}{t^{2}}\left(f\right)\rightarrow\frac{d}{dx}\left(e^{-x^{2}}\right)\text{\qquad
as }t\rightarrow 0$
In finite dimensions the commutator quotient above gives the Lie bracket
$\left[X,Y\right]$ of the vector fields $X$ and $Y$ which generate the flows
$F$ and $G$, respectively. A fundamental result in finite-dimensional control
theory states that the reachable set via $X$ and $Y$ is given by the integral
surface to the distribution made up of iterated Lie brackets starting from $X$
and $Y$ (Chow’s Theorem, which is an interpretation of Frobenius’ Foliation
Theorem, see [13], e.g.). The idea we are exploiting is that iterated Lie
brackets for our flows $F$ and $G$ will give successive derivatives of the
Gaussian, whose span is dense in $L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$. Consequently,
the reachable set via $F$ and $G$ from $f\equiv 0$ should be all of
$L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$. That is to say, sums of translates and
multiples of one Gaussian (with fixed variance) can approximate any integrable
function.
Unfortunately this program doesn’t automatically work on the infinite
dimensional vector space $L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ since the function
translation flow is not generated by a simple vector field on
$L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$. So instead of studying vector fields, we
consider flows as primary. The fundamental results can be rewritten and still
hold in the general context of a metric space [3]. Then other functions
besides $g\left(x\right)=e^{-x^{2}}$ can be checked to be derivative
generating and other flows may be used in place of translation. E.g., Fourier
approximation is achieved using dilation
$F:L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C}\right)\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow
L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R},\mathbb{C}\right)$ where
$F_{t}\left(f\right)\left(x\right):=f\left(e^{t}x\right)$ and
$G_{t}\left(f\right)\left(x\right):=f\left(x\right)+te^{ix}$. This gives us a
general tool for determining the density of various families of functions.
Another opportunity for generalizing the results of this paper presents itself
with the observation that Hermite expansions are valid for functions defined
on $\mathbb{C}$ or $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and in spaces of tempered distributions;
and divided differences works in all of these spaces as well.
Note also that while the results of section 2 work for uniform approximations
of continuous functions on finite intervals (Remark 4), this is an open
question for low-frequency trigonometric approximations.
The results of this paper can be ported to the language of control theory
where we can then conclude the system
$u_{t}=c_{1}\left(t\right)u_{x}+c_{2}(t)e^{-x^{2}}$ (7)
is bang-bang controllable with controls of the form
$c_{1},c_{2}:\mathbb{R}^{+}\rightarrow\left\\{-1,0,1\right\\}$. Theorem 3
drives the initial condition $f\equiv 0$ to any state in $L^{2}$ under the
system $\left(\ref{LineControl2}\right)$, but may be nowhere near optimal for
approximating a function such as $e^{-\left(x+10\right)^{2}}$, since it uses
only Gaussians $e^{-\left(x+s\right)^{2}}$ with choices of $s<<10$.
Finally, interpreting Theorem 1 in terms of signal analysis, we see a Gaussian
filter is a universal synthesizer with arbitrarily short load time. Let
$G\left(x\right):=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}e^{-x^{2}}$. A Gaussian filter is a
linear time-invariant system represented by the operator
$\mathcal{W}\left(f\right)\left(x\right):=\left(f\ast
G\right)\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}f\left(y\right)e^{-\left(s-x\right)^{2}}dy\text{.}$
Notice if you feed $\mathcal{W}$ a Dirac delta distribution $\delta_{t}$ (an
ideal impulse at time $x=t$) you get
$\mathcal{W}\left(\delta_{t}\right)=G\left(x-t\right)$. Then Theorem 1 gives
###### Corollary 9
For any $f\in L^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$ and any $\epsilon>0$ and any
$\tau>0$ there exists $t>0$ and $N\in\mathbb{N}$ with $tN<\tau$ such that
$f\underset{\epsilon}{\approx}\mathcal{W}\left(\overset{N}{\underset{n=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}a_{n}\delta_{nt}\right)$
for some choice of $a_{n}\in\mathbb{R}$.
Feed a Gaussian filter a linear combination of impulses and we can synthesize
any signal and arbitrarily small load time $\tau$. The design of physical
approximations to an analog Gaussian filter are detailed in [6], [11].
## 6 Appendix: Approximating higher derivatives
The results in this paper may be much improved with voluminous techniques
available from numerical analysis. E.g., [8] gives an algorithm which speeds
the calculation of sums of Gaussians, and [10] explores Hermite expansion
acceleration useful in step 1 of the proof of Theorem 1. This section is
devoted to reviewing methods which improve the error in step 2, approximating
derivatives of the Gaussian with finite differences. We also derive the error
formula used in Proposition 2.
Above we approximated derivatives with the formula
$\frac{d^{n}}{dx^{n}}f\left(x\right)=\begin{tabular}[c]{c}$\underbrace{\frac{1}{t^{n}}{\textstyle\sum_{k=0}^{n}}\left(-1\right)^{n-k}\binom{n}{k}f\left(x+kt\right)}$\\\
gives round-off error as $t\rightarrow
0^{+}$\end{tabular}\begin{tabular}[c]{c}$\underset{}{+}$\end{tabular}\begin{tabular}[c]{l}$\underbrace{O\left(t\right)}$\\\
truncation error\end{tabular}\text{.}$ (8)
The Nörlund-Rice integral may be of interest for extremely large $n$ as it
avoids the calculation of the binomial coefficient by evaluating a complex
integral. In this section, though, we devote our attention to deriving
$n$-point formulas; these formulas decrease round-off error by increasing the
number of evaluations $f\left(x+kt\right)$–this shrinks the truncation error
without sending $t\rightarrow 0$.
In approximating the $k$th derivative with an $n+1$ point formula
$f^{\left(k\right)}\left(x\right)\approx\frac{1}{t^{k}}\overset{n}{\underset{i=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}c_{i}f\left(x+k_{i}t\right)$
we wish to calculate the coefficients $c_{i}$. In the forward difference
method, the $k_{i}=i$, but keeping these values general allows us to find the
coefficients for the central or backward difference formulas just as easily.
The following method for finding the $c_{i}$ was shown to us by our student
Jeffrey Thornton who rediscovered the formula.
Taylor’s Theorem has
$f\left(x+k_{i}t\right)=\overset{n}{\underset{j=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}\frac{\left(k_{i}t\right)^{j}}{j!}f^{\left(j\right)}\left(x\right)+\frac{\left(k_{i}t\right)^{n+1}}{\left(n+1\right)!}f^{\left(n+1\right)}\left(\xi_{i}\right)$
for some $\xi_{i}$ between $x$ and $x+k_{i}t$. From this it follows
$\displaystyle\overset{n}{\underset{i=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}c_{i}f\left(x+k_{i}t\right)$
$\displaystyle=\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{c}$f\left(x\right)$\\\
$tf^{\prime}\left(x\right)$\\\ $\vdots$\\\
$t^{n}f^{\left(n\right)}\left(x\right)$\\\
$t^{n+1}$\end{tabular}\right]^{T}\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{cccc}$1$&$1$&$\cdots$&$1$\\\
$k_{0}$&$k_{1}$&$\cdots$&$k_{n}$\\\
$\frac{k_{0}^{2}}{2!}$&$\frac{k_{1}^{2}}{2!}$&$\cdots$&$\frac{k_{n}^{2}}{2!}$\\\
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\ddots$&$\vdots$\\\
$\frac{k_{0}^{n}}{n!}$&$\frac{k_{1}^{n}}{n!}$&$\cdots$&$\frac{k_{n}^{n}}{n!}$\\\
$\tfrac{k_{0}^{n+1}f^{\left(n+1\right)}\left(\xi_{0}\right)}{\left(n+1\right)!}$&$\frac{k_{1}^{n+1}f^{\left(n+1\right)}\left(\xi_{1}\right)}{\left(n+1\right)!}$&$\cdots$&$\frac{k_{n}^{n+1}f^{\left(n+1\right)}\left(\xi_{n}\right)}{\left(n+1\right)!}$\end{tabular}\right]\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{c}$c_{0}$\\\
$c_{1}$\\\ $\vdots$\\\ $c_{n}$\end{tabular}\right]$
Now pick $c=\left[c_{i}\right]$ as a solution to
$\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{cccc}$1$&$1$&$\cdots$&$1$\\\
$k_{0}$&$k_{1}$&$\cdots$&$k_{n}$\\\
$\frac{k_{0}^{2}}{2!}$&$\frac{k_{1}^{2}}{2!}$&$\cdots$&$\frac{k_{n}^{2}}{2!}$\\\
$\vdots$&$\vdots$&$\ddots$&$\vdots$\\\
$\frac{k_{0}^{n}}{n!}$&$\frac{k_{1}^{n}}{n!}$&$\cdots$&$\frac{k_{n}^{n}}{n!}$\end{tabular}\right]\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{c}$c_{0}$\\\
$c_{1}$\\\ $\vdots$\\\
$c_{n}$\end{tabular}\right]=\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{c}$0$\\\ $\vdots$\\\
$1$\\\ $\vdots$\\\ $0$\end{tabular}\right]$ (9)
which is possible since the $k_{i}$ are different, so the matrix is
invertible, as is seen using the Vandermonde determinant
$\det=\frac{\underset{0\leq i<j\leq
n}{\Pi}\left(k_{j}-k_{i}\right)}{\underset{2\leq i\leq n}{\Pi}i!}\text{.}$
Then we must have
$\displaystyle\overset{n}{\underset{i=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}c_{i}f\left(x+k_{i}t\right)$
$\displaystyle=\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{c}$f\left(x\right)$\\\
$tf^{\prime}\left(x\right)$\\\ $\vdots$\\\
$t^{n}f^{\left(n\right)}\left(x\right)$\\\
$t^{n+1}$\end{tabular}\right]^{T}\left[\begin{tabular}[c]{l}$0$\\\ $\vdots$\\\
$1$\quad($k$-th position)\\\ $\vdots$\\\ $0$\\\
$\frac{1}{\left(n+1\right)!}\overset{n}{\underset{i=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}c_{i}k_{i}^{n+1}f^{\left(n+1\right)}\left(\xi_{i}\right)$\end{tabular}\right]$
$\displaystyle=t^{k}f^{\left(k\right)}\left(x\right)+\frac{t^{n+1}}{\left(n+1\right)!}\overset{n}{\underset{i=1}{{\textstyle\sum}}}c_{i}k_{i}^{n+1}f^{\left(n+1\right)}\left(\xi_{i}\right)\text{.}$
Therefore
$f^{\left(k\right)}\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{t^{k}}\overset{n}{\underset{i=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}c_{i}f\left(x+k_{i}t\right)+Error$
for $c_{i}$ which satisfy $\left(\ref{LineNumDiffCoeffMatrix}\right)$ where
$Error=-\dfrac{t^{n+1-k}}{\left(n+1\right)!}\overset{n}{\underset{i=0}{{\textstyle\sum}}}c_{i}k_{i}^{n+1}f^{\left(n+1\right)}\left(\xi_{i}\right)\text{.}$
This $Error$ formula shows how truncation error may be decreased by increasing
$n$ without shrinking $t$, thus combatting round-off error at the expense of
increased computation of sums.
The coefficients in $\left(\ref{LineNthDer=O(t)}\right)$ are obtained by
solving $M$ for the $c_{i}$ with $k_{i}$ chosen as $k_{i}=i$.
Thornton also points out that the $k_{i}$ may be chosen as complex values when
$f$ is analytic (as is the case with our Gaussians). This gives us another
opportunity to mitigate round-off error, since a greater quantity of
regularly-spaced nodes $k_{i}$ can be packed into an epsilon ball around zero
in the complex plane than on the real line.
As final note we mention there have been numerous advances to the present day
in inverting the Vandermonde matrix. We mention only the earliest application
to numerical differentiation [14] which gives a formula in terms of the
Stirling numbers.
## References
* [1] Alain Bensoussan, et al., “Representation and Control of Infinite Dimensional Systems,” 2nd ed., Springer, 2006.
* [2] G. G. Bilodeau, The Weierstrass Transform and Hermite Polynomials, Duke Mathematical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 2, 1962.
* [3] Craig Calcaterra, Foliating Metric Spaces, preprint, arXiv:math/0608416, 2006.
* [4] Craig Calcaterra, Linear Combinations of Gaussians with a Single Variance are dense in $L^{2}$, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, 2008.
* [5] S. Darlington, Synthesis and Reactance of 4-poles, J. Math. & Phys., 18, pp. 257-353, 1939.
* [6] Milton Dishal, Gaussian-Response Filter Design, Electrical Communication, Volume 36, No. 1, pp. 3-26, 1959.
* [7] David Gottlieb and Steven Orszag, “Numerical Analysis of Spectral Methods,” SIAM, 1977.
* [8] Leslie Greengard and Xiaobai Sun, A New Version of the Fast Gauss Transform, Documenta Mathematica, Extra Volume ICM 1998, III, pp. 575-584.
* [9] Donald Knuth, “Concrete Mathematics,” 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley, 1994.
* [10] Greg Leibon, Daniel Rockmore & Gregory Chirikjian, A Fast Hermite Transform with Applications to Protein Structure Determination, Proceedings of the 2007 international Workshop on Symbolic-Numeric Computation, ACM, New York, NY, pp. 117-124, 2007.
* [11] J. Madrenas, M. Verleysen, P. Thissen, and J. L. Voz, A CMOS Analog Circuit for Gaussian Functions, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems-II: Analog and Digital Signal Processing, Vol. 43, No. 1, 1996.
* [12] Anthony Ralston and Philip Rabinowitz, “A First Course in Numerical Analysis,” McGraw-Hill, 1978.
* [13] Eduardo D. Sontag, “Mathematical Control Theory,” 2nd Ed., Springer-Verlag, 1998.
* [14] A. Spitzbart and N. Macon, Numerical Differentiation Formulas, The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 64, No. 10, pp. 721-723, 1957.
* [15] M. H. Stone, Developments in Hermite Polynomials, The Annals of Mathematics, 2nd Ser., Vol. 29, No. 1/4, pp. 1-13, 1927-1928.
* [16] Gabor Szegö, “Orthogonal Polynomials,” American Mathematical Society, 3rd ed., 1967.
* [17] David Widder, “The Heat Equation,” Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 67. Academic Press, 1975.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-25T19:31:44 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.935196 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Craig Calcaterra and Axel Boldt",
"submitter": "Axel Boldt",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3795"
} |
0805.3797 | # Faraday spectroscopy of atoms confined in a dark optical trap
Matthew L. Terraciano Mark Bashkansky Fredrik K. Fatemi
ffatemi@ccs.nrl.navy.mil Naval Research Laboratory, 4555 Overlook Ave. S.W.,
Washington, DC 20375
###### Abstract
We demonstrate Faraday spectroscopy with high duty cycle and sampling rate
using atoms confined to a blue-detuned optical trap. Our trap consists of a
crossed pair of high-charge-number hollow laser beams, which forms a dark,
box-like potential. We have used this to measure transient magnetic fields in
a 500$\mu$m-diameter spot over a 400 ms time window with nearly unit duty
cycle at a 500 Hz sampling rate. We use these measurements to quantify and
compensate time-varying magnetic fields to $\approx$10 nT per time sample.
###### pacs:
33.55.+b, 07.55.Ge, 37.10.Gh
## I Introduction
A spin-polarized atom sample is strongly birefringent for near-resonant light.
This magneto-optic polarization rotation can be used for sensitive alkali-
vapor magnetometry Budker et al. (2002), and has been the subject of several
recent studies in a variety of cold atom samples Isayama et al. (1999);
Labeyrie et al. (2001); Franke-Arnold et al. (2001); Smith et al. (2003);
Geremia et al. (2005). When applied to localized cold atom ensembles, the
result can be sensitive magnetometry with linear spatial resolution of a few
tens of microns Vengalattore et al. (2007). These magnetic microscopes could
be of use for imaging fields near a variety of surfaces, including integrated
circuits Chatraphorn et al. (2000); Wildermuth et al. (2006) and atom chips
designed for cold atom interferometry Wang et al. (2005). At a more
fundamental level, Faraday spectroscopy has also been considered for searches
of atomic electric dipole moments (EDM) Romalis and Fortson (1999) and for
nondestructive quantum state estimation and preparation Smith et al. (2004);
Chaudhury et al. (2007); Geremia et al. (2005). Such measurements benefit from
large atom numbers, long interrogation times, and “field-free” confinement,
_i.e._ confinement in which the trapping potential minimally perturbs the
measurement.
A simple way to achieve field-free conditions for a cold atom sample is to
release the atoms from a trap and probe them during freefall. A drawback of
this is that the maximum interrogation time is limited to a few tens of
milliseconds as the atom cloud falls away from the interaction region. Isayama
et. al. Isayama et al. (1999) reported a Faraday signal from atoms in freefall
with a 1/$e$ decay time of 11 ms. This limitation has been overcome by
confining the atoms to the antinodes of a red-detuned optical lattice in which
one of the lattice beams also serves as a probe beam Smith et al. (2003). When
the atoms were held in the intensity nodes of a blue-detuned lattice, dark-
field confinement was achieved, although the signal was reduced because the
interaction with the probe was correspondingly diminished.
By confining atoms in a blue-detuned trap, however, it is possible to achieve
the simultaneous conditions of long interrogation time, low-field confinement,
and large atom-number Ozeri et al. (1999); Friedman et al. (2002); Kaplan et
al. (2005); Kulin et al. (2001). Blue-detuned traps produce lower light shifts
and photon scattering rates than red-detuned traps, enabling deep, large
volume traps with low power requirements. Although these traps have been
proposed for use in magnetometry Budker et al. (2002); Isayama et al. (1999)
and EDM searches Romalis and Fortson (1999), to the best of our knowledge, no
experimental demonstrations have been performed.
In this paper, we report the use of dark optical traps to confine atoms in a
submillimeter, box-like volume for dynamic magnetometry using Faraday
spectroscopy. The traps are formed from crossed, high-charge-number hollow
laser beams Fatemi and Bashkansky (2007); Fatemi et al. (2007). By
repetitively spin-polarizing the confined sample, we extend the measurement
time from only a few milliseconds to $\approx$400 ms in a single loading cycle
with up to 1 kHz sampling rate. We demonstrate the technique by measuring and
compensating ambient time-varying magnetic fields, such as those arising from
eddy currents and the AC power line. We also show that nonlinear spin dynamics
due to the probe beam Smith et al. (2004) are preserved in these traps. The
increase in duty cycle demonstrated here is promising for both magnetometry
and for efficient quantum state preparation based on these nonlinear dynamics.
Figure 1: (Color online) Layout of experiment. Crossed hollow beams confine
atoms to a 0.48mm diameter spot. Relay lenses for the hollow beams are not
shown. Faraday pump and probe beams propagate along the x-axis to a balanced
polarimeter. WP: Wollaston prism. Osc: Oscilloscope. Image of beam and cross
sectional profile are shown.
Figure 1 shows the schematic layout of the experiment. The hollow beam is
relayed to intersect itself by an $8f$ imaging relay, as described in Ref.
Fatemi et al. (2007). Helmholtz coils on all three axes control the magnetic
field. The hollow beams for our trap are formed by modifying the wavefront
phase of a Gaussian beam with a reflective spatial light modulator (SLM). SLMs
have found increasing value in cold atom manipulation experiments because of
their ability to control trap parameters in a programmable manner and to
produce traps with nontrivial intensity profiles Olson et al. (2007); Fatemi
et al. (2007); McGloin et al. (2003); Pasienski and DeMarco (2008);
Chattrapiban et al. (2006). The applied phase for the hollow beams used here
has a profile $\Psi(\rho,\phi)=n\phi+f\lambda/(\pi\rho^{2})$, where $\rho$ and
$\phi$ are cylindrical coordinates and $n$ is an integer. The second term is a
lens function of focal length $f\approx 200$mm to focus the beam of wavelength
$\lambda$ onto the atom sample. For high charge number beams ($n\geq 4$), we
usually operate the trap a few centimeters away from the focal plane, where
aberrations are reduced and the peak intensity is maximum Fatemi and
Bashkansky (2007).
The light for the hollow beam is derived from a tunable extended cavity diode
laser. It is amplified to 400 mW by a tapered amplifier, 200 mW of which is
coupled into polarization-maintaining fiber. Residual resonant light from
amplified spontaneous emission is filtered out by a heated vapor cell. The
fiber output is collimated to a 1/$e^{2}$ waist of 1.71 mm, and modified by
the SLM (Boulder Nonlinear Systems), which has $\approx$ 90% diffraction
efficiency. The SLM has been calibrated at the pixel level to correct for
wavefront distortion intrinsic to the SLM. An image of the beam is shown in
the inset to Fig. 1. Our choice of $n=8$ is driven by the practical
considerations of field-free confinement and large trap size, but these trap
parameters can be adjusted with the SLM.
Our experiment begins with cold 85Rb atoms derived from a magneto-optical trap
(MOT). We confine $\approx 10^{7}$ atoms in a $\approx 500\mu$m diameter
(1/$e^{2}$) cloud. The atoms are further cooled in a 10 ms long molasses stage
to $\approx 10\mu$K, after which all MOT-related beams are extinguished. The
hollow beam trap is on throughout the MOT loading, but can be switched off by
an acoustooptic modulator. The Faraday spectroscopy is performed by similar
technique as in Ref. Isayama et al. (1999). To perform these measurements, a
pair of laser beams is used along the $x$-axis (Fig. 1). The atoms are
optically pumped into the $F=3,m_{F}=3$ stretched state by a 20 $\mu$s
$\sigma^{+}$ pulse connecting $F=3\rightarrow F^{\prime}=3$. This beam has
1/$e^{2}$ waist of 6.0 mm and has a peak intensity of $\approx 3I_{sat}$,
where $I_{sat}$ is 1.6 mW/cm2. This beam is retroreflected to prevent
unidirectional momentum kicks, and a small amount of repumper light ($\approx
0.04I_{sat}$) is added during this pulse to keep the atoms in the $F=3$
hyperfine ground state. When this light is extinguished, the atoms begin
precessing freely at the Larmor precession frequency
$\omega_{L}=g_{F}\mu_{B}B/\hbar$, where $g_{F}$ is the gyromagnetic ratio,
$\mu_{B}$ is the Bohr magneton, and $B$ is the magnetic field. For 85Rb,
$g_{F}\mu_{B}/\hbar=466.7415$ kHz/Gauss Alexandrov et al. (2004). A linearly
polarized probe beam at a detuning $\Delta_{p}=2\pi\times 2.5$ GHz with
$\simeq$20mW and 1/$e^{2}$ waist $\omega_{p}$ = 6.0mm passes through the atom
cloud to a simple polarimeter consisting of a Wollaston prism that splits the
probe beam into two orthogonal polarization states that are detected by a
balanced photodetector. For these parameters, the photon scattering time from
the probe beam is calculated to be $\tau_{p}\approx$2ms. The MOT region is
imaged onto a pinhole along the axis of the probe beam so that only the
portion of the probe that interacts with the confined atoms reaches the
detector.
The hollow beam trap prevents the atoms from falling away from the interaction
region during the probing process. The beam has 150 mW total power at the
trap. We use a detuning $\Delta_{t}\approx 25$GHz (=0.05 nm) above the
$F=3\rightarrow F^{\prime}=4$ transition. At the MOT, the hollow beam has a
diameter of 0.48 mm, measured between maxima, and the peak intensity is
$8.2\times 10^{4}$ mW/cm2 for a trap depth $U\approx 2\hbar\Gamma\approx
3000E_{r}$, where $E_{r}$ is the recoil energy for 85Rb. The gravitational
potential energy across this trap is $\hbar\Gamma/6$. For these parameters,
the peak scattering rate from the trapping beams would be
$\gamma_{t}=1/\tau_{t}\approx 2\pi\times 3$kHz, but is reduced from this value
by being trapped in the dark. Although we do not measure this value, we
establish an upper bound to be $\gamma_{t}{\leq}2\pi\times 200$Hz.
Figure 2: (Color online) Faraday signals for a) trapped sample; and b)
untrapped sample. The untrapped atoms fall away from the probe region within
20 ms, while the trapped atoms remain with 150 ms time constant. Insets to (a)
are expanded views of the raw data.
Each optical pumping event initiates the Larmor precession. Figure 2a shows 64
averages of 200 optical pumping cycles spaced 2 ms apart in the presence of
the hollow beam trap and a bias magnetic field of $\approx 100$ mG along the
$z$-axis. A single Larmor precession signal is shown in the lower inset to
Fig. 2a. The envelope over all Larmor precession signals decays with a 1/$e$
time constant of $\approx 150$ ms. This decay is due primarily to the steady
heating that occurs during each optical pumping cycle, which gradually boils
atoms out of the trap. In contrast, Fig. 2b shows the signals without the
hollow beam trap present. In this case, the atoms fall completely out of the
probe beam detection window within 25 ms, with a 1/$e$ decay time of 13 ms,
similar to that reported in Ref. Isayama et al. (1999). The signals in Fig. 2
are recorded immediately following the molasses phase of the MOT loading
cycle. Over the first few pumping cycles, the envelope of the individual
precession signals in Fig. 2b changes dramatically due to residual eddy
currents in the vacuum chamber. Holding the atoms in an optical trap allows
measurements to be performed after eddy currents have subsided, while also
substantially increasing both the measurement window and the overall duty
cycle.
For our parameters, each independent Larmor precession signal dephases with a
submillisecond 1/$e$ decay time. This dephasing occurs from several factors,
including spatial gradients and photon scattering from the trap and probe
beams. Nonlinear Hamiltonian terms can also shorten the decay time of the
signal, as described in Ref. Smith et al. (2004). These nonlinear terms depend
on the angle between the polarization of the probe laser and the magnetic
field. When the relative angle is $\approx$ 54∘, the effects of these terms
are eliminated. For this work, we operated at this relative orientation so
that the dephasing occurs primarily through photon scattering. From Fig. 2, we
find that the untrapped signals decay with a 1/$e$ time of $\approx$0.7ms. For
the samples trapped in the hollow beam, we observe a slight reduction in the
decay time to $\approx$0.5 ms. Thus we have an upper bound for $\gamma_{t}\leq
2\pi\times 200$Hz.
Figure 3: (Color online) a) Polarimeter output for single-shot data (top) and
averaged data (bottom). b) Fast-Fourier transform (FFT) of data in (a). Fits
to a Lorentzian profile are shown as solid lines. Single-shot (circles) and
averaged (squares) data are shown.
In a gradient-free, static magnetic field, the voltage output of the
polarimeter is an exponentially-damped sinusoid, $V(t)=$
Aexp(-$t/\tau$)sin$(2\pi\nu_{L}t+\phi)$, where A is the initial amplitude,
$\tau$ is the 1/$e$ decay time, $\omega_{L}=2\pi\times\nu_{L}$ is the Larmor
frequency, and $\phi$ is a phase. To determine $\nu_{L}$, the averaged data in
each 2 ms probing window (Fig. 3a) are Fourier transformed (Fig. 3b). We fit
these transforms to a Lorentzian, the center of which is $\nu_{L}$.
Figure 4: (Color online) a) Larmor precession frequency as a function of time
with various levels of compensation. Dashed: no compensation; dotted:
compensation of eddy currents, and solid: full compensation. Inset to (a)
shows magnified view of compensation. Fluctuations in our Larmor precession
are dominated by uncompensated harmonics of the AC line. b) Magnetic field
spectrum with no compensation (dotted), and 60Hz compensation (solid).
In Fig. 4a, we plot $\nu_{L}(t)$ over 200 pumping cycles (64 averages) spaced
1 ms apart (dashed line). The signal displays two dominant sources of time-
dependence. First, the exponential decay occurs from the metal vacuum chamber,
which develops eddy currents when the MOT coils are extinguished. Due to the
symmetry of our chamber, the eddy currents are along the axis of the MOT coils
($z$). The bias field of $\nu_{L}\approx 50$kHz for these measurements is also
on the $z$-axis so that the eddy current field adds linearly to the bias
field. The second source of time-dependent behavior is ambient AC magnetic
fields in the room arising from power supply transformers, power strips, etc.
We note that our experiment is triggered off the AC power line. We found that
this field is also primarily along the $z$-axis, because the amplitude of the
oscillation signal is independent of this bias field. An orthogonal component
would add in quadrature and cause the amplitude to vary with the bias field.
Additionally, an orthogonal, oscillating magnetic field component added in
quadrature would show up at twice its oscillation frequency. Since the Larmor
frequencies retrieved from Faraday spectroscopy determine the scalar magnetic
field, full vector information is not acquired in a single shot, but can be
acquired through multiple measurements Terraciano et al. (2007). Some
information about magnetic field orientation can be obtained directly from the
polarimeter signal (e.g. there is no spin precession if the $B$ field is
parallel to the optical pumping axis), but that effect is outside the scope of
this work.
For many applications, control over the magnetic field is required to sub-mG
levels, especially those involving Raman transitions between magnetically
sensitive states Boyer et al. (2004); Ringot et al. (2001); Terraciano et al.
(2007); Kerman et al. (2000). As a simple application of the long measurement
time capability, we demonstrate compensation of these time varying fields. We
first compensate the effects of eddy currents, which produce an exponentially
decaying magnetic field at the atom sample. This field decays with a 1/$e$
time of $\approx$20 ms (Fig. 4a). For a given MOT coil current setting, the
eddy current amplitude is constant. We produce an opposing time-varying field
flux by using a voltage-controlled current source (Kepco ATE15-15M). This
current passes through a 20-turn Helmholtz pair of diameter 20 cm, width 2.5
cm, and separation 11.4 cm oriented along the MOT coil axis. The appropriate
time variation is done by low-pass filtering of a step function whose
amplitude is adjusted for optimum compensation. The result is shown in Fig. 4a
(dotted line). Although this source of time variation is not canceled
perfectly, the field beyond 25 ms is constant to within the 60 Hz field
amplitude.
The ambient AC magnetic fields are primarily due to 60 Hz power line sources.
By triggering our experiment from the power line, this source of magnetic
field variation is reproducible and can be compensated. Without this
triggering, the variations of a few mG observed in Fig. 4a would lead to
significant shot-to-shot fluctuations of the field measurements. We produce an
opposing field by adding a 60 Hz sinusoidally varying current to the bias
coils. The current amplitude and phase are adjusted for optimum compensation.
The result with all compensations applied is shown in the inset to Fig. 4a.
The signal remains constant to within a standard deviation of 110 Hz (230
$\mu$G). Most of this residual field is due to higher AC line harmonics; in
Fig. 4b, we show frequency spectrum of the magnetic field, which clearly shows
higher harmonics at 180, 300, and 420 Hz. We suppressed the 60 Hz component by
a factor of 20. With appropriate signal processing, the field measurements in
our setup could be made in real time (with single-shot measurements as in Fig.
3) and be used as feedback control with a bandwidth determined by the
Helmholtz compensation coils.
Figure 5: 2D image of data that exposes qualitative magnetic field features
without FFT processing. (a) uncompensated, (b) 60 Hz compensation, c) full
compensation.
Another way to visualize the time dependent signals, shown in Fig. 5a, is by
converting the 1D data set of Fig. 2 to a 2D matrix. Each successive column
contains the Larmor precession signal for subsequent triggers. This exposes
time variations in an easily identifiable way with no FFT analysis. We show
these images for the magnetic fields with no compensation, 60 Hz compensation
and full compensation. A constant magnetic field shows up as a series of
horizontal lines whose spacing is inversely proportional to $\omega_{L}$ (Fig.
5c).
Figure 6: (Color online) Comparison of 64 data runs (dashed) to a simulated
signal with white noise added to have similar SNR as the experiment (black).
For clarity, the signals are offset from each other.
Because of the uncompensated field variations in our lab, our measurement
uncertainty is dominated by systematic errors. To differentiate the systematic
error from the random error, we measure the Larmor precession frequency in a 1
ms measurement window for 64 independent loading cycles at a trapping time of
T = 100 ms. These scans are recorded at a 1 Hz rate. The result is shown in
Fig. 6. There is a long term drift in our lab on the order of several seconds.
Our time-domain signals have a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of $\approx$15
(Fig. 3a). For comparison, we simulated the expected Larmor signals for
exponentially-damped sinusoids with the same SNR that had additive white noise
(Fig. 6). For the experimentally measured case, we found a standard deviation,
or single-shot error, in each 1 ms optical pumping cycle of
$\delta\nu_{L}\approx$45Hz, or $\delta{B}\approx 100\mu$G (=10 nT), and for
the simulated case, the error was $\delta\nu_{L}\approx$16 Hz, or
$\delta{B}\approx 30\mu$G (=3 nT). This discrepancy is likely due to other
sources, such as unwanted variations in the MOT coil current.
Our hollow beam traps are initially loaded with $N\approx 10^{6}$ atoms. The
shot-noise-limited magnetic field measurement error due to atom number is
$\delta{B}\simeq\left(\hbar/g\mu_{B}\right)(1/\sqrt{N\tau{T_{m}}})$, where
$\tau$ is the spin-coherence time and $T_{m}$ is the measurement time Budker
et al. (2002). Because we are measuring a rapidly varying field,
$T_{m}=1\rm{-}2$ms, limiting $\delta{B}\approx 2\mu$G (=200 pT) in each
optical pumping cycle. After T = 400 ms of trapping time, when there are only
$\approx 10^{5}$ atoms remaining, this increases to $\approx 6\mu$G (=600 pT).
Our measured values are above the shot noise limit due to the simple
photodetection circuit we used and to incomplete optical pumping, which
effectively reduces N.
For static magnetic fields, each measurement cycle through the total trap time
can be averaged, effectively increasing $T_{m}$ to several hundred
milliseconds and greatly increasing the shot-noise-limited sensitivity.
Likewise, $\tau$ can be increased by using larger detunings for the probe and
trapping beams. These blue-detuned traps are capable of capturing large enough
atom numbers that measurements in the low pT range or better should be
possible in a single MOT loading cycle over the entire measurement window.
Figure 7: (Color online) Simulations of atom number remaining for different
degrees of optical pumping. With no optical pumping or probe beams (longest-
lived curve) the atoms still scattered $\approx$1 photon/ms from the trap
beams. A curve fit is shown for the case of scattering 7 photons/ms. This time
constant of 160 ms agrees well with our experimental value of 150 ms (Fig. 2).
For any trap depth, there is a trade-off between SNR and the number of
possible field measurements allowed before the signal decays. SNR improves by
increasing the number of atoms that are optically pumped or by decreasing the
pump detuning Smith et al. (2003), but these approaches also boil the atoms
out of the trap more quickly. For most of our results presented here, we only
weakly pumped the atoms to reduce heating and to increase the number of
optical pumping cycles we could achieve. In general, the dominant heating will
occur from the $20\mu$s optical pumping phase of each cycle, during which
several photons are scattered. As a rough estimate, the timescale for signal
decay should be on the order of the time required for the average atom energy
to equal the trap depth. This will occur after a time
$T_{boil}=U/(\gamma_{tot}E_{r})$, where U is the trap depth, $\gamma_{tot}$ is
the total scattering rate (including probe, trap, and optical pumping beams),
and $E_{r}$ is the recoil energy. For our trap of $U~{}\approx 3000E_{r}$, and
assuming $\approx 10$ scattered photons every 2ms optical pumping cycle, this
gives $\approx 300$ pumping cycles before the atoms are boiled away.
To examine this boiling process more accurately, we perform Monte Carlo
simulations of the atom dynamics within our trap for different total
scattering rates. Within each time step, the atom’s momentum is changed with a
probability determined by the local scattering rate for the probe and trap
beams, as calculated by the Kramers-Heisenberg formula Miller et al. (1993).
We performed these simulations for different optical pumping rates. In Fig. 7
we plot the number of atoms remaining as a function of time for varying
degrees of scattering rates. For the case of 7 photons scattered every
millisecond, we find an exponential decay of $\approx$160 ms, which is close
to our observed value of $T_{boil}=150$ms. By turning off the probe and
optical pumping beams in the simulation, we find that the trap beam scattering
rate is $\gamma_{t}\approx 2\pi\times 100$Hz which agrees with our upper bound
of $\gamma_{t}\leq 2\pi\times 200$Hz from the Faraday decay time.
Within our measurement error, we observed no effect of the trapping light on
the Larmor frequency. Optically-induced Zeeman shifts that occur with
elliptically polarized light Vengalattore et al. (2007); Romalis and Fortson
(1999); Park et al. (2002) should be small, because the trap beam
polarizations are linear and because of the low field confinement.
Furthermore, any vector light shifts from the trap beams, confined to the
$x-y$ plane, would add in quadrature to our applied magnetic field along $z$,
reducing the effect on $\omega_{L}$ Romalis and Fortson (1999). We are
currently studying the effects of trap geometry on the Larmor precession
signals.
Figure 8: (Color online) Larmor precession signals with and without the trap
light at two different relative orientations of the laser polarization with
respect to the magnetic field. These were done at a) 0 degrees (revivals
maximized) and b) 54 degrees (revivals suppressed).
The dominant source of nonlinear effects due to the laser fields is the probe
light. As discussed in Ref. Smith et al. (2004), the tensor component to the
light shift adds a nonlinear term to the spin Hamiltonian, whose magnitude is
dependent on the angle between the laser polarization and the magnetic field.
This Hamiltonian plays an important role in studies of quantum chaos and is
useful for both nondestructive quantum state preparation and measurement Smith
et al. (2004). For sufficiently large magnetic fields, the nonlinearity
vanishes when the relative angle is $\theta$=arctan$(\sqrt{2})\approx
54^{\circ}$, but is maximized for $\theta=0$. We have verified that these
nonlinear spin dynamics, which manifest themselves as revivals of the Faraday
oscillation signal, can still be observed in these hollow beam traps. In Fig.
8, we show the Larmor precession signals for $\theta=0$ and
$\theta=54^{\circ}$ both with the trap on continuously and with the trap
switched off immediately prior to the optical pumping pulse. Thus the high
duty cycle of the technique presented here may be of use for rapidly testing
quantum state preparation procedures employing this nonlinearity.
We have demonstrated Faraday spectroscopy with high repetition rate, long
measurement time, and submillimeter spatial resolution in a dark hollow beam
optical trap. We used high-charge-number hollow laser beams to provide box-
like confinement with near resonant light and low laser power. These traps can
be sufficiently deep that several hundred Faraday measurements are possible
before atoms are heated over the confining potential. We demonstrated a
continuous magnetic field measurement over a period of 400 ms which enabled us
to measure and compensate for time-varying magnetic fields. This work was
funded by the Office of Naval Research and by the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency.
## References
* Budker et al. (2002) D. Budker, W. Gawlik, D. F. Kimball, S. M. Rochester, V. V. Yashchuk, and A. Weis, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1153 (2002).
* Isayama et al. (1999) T. Isayama, Y. Takahashi, N. Tanaka, K. Toyoda, K. Ishikawa, and T. Yabuzaki, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4836 (1999).
* Labeyrie et al. (2001) G. Labeyrie, C. Miniatura, and R. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. A 64, 033402 (2001).
* Franke-Arnold et al. (2001) S. Franke-Arnold, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, J. Phys. B 34, 2527 (2001).
* Smith et al. (2003) G. A. Smith, S. Chaudhury, and P. S. Jessen, J. Opt. B 5, 323 (2003).
* Geremia et al. (2005) J. M. Geremia, J. K. Stockton, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 203002 (2005).
* Vengalattore et al. (2007) M. Vengalattore, J. M. Higbie, S. R. Leslie, J. Guzman, L. E. Sadler, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 200801 (2007).
* Chatraphorn et al. (2000) S. Chatraphorn, E. F. Fleet, F. C. Wellstood, L. A. Knauss, and T. M. Eiles, Appl. Phys. Lett. 76, 2304 (2000).
* Wildermuth et al. (2006) S. Wildermuth, S. Hofferberth, I. Lesanovsky, S. Groth, P. Krüger, J. Schmiedmayer, and I. Bar-Joseph, Appl. Phys. Lett. 88, 264103 (2006).
* Wang et al. (2005) Y.-J. Wang, D. Z. Anderson, V. M. Bright, E. A. Cornell, Q. Diot, T. Kishimoto, M. Prentiss, R. A. Saravanan, S. R. Segal, and S. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 090405 (2005).
* Romalis and Fortson (1999) M. V. Romalis and E. N. Fortson, Phys. Rev. A 59, 4547 (1999).
* Smith et al. (2004) G. A. Smith, S. Chaudhury, A. Silberfarb, I. H. Deutsch, and P. S. Jessen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 163602 (2004).
* Chaudhury et al. (2007) S. Chaudhury, S. Merkel, T. Herr, A. Silberfarb, I. H. Deutsch, and P. S. Jessen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 163002 (2007).
* Ozeri et al. (1999) R. Ozeri, L. Khaykovich, and N. Davidson, Phys. Rev. A 59, R1750 (1999).
* Friedman et al. (2002) N. Friedman, A. Kaplan, and N. Davidson, Adv. Atom. Mol. Opt. Phys. 48, 99 (2002).
* Kaplan et al. (2005) A. Kaplan, M. F. Andersen, T. Grunzweig, and N. Davidson, J. Opt. B 7, R103 (2005).
* Kulin et al. (2001) S. Kulin, S. Aubin, S. Christe, B. Peker, S. L. Rolston, and L. A. Orozco, J. Opt. B 3, 353 (2001).
* Fatemi and Bashkansky (2007) F. K. Fatemi and M. Bashkansky, Appl. Opt. 46, 7573 (2007).
* Fatemi et al. (2007) F. K. Fatemi, M. Bashkansky, and Z. Dutton, Opt. Express 15, 3589 (2007).
* Olson et al. (2007) S. E. Olson, M. L. Terraciano, M. Bashkansky, and F. K. Fatemi, Phys. Rev. A 76, 061404(R) (2007).
* McGloin et al. (2003) D. McGloin, G. Spalding, H. Melville, W. Sibbett, and K. Dholakia, Opt. Express 11, 158 (2003).
* Pasienski and DeMarco (2008) M. Pasienski and B. DeMarco, Opt. Express 16, 2176 (2008).
* Chattrapiban et al. (2006) N. Chattrapiban, E. A. Rogers, I. V. Arakelyan, R. Roy, and W. T. Hill, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 23, 94 (2006).
* Alexandrov et al. (2004) E. B. Alexandrov, M. V. Balabas, A. K. Vershovski, and A. S. Pazgalev, Tech. Phys. 49, 779 (2004).
* Boyer et al. (2004) V. Boyer, L. J. Lising, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips, Phys. Rev. A 70, 043405 (2004).
* Ringot et al. (2001) J. Ringot, P. Szriftgiser, and J. C. Garreau, Phys. Rev. A 65, 013403 (2001).
* Terraciano et al. (2007) M. L. Terraciano, S. E. Olson, M. Bashkansky, Z. Dutton, and F. K. Fatemi, Phys. Rev. A 76, 053421 (2007).
* Kerman et al. (2000) A. J. Kerman, V. Vuletić, C. Chin, and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 439 (2000).
* Miller et al. (1993) J. D. Miller, R. A. Cline, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 47, R4567 (1993).
* Park et al. (2002) C. Y. Park, J. Y. Kim, J. M. Song, and D. Cho, Phys. Rev. A 65, 033410 (2002).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-24T23:09:20 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.940467 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Matthew L. Terraciano, Mark Bashkansky, Fredrik Fatemi",
"submitter": "Fredrik Fatemi",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3797"
} |
0805.3809 | # Gelfand pairs on the Heisenberg group and Schwartz functions
Francesca Astengo, Bianca Di Blasio, Fulvio Ricci Dipartimento di Matematica
Via Dodecaneso 35
16146 Genova
Italy astengo@dima.unige.it Dipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni
Via Cozzi 53
20125 Milano
Italy bianca.diblasio@unimib.it Scuola Normale Superiore
Piazza dei Cavalieri 7
M 56126 Pisa
Italy fricci@sns.it
###### Abstract.
Let $H_{n}$ be the $(2n+1)$–dimensional Heisenberg group and $K$ a compact
group of automorphisms of $H_{n}$ such that $(K\ltimes H_{n},K)$ is a Gelfand
pair. We prove that the Gelfand transform is a topological isomorphism between
the space of $K$–invariant Schwartz functions on $H_{n}$ and the space of
Schwartz function on a closed subset of $\mathbb{R}^{s}$ homeomorphic to the
Gelfand spectrum of the Banach algebra of $K$–invariant integrable functions
on $H_{n}$.
###### Key words and phrases:
Gelfand pair, Schwartz space, Heisenberg group
###### 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 43A80 ; Secondary: 22E25
Work partially supported by MIUR and GNAMPA
## 1\. Introduction
A fundamental fact in harmonic analysis on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is that the
Fourier transform is a topological isomorphism of the Schwartz space
$\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ onto itself.
Various generalizations of this result for different classes of Lie groups
exist in the literature, in particular in the context of Gelfand pairs, where
the operator-valued Fourier transform can be replaced by the scalar-valued
spherical transform. Most notable is the case of a symmetric pair of the
noncompact type, with Harish-Chandra’s definition of a bi-$K$–invariant
Schwartz space on the isometry group (cf. [20, p. 489]).
The definition of a Schwartz space on a Lie group becomes quite natural on a
nilpotent group $N$ (say connected and simply connected). In that case one can
define the Schwartz space by identifying $N$ with its Lie algebra via the
exponential map.
The image of the Schwartz space on the Heisenberg group $H_{n}$ under the
group Fourier transform has been described by D. Geller [17]. Let $K$ be a
compact group of automorphisms of $H_{n}$ such that convolution of
$K$–invariant functions is commutative, in other words assume that $(K\ltimes
H_{n},K)$ is a Gelfand pair . Then a scalar-valued spherical transform
$\mathcal{G}_{K}$ (where $\mathcal{G}$ stands for “Gelfand transform”) of
$K$–invariant functions is available, and Geller’s result can be translated
into a characterization of the image under $\mathcal{G}_{K}$ of the space
$\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ of $K$–invariant Schwartz functions. In the same
spirit, a characterization of
$\mathcal{G}_{K}\big{(}\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})\big{)}$ is given in [7] for
closed subgroups $K$ of the unitary group ${\text{U}(n)}$.
In [3] we have proved that, for $K$ equal to ${\text{U}(n)}$ or
$\mathbb{T}^{n}$ (i.e. for radial - resp. polyradial - functions), an
analytically more significant description of
$\mathcal{G}_{K}\big{(}\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})\big{)}$ can be obtained by
making use of natural homeomorphic embeddings of the Gelfand spectrum of
$L^{1}_{K}(H_{n})$ in Euclidean space. The result is that
$\mathcal{G}_{K}\big{(}\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})\big{)}$ is the space of
restrictions to the Gelfand spectrum of the Schwartz functions on the ambient
space. This condition of “extendibility to a Schwartz function on the ambient
space” subsumes the rather technical condition on iterated differences in
discrete parameters that are present in the previous characterizations.
In this article we extend the result of [3] to general Gelfand pairs
$(K\ltimes H_{n},K)$, with $K$ a compact group of automorphisms of $H_{n}$.
Some preliminary notions and facts are required before we can give a precise
formulation of our main theorem.
Let $G$ be a connected Lie group and $K$ a compact subgroup thereof such that
$(G,K)$ is a Gelfand pair and denote by $L^{1}(G//K)$ the convolution algebra
of all bi-$K$–invariant integrable functions on $G$. The Gelfand spectrum of
the commutative Banach algebra $L^{1}(G//K)$ may be identified with the set of
bounded spherical functions with the compact-open topology. Spherical
functions are characterized as the joint eigenfunctions of all $G$–invariant
differential operators on $G/K$, normalized in the $L^{\infty}$-norm.
$G$–invariant differential operators on $G/K$ form a commutative algebra
$\mathbb{D}(G/K)$ which is finitely generated [19].
Given a finite set of generators $\left\\{V_{1},\ldots,V_{s}\right\\}$ of
$\mathbb{D}(G/K)$, we can assign to each bounded spherical function $\phi$ the
$s$-tuple
$\widehat{V}(\phi)=\left(\widehat{V_{1}}(\phi),\ldots,\widehat{V_{s}}(\phi)\right)$
of its eigenvalues with respect to these generators. In this way, the Gelfand
spectrum is identified with a closed subset $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$ of
$\mathbb{C}^{s}$. When all bounded spherical functions are of positive type
and the operators $V_{j}$ self-adjoint, $\Sigma_{K}^{V}\subset\mathbb{R}^{s}$.
As proved in [12], the Euclidean topology induced on $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$
coincides with the compact-open topology on the set of bounded spherical
functions (see also [8] for $G=K\ltimes H_{n}$ and $K\subset{\text{U}(n)}$).
When the Gelfand spectrum is identified with $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$, the spherical
transform will be denoted by ${\mathcal{G}}^{V}_{K}$.
Let $K$ be a compact group of automorphisms of $H_{n}$ such that $(K\ltimes
H_{n},K)$ is a Gelfand pair and denote by ${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$ the commutative
algebra of left-invariant and $K$–invariant differential operators on $H_{n}$.
Let $V=\left\\{V_{1},\ldots,V_{s}\right\\}$ be a set of formally self-adjoint
generators of ${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$. We denote by $\mathcal{S}(\Sigma_{K}^{V})$
the space of restrictions to $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$ of Schwartz functions on
$\mathbb{R}^{s}$, endowed with the quotient topology of
${\mathcal{S}}(\mathbb{R}^{s})/\\{f:f_{|_{\Sigma_{K}^{V}}}=0\\}$.
Our main result is the following:
###### Theorem 1.1.
The map ${\mathcal{G}}^{V}_{K}$ is a topological isomorphism between
${\mathcal{S}}_{K}(H_{n})$ and ${\mathcal{S}}(\Sigma_{K}^{V})$.
As customary, for us $H_{n}$ is understood as
$\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{C}^{n}$, with canonical coordinates of the first
kind. It is well known that, under the action
$k\cdot(t,z)=(t,kz)\qquad\forall k\in{\text{U}(n)},\ (t,z)\in H_{n},$
${\text{U}(n)}$ is a maximal compact connected group of automorphisms of
$H_{n}$, and that every compact connected group of automorphisms of $H_{n}$ is
conjugated to a subgroup of ${\text{U}(n)}$. Therefore, if $K$ is a compact
group of automorphisms of $H_{n}$, then its identity component in $K$ is
conjugated to a subgroup of ${\text{U}(n)}$. For most of this article, we deal
with the case of $K$ connected and contained in ${\text{U}(n)}$, leaving the
discussion of the general case to the last section.
In Section 3 we show that it suffices to prove Theorem 1.1 for one particular
set of generators of ${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$, and in Section 4 we choose a
convenient set of generators. From a homogeneous Hilbert basis of
$K$–invariant polynomials on $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$ we derive by symmetrization $d$
differential operators $V_{1},\dots,V_{d}$, invariant under $K$; to these we
add the central operator $V_{0}=i^{-1}\partial_{t}$, obtaining in this way a
generating system of $d+1$ homogeneous operators. Here we benefit from the
deep study of the algebraic properties of the multiplicity-free actions of
subgroups of ${\text{U}(n)}$, developed in [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. In particular,
rationality of the “generalized binomial coefficients” is a crucial point in
our argument (see formula 7.5 below). It must be noticed that the proof of
rationality in [10] is based on the actual classification of multiplicity-free
actions. In this respect, our proof depends on the actual classification of
the groups $K$ giving rise to Gelfand pairs.
After these preliminaries, we split the proof of Theorem 1.1 into two parts.
In the first part we show that, if $m$ is a Schwartz function on
$\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$, its restriction to $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$ is the Gelfand
transform of a function $f$ in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ (see Theorem 5.5
below). The argument is based on Hulanicki’s theorem [22], stating that
Schwartz functions on the real line operate on positive Rockland operators on
graded nilpotent Lie groups producing convolution operators with Schwartz
kernels. We adapt the argument in [29] to obtain a multivariate extension of
Hulanicki’s theorem (see Theorem 5.2 below).
In the second part we prove that the Gelfand transform
${\mathcal{G}}^{V}_{K}f$ of a function $f$ in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ can be
extended to a Schwartz function on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ (see Theorem 7.1 below).
The proof begins with an extension to the Schwartz space of the Schwarz–Mather
theorem [26, 28] for $C^{\infty}$ $K$–invariant functions (see Theorem 6.1
below). This allows us to extend to a Schwartz function on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$
the restriction of ${\mathcal{G}}^{V}_{K}f$ to the “degenerate part”
$\Sigma_{0}$ of the Gelfand spectrum (that corresponding to the one-
dimensional representations of $H_{n}$, or equivalently corresponding to the
eigenvalue $0$ for $V_{0}$). Then we associate to $f$ a Schwartz jet on
$\Sigma_{0}$. As in [3], the key tool here is the existence of “Taylor
coefficients” at points of $\Sigma_{0}$, proved by Geller [17] (see Theorem
7.2 below). The Whitney extension theorem (adapted to Schwartz jets in
Proposition 7.4) gives therefore a Schwartz extension to $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ of
the jet associated to $f$. To conclude the proof, it remains to prove that if
$f\in\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ and the associated jet on $\Sigma_{0}$ is
trivial, then $\mathcal{G}_{K}^{V}f$ admits a Schwartz extension. This is done
by adapting an explicit interpolation formula already used in [3] (see
Proposition 7.5). For a nonconnected group $K$, we remark that, calling
$K_{0}$ the connected component of the identity, one can view the $K$-Gelfand
spectrum as the quotient of the $K_{0}$-Gelfand spectrum under the action of
the finite group $F=K/K_{0}$ (it is known that if $(K\ltimes H_{n},K)$ is a
Gelfand pair, so is $(K_{0}\ltimes H_{n},K_{0})$, cf.[4]). Starting from an
$F$–invariant generating system of $K_{0}$–invariant differential operators,
the $K$-Gelfand spectrum is then conveniently embedded in a Euclidean space by
means of the Hilbert map associated to the action of $F$ on the linear span of
these generators.
The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 we recall some facts about
Gelfand pairs $(K\ltimes H_{n},K)$ and the associated Gelfand transform. In
Section 3 we show that it suffices to prove Theorem 1.1 for one particular set
of generators of ${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$. In Section 4 we choose a convenient set
of generators in the case where $K$ is a connected closed subgroup of
${\text{U}(n)}$. In Section 5 we show that every function in
$\mathcal{S}\bigl{(}\mathbb{R}^{d+1}\bigr{)}$ gives rise to the Gelfand
transform of a function in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ via functional calculus.
In Section 6 we extend the Schwarz-Mather theorem [26, 28] to Schwartz spaces.
Section 7 is devoted to define a Schwartz extension on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ of
the Gelfand transform of a function in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$. In Section 8
we show that our result holds for all compact groups of automorphisms of
$H_{n}$.
## 2\. Preliminaries
For the content of this section we refer to [5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 24].
### 2.1. The Heisenberg group and its representations
We denote by $H_{n}$ the Heisenberg group, i.e., the real manifold
$\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{C}^{n}$ equipped with the group law
$(t,z)(u,w)=\bigl{(}t+u+\tfrac{1}{2}\text{\rm
Im}\,w\cdot\overline{z},z+w\bigr{)}\qquad t,u\in\mathbb{R},\quad\forall
z,w\in\mathbb{C}^{n},$
where $w\cdot\overline{z}$ is a short-hand writing for
$\sum_{j=1}^{n}w_{j}\,\overline{z_{j}}$. It is easy to check that Lebesgue
measure $dt\,dz$ is a Haar measure on $H_{n}$.
Denote by $Z_{j}$ and $\bar{Z}_{j}$ the complex left-invariant vector fields
$Z_{j}=\partial_{z_{j}}-{\textstyle{i\over
4}}\,\bar{z}_{j}\,\partial_{t}\qquad\bar{Z}_{j}=\partial_{\bar{z}_{j}}+{\textstyle{i\over
4}}\,z_{j}\,\partial_{t},$
and set $T=\partial_{t}$.
For $\lambda>0$, denote by ${\mathcal{F}}_{\lambda}$ the Fock space consisting
of the entire functions $F$ on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ such that
$\|F\|_{\mathcal{F}_{\lambda}}^{2}=\left({\lambda\over
2\pi}\right)^{n}\,\int_{\mathbb{C}^{n}}|F(z)|^{2}\,\,e^{-\frac{\lambda}{2}|z|^{2}}\,dz<\infty\
,$
equipped with the norm $\|\cdot\|_{\mathcal{F}_{\lambda}}$. Then $H_{n}$ acts
on $\mathcal{F}_{\lambda}$ through the unitary representation $\pi_{\lambda}$
defined by
$[\pi_{\lambda}(t,z)F](w)=e^{i\lambda
t}\,e^{-\frac{\lambda}{2}w\cdot\bar{z}-\frac{\lambda}{4}|z|^{2}}\,F(w+z)\qquad\forall(z,t)\in
H_{n},\\!\\!\quad F\in{\mathcal{F}}_{\lambda},\\!\\!\quad w\in\mathbb{C}^{n}\
,$
and through its contragredient
$\pi_{-\lambda}(t,z)=\pi_{\lambda}(-t,\bar{z})$. These are the Bargmann
representations of $H_{n}$.
The space $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$ of polynomials on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ is
dense in ${\mathcal{F}}_{\lambda}$ ($\lambda>0$) and an orthonormal basis of
$\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$ seen as a subspace of ${\mathcal{F}}_{\lambda}$
is given by the monomials
$p_{\lambda,{\bf d}}(w)={w^{{\bf d}}\over((2/\lambda)^{|{{\bf d}}|}{{\bf
d}}!)^{1/2}}\qquad{{\bf d}}\in\mathbb{N}^{n}.$
Besides the Bargmann representations, $H_{n}$ has the one-dimensional
representations
$\tau_{w}(t,z)=e^{i\text{\rm Re}\,z\cdot\bar{w}}$
with $w\in\mathbb{C}^{n}$. The $\pi_{\lambda}$ ($\lambda\neq 0$) and the
$\tau_{w}$ fill up the unitary dual of $H_{n}$.
### 2.2. Gelfand pairs $(K\ltimes H_{n},K)$
Let $K$ be a compact groups of automorphisms of $H_{n}$ such that the
convolution algebra $L^{1}_{K}(H_{n})$ of integrable $K$–invariant functions
on $H_{n}$ is abelian, i.e., such that $(K\ltimes H_{n},K)$ is a Gelfand pair.
It is known [4] that this property holds for $K$ if and only if it holds for
its connected identity component $K_{0}$. On the other hand, every compact,
connected group of automorphisms of $H_{n}$ is conjugate, modulo an
automorphism, to a subgroup of ${\text{U}(n)}$, acting on $H_{n}$ via
$k\cdot(t,z)=(t,kz)\qquad\forall(t,z)\in H_{n},\quad k\in{\text{U}(n)}.$
For the remainder of this section, we assume that $K$ is connected, contained
in ${\text{U}(n)}$, and $(K\ltimes H_{n},K)$ is a Gelfand pair.
For the one-dimensional representation $\tau_{w}$, we have
$\tau_{w}(t,k^{-1}z)=\tau_{kw}(t,z)$. Therefore, $\tau_{w}(f)$ is a
$K$–invariant function of $w$ for every $f\in L^{1}_{K}(H_{n})$.
As to the Bargmann representations, if $k\in{\text{U}(n)}$,
$\pi_{\pm\lambda}^{k}(t,z)=\pi_{\pm\lambda}(t,kz)$ is equivalent to
$\pi_{\pm\lambda}$ for every $\lambda>0$ and every choice of the $\pm$ sign.
Precisely, we set
$\nu_{+}(k)F(z)=F(k^{-1}z)\ ,\qquad\nu_{-}(k)F(z)=F(\bar{k}^{-1}z)\ ,$
each of the two actions being the contragredient of the other. We then have
$\pi_{\lambda}(kz,t)=\nu_{+}(k)\pi_{\lambda}(z,t)\nu_{+}(k)^{-1}\
,\qquad\pi_{-\lambda}(kz,t)=\nu_{-}(k)\pi_{-\lambda}(z,t)\nu_{-}(k)^{-1}\ .$
By homogeneity, the decomposition of $\mathcal{F}_{\lambda}$ into irreducible
invariant subspaces under $\nu_{+}$ (resp. $\nu_{-}$) is independent of
$\lambda$ and can be reduced to the decomposition of the dense subspace
$\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$ of polynomials.
It is known since [11, 5] that $(K\ltimes H_{n},K)$ is a Gelfand pair if and
only if $\nu_{+}$ (equivalently $\nu_{-}$) decomposes into irreducibles
without multiplicities (in other words, if and only if it is multiplicity
free). The subgroups of ${\text{U}(n)}$ giving multiplicity free actions on
$\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$ have been classified by Kač [24] and the
resulting Gelfand pairs $(K\ltimes H_{n},K)$ are listed in [10, tables 1 and
2].
Under these assumptions, the space $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$ of
polynomials on $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ decomposes into $\nu_{+}$-irreducible
subspaces,
$\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})=\sum_{\alpha\in\Lambda}P_{\alpha}\ ,$
where $\Lambda$ is an infinite subset of the unitary dual $\widehat{K}$ of $K$
and $\alpha$ denotes the equivalence class of the action on $P_{\alpha}$. The
irreducible $\nu_{-}$–invariant subspaces of $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$ are
$P_{\alpha^{\prime}}=\\{\bar{p}(z)=\overline{p(\bar{z})}:p\in P_{\alpha}\\}\
,$
with the action of $K$ on $P_{\alpha^{\prime}}$ being equivalent to the
contragredient $\alpha^{\prime}$ of $\alpha$.
On the other hand,
$\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})=\sum_{m\in\mathbb{N}}\mathcal{P}_{m}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$,
where $\mathcal{P}_{m}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$ is the space of homogeneous
polynomials of degree $m$. Since $\nu_{\pm}$ preserves each
$\mathcal{P}_{m}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$, each $P_{\alpha}$ is contained in
$\mathcal{P}_{m}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$ for some $m$. We then say that $|\alpha|=m$,
so that
$\mathcal{P}_{m}(\mathbb{C})=\sum_{|\alpha|=m}P_{\alpha}=\sum_{|\alpha|=m}P_{\alpha^{\prime}}.$
As proved in [5], all the bounded spherical functions are of positive type.
Therefore there are two families of spherical functions. Those of the first
family are
$\eta_{Kw}(t,z)=\int_{K}e^{i{\rm Re}\langle z,kw\rangle}\,dk,\qquad
w\in\mathbb{C}^{n},$
parametrized by $K$–orbits in $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ and associated with the one-
dimensional representations of the Heisenberg group.
The elements of the second family are parametrized by pairs
$(\lambda,\alpha)\in\mathbb{R}^{*}\times\Lambda$. If $\lambda>0$ and
$\\{v_{1}^{\lambda},\ldots,v_{\text{dim}(P_{\alpha})}^{\lambda}\\}$ is an
orthonormal basis of $P_{\alpha}$ in the norm of ${\mathcal{F}}_{\lambda}$, we
have the spherical function
(2.1)
$\phi_{\lambda,\alpha}(t,z)=\frac{1}{\text{dim}(P_{\alpha})}\sum_{j=1}^{\text{dim}(P_{\alpha})}\langle\pi_{\lambda}(t,z)v_{j}^{\lambda}\,,v_{j}^{\lambda}\rangle_{\mathcal{F}_{\lambda}}\
.$
Taking, as we can, $v_{j}^{\lambda}$ as $\lambda^{|\alpha|/2}v_{j}^{1}$, we
find that
$\phi_{\lambda,\alpha}(z,t)=\phi_{1,\alpha}(\sqrt{\lambda}z,\lambda t)\ .$
For $\lambda<0$, the analogous matrix entries of the contragredient
representation give the spherical functions
$\phi_{\lambda,\alpha}(z,t)=\overline{\phi_{-\lambda,\alpha}(z,t)}\ .$
Setting for simplicity $\phi_{\alpha}=\phi_{1,\alpha}$,
$\phi_{\alpha}(z,t)=e^{it}\,q_{\alpha}(z,\bar{z})\,e^{-|z|^{2}/4},$
where
$q_{\alpha}\in\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})\otimes\overline{\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})}$
is a real $K$–invariant polynomial of degree $2|\alpha|$ in $z$ and $\bar{z}$
(cf. [6]).
Denote by ${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$ the algebra of left-invariant and $K$–invariant
differential operators on $H_{n}$. The symmetrization map establishes a linear
bijection from the space of $K$–invariant elements in the symmetric algebra
over $\mathfrak{h}_{n}$ to ${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$. Therefore every element
$D\in{\mathbb{D}}_{K}$ can be expressed as $\sum_{j=0}^{m}D_{j}T^{j}$, where
$D_{j}$ is the symmetrization of a $K$–invariant polynomial in $Z,\bar{Z}$.
Let $D$ be the symmetrization of the $K$–invariant polynomial
$P(Z,\bar{Z},T)$. With $\widehat{D}(\phi)$ denoting the eigenvalue of
$D\in{\mathbb{D}}_{K}$ on the spherical function $\phi$, we have
(2.2) $\widehat{D}(\eta_{Kw})=P(w,\bar{w},0)$
for the spherical functions associated to the one-dimensional representations
For $\lambda\neq 0$, $d\pi_{\lambda}(D)$ commutes with the action of $K$ and
therefore it preserves each $P_{\alpha}$. By Schur’s lemma,
$d\pi_{\lambda}(D)_{|_{P_{\alpha}}}$ is a scalar operator
$c_{\lambda,\alpha}(D)\,I_{{P_{\alpha}}}$. It follows from (2.1) that
$\widehat{D}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})=c_{\lambda,\alpha}(D)\ .$
In particular, for $D=T$, we have
$\widehat{T}(\eta_{Kw})=0\
,\qquad\widehat{T}\big{(}\phi_{\lambda,\alpha}\big{)}=i\lambda\ .$
## 3\. Embeddings of the Gelfand spectrum
Let $K$ be a compact group of automorphisms of $H_{n}$ such that $(K\ltimes
H_{n},K)$ is a Gelfand pair. The Gelfand spectrum of the commutative Banach
algebra $L^{1}_{K}(H_{n})$ is the set of bounded spherical functions endowed
with the compact-open topology. Given a set
$V=\\{V_{0},\,\,V_{1},\ldots,V_{d}\\}$ of formally self-adjoint generators of
${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$, we assign to each spherical function $\phi$ the
$(d+1)$-tuple
$\widehat{V}(\phi)=\left(\widehat{V_{0}}(\phi),\,\,\widehat{V_{1}}(\phi),\ldots,\widehat{V_{d}}(\phi)\right)$.
Since $d\pi(V_{j})$ is formally self-adjoint for every irreducible
representation $\pi$ , $\widehat{V}(\phi)$ is in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$. It has
been proved, in a more general context [12], that
$\Sigma_{K}^{V}=\\{\widehat{V}(\phi):\phi\text{ spherical}\\}$ is closed in
$\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ and homeomorphic to the Gelfand spectrum via $\widehat{V}$
(see also [8]).
Once we have identified the Gelfand spectrum with $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$, the
Gelfand transform of a function $f$ in $L^{1}_{K}(H_{n})$ can be defined on
the closed subset $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$ of $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ as
$({\mathcal{G}}^{V}_{K}f)\,(\widehat{V}(\phi))=\int_{H_{n}}f\,\phi.$
In order to prove Theorem 1.1, we first show that different choices of the
generating system $V$ give rise to natural isomorphisms among the
corresponding restricted Schwartz spaces $\mathcal{S}(\Sigma_{K}^{V})$. It
will then suffice to prove Theorem 1.1 for one particular set of generators.
On the Schwartz space ${\mathcal{S}}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$ we consider the
following family of norms, parametrized by a nonnegative integer $p$:
$\|f\|_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{m})}=\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^{m},|\alpha|\leq
p}(1+|y|)^{p}|\partial^{\alpha}f(y)|.$
###### Lemma 3.1.
Let $E$ and $F$ be closed subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{m}$
respectively. Let $P:\mathbb{R}^{n}\to\mathbb{R}^{m}$ and
$Q:\mathbb{R}^{m}\to\mathbb{R}^{n}$ be polynomial maps such that $P(E)=F$ and
$Q\circ P$ is the identity on $E$. Given $f$ in $\mathcal{S}(F)$ we let
$P^{\flat}f=f\circ P|_{E}$. Then $P^{\flat}$ maps $\mathcal{S}(F)$ in
$\mathcal{S}(E)$ continuously.
###### Proof.
We show that if $f$ is in $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$, then $P^{\flat}f$ can
be extended to a function $\widetilde{P^{\flat}f}$ in
$\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{n})$ in a linear and continuous way. Let $\Psi$ be a
smooth function on $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that $\Psi(t)=1$ if $|t|\leq 1$ and
$\Psi(t)=0$ if $|t|>2$. Define
$\widetilde{P^{\flat}f}(x)=\Psi(x-Q\circ P(x))\,\,(f\circ P)(x)\qquad\forall
x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}.$
Clearly $\widetilde{P^{\flat}f}$ is smooth and
$\widetilde{P^{\flat}f}|_{E}=P^{\flat}f$. Moreover $\widetilde{P^{\flat}f}$ is
zero when $|x-Q\circ P(x)|>2$, so it suffices to prove rapid decay for
$|x-Q\circ P(x)|\leq 2$. Note that there exists $\ell$ in $\mathbb{N}$ such
that
$|x|\leq 2+|Q(P(x))|\leq C\,(1+|P(x)|)^{\ell}\qquad\forall
x\in\mathbb{R}^{n},\quad|x-Q\circ P(x)|\leq 2.$
Therefore given a positive integer $p$ there exists a positive integer $q$
such that $\|\widetilde{P^{\flat}f}\|_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{n})}\leq
C\,\|f\|_{(q,\mathbb{R}^{m})}.$ The thesis follows immediately from the
definition of the quotient topology on $\mathcal{S}(F)$ and $\mathcal{S}(E)$.
∎
###### Corollary 3.2.
Suppose that $\\{V_{0},\ldots,V_{d}\\}$ and $\\{W_{0},\ldots,W_{s}\\}$ are two
sets of formally self-adjoint generators of ${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$. Then the
spaces ${\mathcal{S}}(\Sigma_{K}^{V})$ and ${\mathcal{S}}(\Sigma_{K}^{W})$ are
topologically isomorphic.
###### Proof.
There exist real polynomials $p_{j}$, $j=0,1,\ldots,s$, and $q_{h}$,
$h=0,1,\ldots,d$, such that $W_{j}=p_{j}(V_{0},\ldots,V_{d})$ and
$V_{h}=q_{h}(W_{0},\ldots,W_{s}).$
Setting
$P=(p_{0},\,p_{1},\ldots,p_{s}):\mathbb{R}^{d+1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{s+1}$
and
$Q=(q_{0},\,q_{1},\ldots,q_{d}):\mathbb{R}^{s+1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$,
we can apply Lemma 3.1 in both directions. ∎
## 4\. Choice of the generators
In this section $K$ shall be a closed connected subgroup of ${\text{U}(n)}$
such that $(K\ltimes H_{n},K)$ is a Gelfand pair. The subject of the following
lemma is the choice of a convenient set of formally self-adjoint generators of
${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$.
###### Lemma 4.1.
A generating system $\\{V_{0}=-iT,V_{1},\ldots,V_{d}\\}$ can be chosen such
that, for each $j=1,\ldots,d$,
1. (1)
$V_{j}$ is homogeneous of even order $2\,m_{j}$;
2. (2)
$V_{j}$ is formally self-adjoint and $\widehat{V}_{j}(\phi_{\alpha})$ is a
positive integer for every $\alpha$ in $\Lambda$;
3. (3)
$\widehat{V}_{j}(\eta_{Kw})=\rho_{j}(w,\bar{w})$, for every $w$ in
$\mathbb{C}^{n}$, where $\rho_{j}$ is a nonnegative homogenous polynomial of
degree $2\,m_{j}$, strictly positive outside of the origin.
Notice that (1) and (2) imply that when $j=1,\ldots,d$
(4.1)
$\widehat{V}_{j}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})=|\lambda|^{m_{j}}\,\widehat{V}_{j}(\phi_{\alpha}),\qquad\forall\lambda\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\\{0\\},\quad\forall\alpha\in\Lambda.$
###### Proof.
Let $\mathbb{C}^{n}_{\mathbb{R}}$ denote $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ with the underlying
structure of a real vector space. We denote by
$\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n}_{\mathbb{R}})\cong\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})\otimes\overline{\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})}$
the algebra of polynomials in $z$ and $\bar{z}$, and by
$\mathcal{P}^{K}(\mathbb{C}^{n}_{\mathbb{R}})$ the subalgebra of $K$–invariant
polynomials.
The fact that the representation of $K$ on $\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$ is
multiplicity free implies that the trivial representation is contained in
$P_{\alpha}\otimes\overline{P_{\beta}}\subset\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{C}^{n}_{\mathbb{R}})$
if and only if $\alpha=\beta$, and with multiplicity one in each of them.
Therefore a linear basis of $\mathcal{P}^{K}(\mathbb{C}^{n}_{\mathbb{R}})$ is
given by the polynomials
(4.2) $p_{\alpha}(z,\overline{z})=\sum_{h=1}^{{\rm
dim}(P_{\alpha})}v_{h}(z)\,\overline{v_{h}(z)}=\sum_{h=1}^{{\rm
dim}(P_{\alpha})}|v_{h}(z)|^{2}\ ,$
where $\\{v_{1},\ldots,v_{{\rm dim}(P_{\alpha})}\\}$ is any orthonormal basis
of $P_{\alpha}$ in the ${\mathcal{F}}_{1}$-norm.
A result in [21] ensures that there exist $\delta_{1},\ldots,\delta_{d}$ in
$\Lambda$ such that the polynomials
$\gamma_{j}=p_{\delta_{j}}\qquad j=1,\ldots,d,$
freely generate $\mathcal{P}^{K}(\mathbb{C}_{\mathbb{R}}^{n})$. In [10] the
authors prove that $\gamma_{1},\ldots,\gamma_{d}$ have rational coefficients.
More precisely, setting $m_{j}=|\delta_{j}|$, each $\gamma_{j}$ can be written
in the form
$\gamma_{j}(z,\bar{z})=\sum_{|{\bf a}|=|{\bf b}|=m_{j}}\theta^{(j)}_{{\bf
a},{\bf b}}\,\,z^{\bf a}\bar{z}^{\bf b},$
where ${\bf a},{\bf b}$ are in $\mathbb{N}^{n}$ and $\theta^{(j)}_{{\bf
a},{\bf b}}$ are rational numbers.
The symmetrization $L_{\gamma_{j}}$ of $\gamma_{j}(Z,\bar{Z})$ is a homogenous
operator of degree $2m_{j}$ in ${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$ with rational coefficients,
and $\\{-iT,\,L_{\gamma_{1}},\ldots,L_{\gamma_{d}}\\}$ generate
${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$ [6, 8]. Moreover, the eigenvalues
$\widehat{L}_{\gamma_{j}}(\phi_{\alpha})$ are rational numbers [9, 10].
Fix any positive integer $m$ and denote by $M_{j,m}$ the matrix which
represents the restriction of $d\pi_{1}\left(L_{\gamma_{j}}\right)$ to
$\mathcal{P}_{m}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$ in the basis of monomials $w^{\alpha}$,
$|\alpha|=m$. For every $F$ in $\mathcal{F}_{1}(\mathbb{C}^{n})$,
$[d\pi_{1}(Z_{h})F](w)=[\partial_{w_{h}}F](w)\qquad[d\pi_{1}(\bar{Z}_{h})F](w)=-{1\over
2}\,w_{h}\,F(w)\qquad\forall w\in\mathbb{C}^{n},$
for $h=1,\ldots,n$. Therefore $M_{j,m}$ has rational entries, with
denominators varying in a finite set independent of $m$. We can then take $N$
such that the matrices $NM_{j,m}$ have integral entries, for all $m$ and
$j=1,\ldots,d$. Thus the characteristic polynomial of $NM_{j,m}$ is monic,
with integral coefficients and rational zeroes
$N\widehat{L_{\gamma_{j}}}(\phi_{\alpha})$; therefore these zeroes must be
integers. They all have the same sign, independently of $m$, equal to
$(-1)^{m_{j}}$ (cf. [8]).
We then define
$V_{j}=N\,(-1)^{m_{j}}\,L_{\gamma_{j}}+\mathcal{L}^{m_{j}},\qquad
j=1,\ldots,d,$
where
$\mathcal{L}=-2\sum_{j=1}^{n}\bigl{(}Z_{j}\overline{Z}_{j}+\overline{Z}_{j}Z_{j}\bigr{)}$
is the ${\text{U}(n)}$–invariant sublaplacian, satisfying
$\widehat{\mathcal{L}}(\phi_{\alpha})=2|\alpha|+n$. We show that
$\\{V_{0}=-iT,V_{1},\ldots,V_{d}\\}$ is a set of generators satisfying the
required conditions.
Since $\sum_{m_{j}=1}\gamma_{j}=\frac{1}{2}|z|^{2}$ (cf. [8]), we have
$\sum_{m_{j}=1}L_{\gamma_{j}}=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\bigl{(}Z_{j}\overline{Z}_{j}+\overline{Z}_{j}Z_{j}\bigr{)}=-\frac{1}{2}{\mathcal{L}}\
,$
and then
(4.3)
$\sum_{m_{j}=1}V_{j}=\sum_{m_{j}=1}\left(-N\,L_{\gamma_{j}}+\mathcal{L}\right)=\left(\frac{N}{2}+r\right)\,\mathcal{L}\
,$
where $r$ is the cardinality of the set
$\left\\{\delta_{j}\,:\,m_{j}=|\delta_{j}|=1\right\\}$. Therefore each
$L_{\gamma_{j}}$ is a polynomial in $V_{1},\ldots,V_{d}$. Since
$-iT,L_{\gamma_{1}},\ldots,L_{\gamma_{d}}$ generate ${\mathbb{D}}_{K}$, the
same holds for $-iT,V_{1},\ldots,V_{d}$.
Condition (1) follows from the homogeneity of $L_{\gamma_{j}}$ and
$\mathcal{L}^{m_{j}}$, and from (4.2). Since the polynomials in (4.2) are
real-valued, then the $V_{j}^{\prime}s$ are formally self-adjoint and
condition (2) is easily verified. Finally condition (3) follows from (2.2),
which gives
$\widehat{L_{\gamma_{j}}}(\eta_{Kw})=(-1)^{m_{j}}\,\gamma_{j}(w,\bar{w})\
,\qquad\widehat{{\mathcal{L}}^{m_{j}}}(\eta_{Kw})=|w|^{2m_{j}}$
for all $w$ in $\mathbb{C}^{n}$ and $j=1,\ldots,d$. ∎
Let $V=\\{V_{0},V_{1},\ldots,V_{d}\\}$ denote the privileged set of generators
chosen in Lemma 4.1. We set $\rho=(\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{d})$ the polynomial
map in (3) of Lemma 4.1.
Coordinates in $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$ will be denoted by $(\lambda,\xi)$, with
$\lambda$ in $\mathbb{R}$ and $\xi$ in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. So, if
$(\lambda,\xi)=\widehat{V}(\phi)$, then either
$\lambda=-i\widehat{T}(\phi)=0$, in which case $\phi=\eta_{Kw}$ and
$\xi=\rho(w,\bar{w})$, or $\lambda=-i\widehat{T}(\phi)\neq 0$, in which case
$\phi=\phi_{\lambda,\alpha}$ and
$\xi_{j}=\widehat{V_{j}}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})=|\lambda|^{m_{j}}\,\widehat{V_{j}}(\phi_{\alpha})$.
The spectrum $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$ consists therefore of two parts. The first part
is $\Sigma_{0}=\\{0\\}\times\rho(\mathbb{C}^{n})$, a semi-algebraic set. The
second part, $\Sigma^{\prime}$, is the countable union of the curves
$\Gamma_{\alpha}(\lambda)=\widehat{V}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})$, $\lambda\neq
0$. Each $\Gamma_{\alpha}$ and $\Sigma_{0}$ are homogeneous with respect to
the dilations
(4.4)
$(\lambda,\xi_{1}.\dots,\xi_{d})\mapsto(t\lambda,t^{m_{1}}\xi_{1}.\dots,t^{m_{d}}\xi_{d})\
,\qquad(t>0)$
and to the symmetry
$(\lambda,\xi_{1}.\dots,\xi_{d})\mapsto(-\lambda,\xi_{1}.\dots,\xi_{d})$. By
our choice of $V$, $\Sigma^{\prime}\cap\\{\lambda=1\\}$ is contained in the
positive integer lattice. Moreover $\Sigma^{\prime}$ is dense in
$\Sigma_{K}^{V}$ (cf. [8, 17])
For the sake of brevity, we denote by $\hat{f}$ the Gelfand transform
${\mathcal{G}}^{V}_{K}f$ of the integrable $K$–invariant function $f$ .
## 5\. Functional calculus
In this section we prove one of the two implications of Theorem 1.1 for a
closed connected subgroup $K$ of ${\text{U}(n)}$ such that $(K\ltimes
H_{n},K)$ is a Gelfand pair. More precisely we prove that if $m$ is a Schwartz
function on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$, its restriction to $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$ is the
Gelfand transform of a function $f$ in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ (see Theorem
5.5 below).
The proof is based on a result of Hulanicki [22] (see Theorem 5.1 below) on
functional calculus for Rockland operators on graded groups and a multi-
variate extention of it.
A Rockland operator $D$ on a graded Lie group $N$ is a formally self-adjoint
left-invariant differential operator on $N$ which is homogeneous with respect
to the dilations and such that, for every nontrivial irreducible
representation $\pi$ of $N$, the operator $d\pi(D)$ is injective on the space
of $C^{\infty}$ vectors.
As noted in [23], it follows from [27] and [18] that a Rockland operator $D$
is essentially self-adjoint on the Schwartz space $\mathcal{S}(N)$, as well as
$d\pi(D)$ on the Gårding space for every unitary representation $\pi$. We keep
the same symbols for the self-adjoint extensions of such operators.
Let $N$ be a graded Lie group, and let $|\cdot|$ be a homogeneous gauge on it.
We say that a function on $N$ is Schwartz if and only if it is represented by
a Schwartz function on the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{n}$ in any given set of
canonical coordinates. The fact that changes of canonical coordinates are
expressed by polynomials makes this condition independent of the choice of the
coordinates. Given a homogeneous basis $\\{X_{1},\dots,X_{n}\\}$ of the Lie
algebra $\mathfrak{n}$ we keep the same notation $X_{j}$ for the associated
left-invariant vector fields on $N$. Following [14], we shall consider the
following family of norms on ${\mathcal{S}}(N)$, parametrized by a nonnegative
integer $p$:
(5.1) $\|f\|_{(p,N)}=\sup\\{(1+|x|)^{p}\,|X^{I}f(x)|\,:x\in N\,,\
\text{deg}\,X^{I}\leq p\\},$
where $X^{I}=X_{1}^{i_{1}}\cdots X_{n}^{i_{n}}$ and
$\text{deg}\,X^{I}=\sum\,i_{j}\text{deg}\,X_{j}$. Note that the Frechét space
structure induced on $\mathcal{S}(N)$ by this family of norms is independent
of the choice of the $X_{j}$ and is equivalent to that induced from
$\mathcal{S}(\mathfrak{n})$ via composition with the exponential map.
###### Theorem 5.1.
[22] Let $D$ a positive Rockland operator on a graded Lie group $N$ and let
$D=\int_{0}^{+\infty}\lambda\,dE(\lambda)$ be its spectral decomposition. If
$m$ is in $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ and
$m(D)=\int_{0}^{+\infty}m(\lambda)\,dE(\lambda),$
then there exists $M$ in $\mathcal{S}(N)$ such that
$m(D)f=f\ast M\qquad\forall f\in\mathcal{S}(N).$
Moreover for every $p$ there exists $q$ such that
$\|M\|_{(p,N)}\leq C\,\|m\|_{(q,\mathbb{R})}.$
Suppose that $D_{1},\ldots,D_{s}$ form a commutative family of self-adjoint
operators on $N$ (in the sense that they have commuting spectral resolutions).
Then they admit a joint spectral resolution and one can define the bounded
operator $m(D_{1},\ldots,D_{s})$ for any bounded Borel function $m$ on their
joint spectrum in $\mathbb{R}^{s}$. The following theorem was proved in [29]
in a special situation.
###### Theorem 5.2.
Suppose that $N$ is a graded Lie group and $D_{1},\ldots,D_{s}$ form a
commutative family of positive Rockland operators on $N$. If $m$ is in
$\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{s})$, then there exists $M$ in $\mathcal{S}(N)$ such
that
$m(D_{1},\ldots,D_{s})f=f*M\ .$
Moreover, for every $p$ there exists $q$ such that
$\|M\|_{(p,N)}\leq C\,\|m\|_{(q,\mathbb{R}^{d})}$
###### Proof.
We prove the theorem by induction on $s$. By Theorem 5.1 the thesis holds when
$s=1$. Let $s\geq 2$ and suppose that the thesis holds for $s-1$. Let
$m(\lambda_{1},\dots,\lambda_{s})$ be in $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{s})$. Then
there exist sequences $\\{\psi_{k}\\}$ in $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{s-1})$ and
$\\{\varphi_{k}\\}$ in $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R})$ such that
$m(\lambda_{1},\dots,\lambda_{s-1},\lambda_{s})=\sum_{k}\psi_{k}(\lambda_{1},\dots,\lambda_{s-1})\varphi_{k}(\lambda_{s})$
and
$\sum_{k}\left\|\psi_{k}\otimes\varphi_{k}\right\|_{N,\mathbb{R}^{s}}<\infty$
for every $N$.
For a proof of this, one can first decompose $m$ as a sum of
$C^{\infty}$-functions supported in a sequence of increasing balls and with
rapidly decaying Schwartz norms, and then separate variables in each of them
by a Fourier series expansion (see also [29]).
By the inductive hypothesis, for every $k$ there exist $\Psi_{k}$ and
$\Phi_{k}$ in $\mathcal{S}(N)$ such that
$\psi_{k}(D_{1},\ldots,D_{s-1})f=f\ast\Psi_{k}$ and
$\varphi_{k}(D_{s})f=f\ast\Phi_{k}$ for every $f$ in $\mathcal{S}(N)$. Then
$\displaystyle\psi_{k}\otimes\varphi_{k}\left(D_{1},\ldots,D_{s-1},D_{s}\right)f$
$\displaystyle=\psi_{k}\left(D_{1},\ldots,D_{s-1}\right)\,\varphi_{k}\left(D_{s}\right)f$
$\displaystyle=f\ast\Phi_{k}\ast\Psi_{k}\ .$
By straightforward computations (cf. [14, Proposition 1.47]) and the inductive
hypothesis, we obtain that
$\displaystyle\|\Psi_{k}\ast\Phi_{k}\|_{(p,N)}$ $\displaystyle\leq
C_{p}\,\|\Psi_{k}\|_{(p^{\prime},N)}\,\|\Phi_{k}\|_{(p^{\prime\prime}+1,N)}$
$\displaystyle\leq
C_{p}\,\|\psi_{k}\|_{(q,\mathbb{R}^{s-1})}\|\varphi_{k}\|_{(q^{\prime},\mathbb{R})}$
$\displaystyle\leq
C_{p}\,\|\psi_{k}\otimes\varphi_{k}\|_{(q^{\prime\prime},\mathbb{R}^{s})}\ .$
Since the series $\sum_{k}\psi_{k}\otimes\varphi_{k}$ is totally convergent in
every Schwartz norm on $\mathbb{R}^{s}$, there exists a function $F$ in
$\mathcal{S}(N)$ such that
$\sum_{k}\Psi_{k}\ast\Phi_{k}=F$
and hence
$\sum_{k}f\ast\Psi_{k}\ast\Phi_{k}=f\ast F$
for every $f$ in $\mathcal{S}(N)$.
On the other hand, if $M\in\mathcal{S}^{\prime}(N)$ is the convolution kernel
of $m\left(D_{1},\ldots,D_{s-1},D_{s}\right)$, by the Spectral Theorem,
$\displaystyle m\left(D_{1},\ldots,D_{d-1},D_{d}\right)\,f$
$\displaystyle=\sum_{k}\psi_{k}\left(D_{1},\ldots,D_{d-1}\right)\otimes\varphi_{k}\left(D_{d}\right)\,f$
$\displaystyle=\sum_{k}f\ast\Psi_{k}\ast\Phi_{k},$
for every $f$ in $\mathcal{S}(N)$, with convergence in $L^{2}(N)$. Therefore
$\sum_{k}\Psi_{k}\ast\Phi_{k}$ converges to $M$ in $\mathcal{S}^{\prime}(N)$,
i.e. $F=M$ and $M$ is in $\mathcal{S}(N)$.
Finally, given $p$ there exists $q$ such that
$\|M\|_{(p,N)}\leq\|m\|_{(q,\mathbb{R}^{d})}\ .$
This follows from the Closed Graph Theorem. Indeed, we have shown that there
is a linear correspondence $m\mapsto M$ from $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ to
$\mathcal{S}(N)$; moreover, reasoning as before, if $m_{h}\to m$ in
$\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ and $M_{h}\to\varphi$ in $\mathcal{S}(N)$ then
$M_{h}\to M$ by the Spectral Theorem in $\mathcal{S}^{\prime}(N)$. Therefore
$\varphi=M$. ∎
Going back to our case, we prove that the operators $V_{1},\dots,V_{d}$
satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem 5.2.
###### Lemma 5.3.
The differential operators $V_{1},\ldots,V_{d}$ defined in Lemma 4.1 form a
commutative family of positive Rockland operators on $H_{n}$.
###### Proof.
Suppose that $j=1,\ldots,d$. The formal self-adjointness of $V_{j}$ follows
directly from its definition and the identity
$\int_{H_{n}}Z_{k}f\,\overline{g}=-\int_{H_{n}}f\,Z_{k}\overline{g}$, for
every pair of Schwartz functions $f$ and $g$ on $H_{n}$.
We check now the injectivity condition on the image of $V_{j}$ in the
nontrivial irreducible unitary representations of $H_{n}$.
By (3) in Lemma 4.1, $d\tau_{w}(V_{j})=\rho_{j}(w)>0$ for $w\neq 0$.
As to the Bargmann representations $\pi_{\lambda}$, the Gårding space in
$\mathcal{F}_{|\lambda|}$ can be characterized as the space of those
$F=\sum_{\alpha\in\Lambda}F_{\alpha}$ (with $F_{\alpha}$ in $P_{\alpha}$ for
$\lambda>0$ and in $P_{\alpha^{\prime}}$ for $\lambda<0$) such that
$\sum_{\alpha\in\Lambda}(1+|\alpha|)^{N}\|F_{\alpha}\|_{\mathcal{F}_{|\lambda|}}^{2}<\infty$
for every integer $N$. For such an $F$,
$V_{j}F=\sum_{\alpha\in\Lambda}\widehat{V_{j}}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})F_{\alpha}$
where the series is convergent in norm, and therefore it is zero if and only
if $F_{\alpha}=0$ for every $\alpha$.
Positivity of $V_{j}$ follows from Plancherel’s formula: for
$f\in\mathcal{S}(H_{n})$,
$\int_{H_{n}}V_{j}f\,\bar{f}=\left(\frac{1}{2\pi}\right)^{n+1}\int_{0}^{+\infty}\sum_{\alpha\in\Lambda}\widehat{V_{j}}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})\big{(}\|\pi_{\lambda}(f)_{|_{P_{\alpha}}}\|_{HS}^{2}+\|\pi_{-\lambda}(f)_{|_{P_{\alpha^{\prime}}}}\|_{HS}^{2}\big{)}\,\lambda^{n}\,d\lambda\geq
0\ ,$
since the eigenvalues $\widehat{V_{j}}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})$ are positive.
Given a Borel subset $\omega$ of $\mathbb{R}^{+}$, define the operator
$E_{j}(\omega)$ on $L^{2}(H_{n})$ by
(5.2)
$\pi_{\lambda}\big{(}E_{j}(\omega)f\big{)}=\sum_{\alpha\in\Lambda}\chi_{\omega}\big{(}\widehat{V_{j}}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})\big{)})\pi_{\lambda}(f)\Pi_{\lambda,\alpha}\
,$
where $\chi_{\omega}$ is the characteristic function of $\omega$ and
$\Pi_{\lambda,\alpha}$ is the orthogonal projection of
$\mathcal{F}_{|\lambda|}$ onto $P_{\alpha}$ if $\lambda>0$, or onto
$P_{\alpha^{\prime}}$ if $\lambda<0$. Then $E_{j}=\\{E_{j}(\omega)\\}$
defines, for each $j$, a resolution of the identity, and, for
$f\in\mathcal{S}(H_{n})$,
$\int_{0}^{+\infty}\xi\,dE_{j}(\xi)f=V_{j}f\ .$
Therefore $E_{j}$ is the spectral resolution of the self-adjoint extension of
$V_{j}$. It is then clear that $E_{j}(\omega)$ and $E_{k}(\omega^{\prime})$
commute for every $\omega,\omega^{\prime}$ and $j,k$. ∎
###### Corollary 5.4.
Let $V_{0},\ldots,V_{d}$ be the differential operators defined in Lemma 4.1.
If $m$ is in $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$, then there exists $M$ in
$\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ such that
$m(V_{0},\ldots,V_{d})f=f\ast M\qquad\forall f\in\mathcal{S}(H_{n}).$
Moreover, for every $p$ there exists $q$ such that
$\|M\|_{(p,H_{n})}\leq C\,\|m\|_{(q,\mathbb{R}^{d+1})}$
###### Proof.
We replace $V_{0}=-iT$ by $\tilde{V}_{0}=-iT+2\mathcal{L}$. By (4.3),
$\tilde{V}_{0}$ is a linear combination of the $V_{j}$. Therefore
$m(V_{0},\ldots,V_{d})=\tilde{m}(\tilde{V}_{0},\ldots,V_{d})$, where
$\tilde{m}$ is the composition of $m$ with a linear transformation of
$\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$.
Moreover, $\tilde{V}_{0}$ is a positive Rockland operator (cf. [15]), which
commutes with the other $V_{j}$ because so do $V_{0}$ and $\mathcal{L}$.
Applying Theorem 5.2,
$\tilde{m}(\tilde{V}_{0},\ldots,V_{d})f=f\ast M\ ,$
with $M\in\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ and
$\|M\|_{(p,H_{n})}\leq C\,\|\tilde{m}\|_{(q,\mathbb{R}^{d+1})}\leq
C^{\prime}\,\|m\|_{(q,\mathbb{R}^{d+1})}\ .$
∎
###### Theorem 5.5.
Suppose that $m$ is a Schwartz function on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$. Then there
exists a function $M$ in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ such that
$\widehat{M}=m_{|_{\Sigma_{K}^{V}}}$. Moreover the map $m\longmapsto M$ is a
continuous linear operator from $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$ to
$\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$.
###### Proof.
It follows from (5.2) that the joint spectrum of $V_{0},\dots,V_{d}$ is
$\Sigma_{K}^{V}$ (cf. [16, Theorem 1.7.10]). Therefore the continuous map
$m\mapsto M$ of Corollary 5.4 passes to the quotient modulo $\\{m:m=0\text{ on
}\Sigma_{K}^{V}\\}$.
On the other hand, by (5.2),
$\pi_{\lambda}\big{(}m(V_{0},\ldots,V_{d})f\big{)}=\sum_{\alpha\in\Lambda}m\big{(}\widehat{V}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})\big{)}\pi_{\lambda}(f)\text{proj}_{\lambda,\alpha}\
,$
and this must coincide with $\pi_{\lambda}(f)\pi_{\lambda}(M)$. It follows
that
$\widehat{M}\big{(}\widehat{V}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})\big{)}=m\big{(}\widehat{V}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})\big{)}$
for every $\lambda,\alpha$. By density, $\widehat{M}=m_{|_{\Sigma_{K}^{V}}}$.
∎
## 6\. Extension of Schwartz invariant functions on $\mathbb{R}^{m}$
Suppose that $K$ is a compact Lie group acting orthogonally on
$\mathbb{R}^{m}$. It follows from Hilbert’s Basis Theorem [30] that the
algebra of $K$–invariant polynomials on $\mathbb{R}^{m}$ is finitely
generated. Let $\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{d}$ be a set of generators and denote by
$\rho=(\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{d})$ the corresponding map from $\mathbb{R}^{m}$
to $\mathbb{R}^{d}$. The image $\Sigma=\rho(\mathbb{R}^{m})$ of $\rho$ is
closed in $\mathbb{R}^{d}$.
If $h$ is a smooth function on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$, then $h\circ\rho$ is in
$C^{\infty}_{K}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$, the space of $K$–invariant smooth functions
on $\mathbb{R}^{m}$. G. Schwarz [28] proved that the map $h\mapsto h\circ\rho$
is surjective from $C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ to
$C^{\infty}_{K}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$, so that, passing to the quotient, it
establishes an isomorphism between $C^{\infty}(\Sigma)$ and
$C^{\infty}_{K}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$.
J. Mather [26] proved that the map $h\mapsto h\circ\rho$ is split-surjective,
i.e. there is a continuous linear operator
$\mathcal{E}:C^{\infty}_{K}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\rightarrow
C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ such that $(\mathcal{E}f)\circ\rho=f$ for every
$f\in C^{\infty}_{K}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$.
From this one can derive the following analogue of the Schwarz–Mather theorem
for $\mathcal{S}_{K}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$.
###### Theorem 6.1.
There is a continuous linear operator
$\mathcal{E}^{\prime}:\mathcal{S}_{K}(\mathbb{R}^{m})\rightarrow\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$
such that $(\mathcal{E}^{\prime}g)\circ\rho=g$ for every
$g\in\mathcal{S}_{K}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$. In particular, the map $g\mapsto
g\circ\rho$ is an isomorphism between $\mathcal{S}(\Sigma)$ and
$\mathcal{S}_{K}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$.
###### Proof.
It follows from Lemma 3.1 that the validity of the statement is independent of
the choice of the Hilbert basis $\rho$. We can then assume that the
polynomials $\rho_{j}$ are homogeneous of degree $\alpha_{j}$.
On $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ we define anisotropic dilations by the formula
$\delta_{r}(y_{1},\ldots,y_{k})=(r^{\alpha_{1}}\,y_{1},\ldots,r^{\alpha_{d}}\,y_{d})\qquad\forall
r>0\ ,$
and we shall denote by $|\cdot|_{\alpha}$ a corresponding homogeneous gauge,
e.g.
(6.1) $|y|_{\alpha}=c\sum_{j=1}^{d}|y_{j}|^{1/\alpha_{j}}\ ,$
satisfying $|\delta_{r}y|_{\alpha}=r|y|_{\alpha}$.
On $\mathbb{R}^{m}$ we keep isotropic dilations, given by scalar
multiplication. Clearly, $\rho$ is homogeneous of degree 1 with respect to
these dilations, i.e.,
$\rho(rx)=\delta_{r}\bigl{(}\rho(x)\bigr{)}\qquad\forall r>0,\quad
x\in\mathbb{R}^{m}\ ,$
and $\Sigma$ is $\delta_{r}$–invariant for all $r>0$.
Since $\rho$ is continuous, the image under $\rho$ of the unit sphere in
$\mathbb{R}^{m}$ is a compact set not containing 0 (in fact, since $|x|^{2}$
is a polynomial in the $\rho_{j}$, cf. [26], $\rho_{j}(x)=0$ for every $j$
implies that $x=0$).
Choosing the constant $c$ in (6.1) appropriately, we can assume that
$1\leq|\rho(x)|_{\alpha}\leq R$ for every $x$ in the unit sphere in
$\mathbb{R}^{m}$. It follows by homogeneity that for every $a,b$, $0\leq a<b$,
(6.2) $\rho\left(\\{x:a\leq|x|\leq
b\\}\right)\subset\\{y\,:\,a\leq|y|_{\alpha}\leq Rb\\}.$
Fix $\mathcal{E}:C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{m})_{K}\rightarrow
C^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ a continuous linear operator satisfying the
condition $(\mathcal{E}f)\circ\rho=f$, whose existence is guaranteed by
Mather’s theorem.
Denote by $B_{s}$ the subset of $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ where $|y|_{\alpha}<s$. For
every $p\in\mathbb{N}$ there is $q\in N$ such that, for $f$ supported in the
unit ball,
$\|\mathcal{E}f\|_{C^{p}(B_{R^{2}})}<C_{p}\,\|f\|_{C^{q}}\ .$
Given $r>0$, set $f_{r}(x)=f(rx)$ and
$\mathcal{E}_{r}f=(\mathcal{E}f_{r})\circ\delta_{r^{-1}}\ .$
By the homogeneity of $\rho$, $(\mathcal{E}_{r}f)\circ\rho=f$. For $r>1$ and
$f$ supported on the ball of radius $r$, we have
(6.3) $\|\mathcal{E}_{r}f\|_{C^{p}(B_{rR^{2}})}<C_{p}\,r^{q}\,\|f\|_{C^{q}}\
.$
Let $\\{\varphi_{j}\\}_{j\geq 0}$ be a partition of unity on $\mathbb{R}^{m}$
consisting of radial smooth functions such that
1. ($a$)
$\varphi_{0}$ is supported on $\\{x:|x|<1\\}$;
2. ($b$)
for $j\geq 1$, $\varphi_{j}$ is supported on $\\{x:R^{j-2}<|x|<R^{j}\\}$;
3. ($c$)
for $j\geq 1$, $\varphi_{j}(x)=\varphi_{1}(R^{-(j-1)}x)$.
Similarly, let $\\{\psi_{j}\\}_{j\geq 0}$ be a partition of unity on
$\mathbb{R}^{d}$ consisting of smooth functions such that
1. ($a^{\prime}$)
$\psi_{0}$ is supported on $\\{y:|y|_{\alpha}<R\\}$;
2. ($b^{\prime}$)
for $j\geq 1$, $\psi_{j}$ is supported on
$\\{y:R^{j-1}<|y|_{\alpha}<R^{j+1}\\}$;
3. ($c^{\prime}$)
for $j\geq 1$, $\psi_{j}(y)=\psi_{1}(\delta_{R^{-(j-1)}}y)$.
For $f\in\mathcal{S}_{K}(\mathbb{R}^{m})$ define
$\mathcal{E}^{\prime}f(y)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\ell=-2}^{1}\psi_{j+\ell}(y)\mathcal{E}_{R^{j}}(\varphi_{j}f)=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\psi_{j}(y)\sum_{\ell=-2}^{1}\mathcal{E}_{R^{j-\ell}}(\varphi_{j-\ell}f)\
,$
with the convention that $\psi_{-1}=\psi_{-2}=\varphi_{-1}=0$. Then
$\mathcal{E}^{\prime}f\big{(}\rho(x)\big{)}=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\ell=-2}^{1}\psi_{j+\ell}\big{(}\rho(x)\big{)}\varphi_{j}(x)f(x)\
.$
By (6.2), $\sum_{\ell=-2}^{1}\psi_{j+\ell}\big{(}\rho(x)\big{)}=1$ on the
support of $\varphi_{j}$, hence $\mathcal{E}^{\prime}f\circ\rho=f$.
We have the following estimate for the Schwartz norms in (5.1):
$\|f\|_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{m})}\sim\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}R^{jp}\|f\varphi_{j}\|_{C^{p}}\
.$
On $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ we adapt the Schwartz norms to the dilations $\delta_{r}$
by setting
$\|g\|^{\prime}_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{d})}=\sup_{y\in\mathbb{R}^{d},\sum
a_{j}\alpha_{j}\leq p}(1+|y|_{\alpha})^{p}\big{|}\partial^{\alpha}g(y)\big{|}\
.$
We then have
$\|g\|^{\prime}_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{d})}\sim\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}R^{jp}\sup_{\sum
a_{j}\alpha_{j}\leq
p}\|\partial^{\alpha}g\,\psi_{j}\|_{\infty}\lesssim\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}R^{jp}\|g\psi_{j}\|_{C^{p}}\
.$
Therefore
$\displaystyle\|\mathcal{E}^{\prime}f\|^{\prime}_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{m})}$
$\displaystyle\leq
C\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}R^{jp}\Big{\|}\psi_{j}\sum_{\ell=-2}^{1}\mathcal{E}_{R^{j-\ell}}(\varphi_{j-\ell}f)\Big{\|}_{C^{p}}$
$\displaystyle\leq
C\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\ell=-2}^{1}R^{jp}\|\mathcal{E}_{R^{j-\ell}}(\varphi_{j-\ell}f)\|_{C^{p}(B_{R^{j+1}})}$
$\displaystyle=C\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\sum_{\ell=-2}^{1}R^{jp}\|\mathcal{E}_{R^{j}}(\varphi_{j}f)\|_{C^{p}(B_{R^{j+\ell+1}})}$
$\displaystyle=C\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}R^{jp}\|\mathcal{E}_{R^{j}}(\varphi_{j}f)\|_{C^{p}(B_{R^{j+2}})}\
.$
By (6.3), since $\varphi_{j}f$ is supported on the ball of radius $R^{j}$,
$\|\mathcal{E}^{\prime}f\|^{\prime}_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{m})}\leq
C_{p}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}R^{j(p+q)}\|\varphi_{j}f\|_{C^{q}}\leq
C_{p}\|f\|_{(p+q,\mathbb{R}^{m})}\ .$
∎
## 7\. Schwartz extensions of the Gelfand transform of
$f\in\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$
In this section we suppose that $K$ is a closed connected subgroup of
${\text{U}(n)}$. The following theorem settles the proof of Theorem 1.1 in
this case.
###### Theorem 7.1.
Let $f$ be in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$. For every $p$ in $\mathbb{N}$ there
exist $F_{p}$ in $\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$ and $q$ in $\mathbb{N}$, both
depending on $p$, such that ${F_{p}}_{|_{\Sigma_{K}^{V}}}=\widehat{f}$ and
$\left\|F_{p}\right\|_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{d+1})}\leq C_{p}\,\|f\|_{(q,H_{n})}.$
Notice that this statement implies the existence of a continuous map from
$\mathcal{S}(\Sigma_{K}^{V})$ to $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ that inverts the
Gelfand transform, even though its formulation is much weaker than that of
Theorem 6.1. We do not claim that for each $f$ a single $F$ can be found, all
of whose Schwartz norms are controlled by those of $f$. In addition, our proof
does not show if $F_{p}$ can be chosen to be linearly dependent on $f$.
The proof of Theorem 7.1 is modelled on that given in [3] for the cases
$K={\text{U}(n)},\mathbb{T}^{n}$, but with some relevant differences. On one
hand we present a simplification of the argument given there, disregarding the
partial results concerning extensions of $\widehat{f}$ with finite orders of
regularity; on the other hand extra arguments are required in the general
setting.
We need to show that the Gelfand transform $\widehat{f}$ of
$f\in\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ extends from $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$ to a Schwartz
function on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$. Our starting point is the construction of a
Schwartz extension to all of $\\{0\\}\times\mathbb{R}^{d}$ of the restriction
of $\widehat{f}$ to
$\Sigma_{0}=\\{\widehat{V}(\eta_{Kw}):w\in\mathbb{C}^{n}\\}=\\{0\\}\times\rho(\mathbb{C}^{n})\
.$
If $\mathcal{F}f$ denotes the Fourier transform in
$\mathbb{C}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}$,
$\mathcal{F}f(\lambda,w)=\int_{\mathbb{C}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}}f(t,z)e^{-i(\lambda
t+\text{\rm Re}\,z\cdot\bar{w})}\,dw\,dt\ ,$
we denote
$\tilde{f}(w)=\mathcal{F}f(0,-w)=\hat{f}\big{(}0,\rho(w)\big{)}\ .$
To begin with, we set
(7.1)
${\widehat{f}\,}^{\sharp}=\mathcal{E}^{\prime}\tilde{f}\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d})\
.$
Then ${\widehat{f}\,}^{\sharp}(\xi)=\widehat{f}(0,\xi)$ if
$(0,\xi)\in\Sigma_{0}$.
The next step consists in producing a Taylor development of $\widehat{f}$ at
$\lambda=0$. The following result is derived from [17]. In our setting the
formula must take into account the extended functions in (7.1).
###### Proposition 7.2.
Let $f$ be in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$. Then there exist functions $f_{j}$,
$j\geq 1$, in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$, depending linearly and continuously on
$f$, such that for any $p$ in $\mathbb{N}$,
$\widehat{f}(\lambda,\xi)=\sum_{j=0}^{p}\frac{\lambda^{j}}{j!}{\widehat{f_{j}}\,}^{\sharp}(\xi)+\frac{\lambda^{p+1}}{(p+1)!}\,{\widehat{f_{p+1}}}(\lambda,\xi),\qquad\forall(\lambda,\xi)\in\Sigma_{K},$
where $f_{0}=f$ and ${\widehat{f_{j}}\,}^{\sharp}$ is obtained from $f_{j}$
applying (7.1).
###### Proof.
For $f$ in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$, we claim that the restriction of
$u(\lambda,\xi)={\widehat{f}\,}^{\sharp}(\xi)$ to $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$ is in
$\mathcal{S}(\Sigma_{K}^{V})$. It is quite obvious that $u$ is smooth. Let
$\psi$ be a smooth function on the line, equal to 1 on $[-2,2]$ and supported
on $[-3,3]$. Define
$\displaystyle\Psi(\lambda,\xi)$
$\displaystyle=\psi(\lambda^{2}+\xi_{1}^{2/m_{1}}+\cdots+\xi_{d}^{2/m_{d}})$
$\displaystyle\qquad+\psi\bigg{(}\frac{\lambda^{2}}{\xi_{1}^{2/m_{1}}+\cdots+\xi_{d}^{2/m_{d}}}\bigg{)}\big{(}1-\psi(\lambda^{2}+\xi_{1}^{2/m_{1}}+\cdots+\xi_{d}^{2/m_{d}})\big{)}\
.$
By (4.1) and (2) in Lemma 4.1, $\Psi$ is equal to 1 on a neighborhood of
$\Sigma_{K}^{V}$. It is also homogeneous of degree 0 with respect to the
dilations (4.4) outside of a compact set. Then $\Psi u$ is in
$\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$ and coincides with $u$ on $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$.
It follows from Corollary 5.4 that there exists $h$ in
$\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ such that
$\widehat{f}(\lambda,\xi)-{\widehat{f}\,}^{\sharp}(\xi)=\widehat{h}(\lambda,\xi)\qquad\forall(\lambda,\xi)\in\Sigma^{V}_{K}.$
Since $\widehat{h}\big{(}0,\rho(w)\big{)}=0$ for every $w$,
$\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}h(z,t)\,dt=0$ for every $z$. Therefore
$f_{1}(z,t)=\int_{-\infty}^{t}h(z,s)\,ds$
is in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ and
$\widehat{h}(\lambda,\xi)=\lambda\,\widehat{f}_{1}(\lambda,\xi)\qquad\forall(\lambda,\xi)\in\Sigma^{V}_{K}.$
It easy to verify that the map $U:f\mapsto f_{1}$ is linear and continuous on
$\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$. We then define $f_{j}$, $j\geq 1$, by the recursion
formula $f_{j}=jUf_{j-1}$ and the thesis follows by induction. ∎
We use now the Whitney Extension Theorem [25] to extend the $C^{\infty}$-jet
$\\{\partial_{\xi}^{\alpha}{\widehat{f_{j}}\,}^{\sharp}\\}_{(j,\alpha)\in\mathbb{N}^{d+1}}$
to a Schwartz function on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$. In doing so, we must keep
accurate control of the Schwartz norms. For this purpose we use Lemma 4.1 in
[3], which reads as follows.
###### Lemma 7.3.
Let $k\geq 1$ and let $h(\lambda,\xi)$ be a $C^{k}$-function on
$\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{n}$ such that
1. (1)
$\partial_{\lambda}^{\alpha}h(0,\xi)=0$ for $|\alpha|\leq k$ and
$\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$;
2. (2)
for every $p\in\mathbb{N}$,
$\alpha_{p}(h)=\sup_{|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq
k}\big{\|}(1+|\cdot|)^{p}\partial_{\lambda}^{\alpha}\partial_{\xi}^{\beta}h\big{\|}_{\infty}<\infty\
.$
Then, for every $\varepsilon>0$ and $M\in\mathbb{N}$, there exists a function
$h_{\varepsilon,M}\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{m}\times\mathbb{R}^{n})$ such
that
1. (1)
$\partial_{\lambda}^{\alpha}h_{\varepsilon,M}(0,\xi)=0$ for every
$\alpha\in\mathbb{N}^{m}$ and $\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$;
2. (2)
$\sup_{|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq
k-1}\big{\|}(1+|\cdot|)^{M}\partial_{\lambda}^{\alpha}\partial_{\xi}^{\beta}(h-h_{\varepsilon,M})\big{\|}_{\infty}<\varepsilon$;
3. (3)
for every $p\in\mathbb{N}$ there is a constant $C_{k,p,M}$ such that
$\|h_{\varepsilon,M}\|_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{m+n})}\leq
C_{k,p,M}\big{(}1+\alpha_{M}(h)^{p}\varepsilon^{-p}\big{)}\big{\|}(1+|\cdot|)^{p}h\big{\|}_{\infty}\
.$
The following proposition is in [3, Proposition 4.2] for $K=\mathbb{T}^{n}$.
We give here a simplified proof.
###### Proposition 7.4.
Given $f\in\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ and $p\in\mathbb{N}$, there are
$H\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$ and $q\in\mathbb{N}$ such that
$\partial_{\lambda}^{j}H(0,\xi)={\widehat{f_{j}}\,}^{\sharp}(\xi)$ and
$\|H\|_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{d+1})}\leq C_{p}\|f\|_{(q,H_{n})}\ .$
###### Proof.
Let $\eta$ be a smooth function on $\mathbb{R}$ such that $\eta(t)=1$ if
$|t|\leq 1$ and $\eta(t)=0$ if $|t|\geq 2$. By Theorem 6.1 and Proposition
7.2, for every $k$ and $r$ there exists $q_{k,r}$ such that
(7.2) $\|\widehat{f_{k}}^{\sharp}\|_{(r,\mathbb{R}^{d})}\leq
C_{k,r}\|f\|_{(q_{k,r},H_{n})}\ .$
We fix $p\in\mathbb{N}$ and apply Lemma 7.3 to
$h_{k}(\lambda,\xi)=\eta(\lambda)\frac{\lambda^{k+1}}{(k+1)!}\widehat{f_{k+1}}^{\sharp}(\xi)\
.$
Hypothesis (1) is obviously satisfied and (2) also, because $h_{k}$ is a
Schwartz function. By (7.2),
(7.3) $\alpha_{r}(h_{k})\leq C_{k,r}\|f\|_{(q_{k+1,r},H_{n})}\ .$
Let $q$ be the maximum among the $q_{k,p}$ for $k\leq p+1$. Setting
$\varepsilon_{k}=2^{-k}\|f\|_{(q,H_{n})}$, $M=p$, for each $k$ there is a
function $H_{k}\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$ such that
1. (i)
$\partial_{\lambda}^{j}H_{k}(0,\xi)=0$ for all $j\in\mathbb{N}$ and
$\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$;
2. (ii)
$\sup_{|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq
k-1}\big{\|}(1+|\cdot|)^{p}\partial_{\lambda}^{\alpha}\partial_{\xi}^{\beta}(h_{k}-H_{k})\big{\|}_{\infty}<2^{-k}\|f\|_{(q,H_{n})}$;
3. (iii)
for $k\leq p$, using (7.3),
$\|H_{k}\|_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{d+1})}\leq
C_{k,p}\big{(}1+\varepsilon_{k}^{-p}\|f\|_{(q,H_{n})}^{p}\big{)}\big{\|}(1+|\cdot|)^{p}h_{k}\big{\|}_{\infty}\leq
C_{p}\|f\|_{(q,H_{n})}\ .$
Define
$H=\sum_{k=0}^{p}h_{k}-\sum_{k=0}^{p}H_{k}+\sum_{k=p+1}^{\infty}(h_{k}-H_{k})\
.$
By (7.2), (ii) and (iii), the $p$-th Schwartz norm of $H$ is finite and
controlled by a constant times the $q$-th Schwartz norm of $f$.
Differentiating term by term, using (i) and the identity
$\partial_{\lambda}^{j}h_{k}(0,\xi)=\delta_{j,k+1}\widehat{f_{k+1}}^{\sharp}(\xi)$,
we obtain that $\partial_{\lambda}^{j}H(0,\xi)=\widehat{f_{j}}^{\sharp}(\xi)$
for every $j$. ∎
Let now $\varphi$ be a smooth function on $\mathbb{R}$ such that
$\varphi(t)=1$ if $|t|\leq 1/2$ and $\varphi(t)=0$ if $|t|\geq 3/4$. For $h$
defined on $\Sigma_{K}^{V}$, we define the function $Eh$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d+1}$
by
$Eh(\lambda,\xi)=\begin{cases}\displaystyle\sum_{\alpha\in\Lambda}h\big{(}\lambda,\xi_{(\lambda,\alpha)}\big{)}\prod_{\ell=1}^{d}\varphi\left(\frac{\xi_{\ell}}{|\lambda|^{m_{\ell}}}-\widehat{V_{\ell}}(\phi_{\alpha})\right)&\lambda\neq
0,\,\,\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{d}\\\ \quad
0&\lambda=0,\,\,\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{d},\end{cases}$
where
$\xi_{(\lambda,\alpha)}=\big{(}\widehat{V_{1}}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha}),\ldots,\widehat{V_{d}}(\phi_{\lambda,\alpha})\big{)}=\big{(}|\lambda|^{m_{1}}\widehat{V_{1}}(\phi_{\alpha}),\ldots,|\lambda|^{m_{d}}\widehat{V_{d}}(\phi_{\alpha})\big{)}$.
Recall that, by Lemma 4.1, each $\widehat{V_{\ell}}(\phi_{\alpha})$ is a
positive integer. Therefore, if $\xi_{\ell}\leq 0$ for some $\ell$, every term
in the series vanishes, whereas, if $\xi$ is in $\mathbb{R}^{d}_{+}$, the
series reduces to at most one single term. Moreover, for every $g$ in
$\mathcal{S}(H_{n})$, $E\widehat{g}=\widehat{g}$ on $\Sigma^{\prime}$.
The proof of the following result goes as for [3, Lemma 3.1], using [7, p.
407] instead of [3, (2.2)]. In contrast with [3] we state it only for
vanishing of infinite order of the Taylor development of the Gelfand transform
on $\Sigma_{0}$.
###### Proposition 7.5.
Suppose that $g$ in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ and
$\widehat{g_{j}}_{|_{\Sigma_{0}}}=0$ for every $j$. Then
1. (1)
$\displaystyle E\widehat{g}(\lambda,\xi)=\widehat{g}(\lambda,\xi)$ for all
$(\lambda,\xi)\in\Sigma^{V}_{K}$;
2. (2)
$\partial_{\lambda}^{s}(E\widehat{g})(0,\xi)=0$ for all $s$ and
$\xi\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$;
3. (3)
for every $p\geq 0$ there exist a constant $C_{p}$ and an integer $q\geq 0$
such that
$\|E\widehat{g}\|_{(p,\mathbb{R}^{d+1})}\leq C_{p}\|g\|_{(q,H_{n})}\ .$
In particular, $E\widehat{g}\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$.
To conclude the proof of Theorem 7.1, take $f$ in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ and
$p$ in $\mathbb{N}$. Let $H$ be the function in
$\mathcal{S}(\mathbb{R}^{d+1})$, depending on $p$, defined as in Proposition
7.4. By Theorem 5.2, there exists $h$ in $\mathcal{S}(H_{n})$ such that
$H_{|_{\Sigma^{V}_{K}}}=\widehat{h}\ .$
Define
$F=E(\widehat{f}-\widehat{h})+H\ ,$
and the thesis follows easily.
## 8\. General compact groups of automorphisms of $H_{n}$
We have discussed in the previous sections the Gelfand pairs associated with
connected subgroups of ${\text{U}(n)}$. In this section we only assume that
$K$ is a compact group of automorphisms of $H_{n}$. Let $K_{0}$ be the
connected identity component of $K$. Then $K_{0}$ is a normal subgroup of $K$
and $F=K/K_{0}$ is a finite group. Conjugating $K$ with an automorphism if
necessary, we may suppose that $K_{0}$ is a subgroup of ${\text{U}(n)}$.
For $D$ in ${\mathbb{D}}_{K_{0}}$ and $w=kK_{0}$ in $F$, define $D^{w}$ by
$D^{w}f=D(f\circ k^{-1})\circ k\ \qquad\forall f\in C^{\infty}(H_{n}).$
Since $K_{0}$ is normal, $D^{w}$ is in ${\mathbb{D}}_{K_{0}}$. It is also
clear that ${\mathbb{D}}_{K_{0}}$ admits a generating set which is stable
under the action of the group $F$. Indeed, it suffices to add to any given
system of generators the $F$-images of its elements. Denoting by $\mathcal{V}$
the linear span of these generators, $F$ acts linearly on $\mathcal{V}$. Let
$V=\\{V_{1},\dots,V_{d}\\}$ be a basis of $\mathcal{V}$, orthonormal with
respect to an $F$–invariant scalar product. Clearly, $V$ is a generating set
for ${\mathbb{D}}_{K_{0}}$.
Applying Hilbert’s Basis Theorem as in Section 6, there exists a finite number
of (homogeneous) polynomials $\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{r}$ generating the
subalgebra ${P}_{F}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$ of $F$–invariant elements in
${P}(\mathbb{R}^{d})$. Let
$\rho=(\rho_{1},\ldots,\rho_{r}):\mathbb{R}^{d}\to\mathbb{R}^{r}$ be the
corresponding Hilbert map and let $W_{j}=\rho_{j}(V_{1},\ldots,V_{d})$ for
$j=1,\ldots,r$.
When $f$ is $K_{0}$–invariant and $w=kK_{0}$ in $F$, we set $f\circ w=f\circ
k$.
###### Lemma 8.1.
The set $W=\left\\{W_{1},,\ldots,W_{r}\right\\}$ generates
${{\mathbb{D}}_{K}}$. Moreover if $\psi$ is a $K$-spherical function, then
(8.1) $\psi=\frac{1}{|F|}\sum_{w\in F}\phi\circ w,$
for some $K_{0}$-spherical function $\phi$.
###### Proof.
Take $D$ in ${{\mathbb{D}}_{K}}$. As an element of ${{\mathbb{D}}_{K_{0}}}$,
$D$ is a polynomial in the $V_{j}$. Averaging over the action of $F$, we can
express $D$ as an $F$–invariant polynomial in the $V_{j}$. Hence $D$ is a
polynomial in
$W_{1}=\rho_{1}(V_{1},\ldots,V_{d}),\ldots,W_{r}=\rho_{r}(V_{1},\ldots,V_{d})$.
Recall that all $K_{0}$\- and $K$-spherical functions are of positive type
[5]. Let $\mathcal{P}_{K}$ (resp. $\mathcal{P}_{K_{0}}$) denote the convex set
of $K$–invariant (resp. $K_{0}$–invariant) functions of positive type equal to
$1$ at the identity element, and consider the linear map
$J:L^{\infty}_{K_{0}}\rightarrow L^{\infty}_{K}$ defined by
$J\varphi=\frac{1}{|F|}\sum_{w\in F}\varphi\circ w$. Since
$\mathcal{P}_{K_{0}}$ and $\mathcal{P}_{K}$ are weak*-compact and $J$ maps
$\mathcal{P}_{K_{0}}$ to $\mathcal{P}_{K}$, the extremal points of
$\mathcal{P}_{K}$ are images of extremal points of $\mathcal{P}_{K_{0}}$. This
proves that every $K$-spherical function has the form (8.1).
Conversely, if $\psi$ is given by (8.1) and $D\in{\mathbb{D}}_{K}$, then
$D\psi=\frac{1}{|F|}\sum_{w\in F}D(\varphi\circ w)=\frac{1}{|F|}\sum_{w\in
F}(D\varphi)\circ w=\hat{D}(\varphi)\,\psi\ ,$
showing that $\psi$ is $K$-spherical. ∎
From Lemma 8.1 we derive the following property of the Gelfand spectra:
$\rho(\Sigma_{K_{0}}^{V})=\Sigma_{K}^{W}\subset\mathbb{R}^{r}.$
If $V$ is as above, the linear action of $F$ on $\mathcal{V}$ leaves
$\Sigma^{V}_{K_{0}}$ invariant. For a $K_{0}$–invariant function $f$ and $w$
in $F$,
(8.2) $\mathcal{G}_{V}(f\circ w)=(\mathcal{G}_{V}f)\circ w$
Let $\mathcal{S}_{F}(\Sigma_{K_{0}}^{V})$ be the space of $F$–invariant
elements in $\mathcal{S}(\Sigma_{K_{0}}^{V})$.
###### Lemma 8.2.
The map $f\mapsto f\circ\rho$ is an isomorphism between
$\mathcal{S}(\Sigma_{K}^{W})$ and $\mathcal{S}_{F}(\Sigma_{K_{0}}^{V})$.
###### Proof.
If $f$ is in $\mathcal{S}(\Sigma_{K}^{W})$, let $\tilde{f}$ be any Schwartz
extension of $f$ to $\mathbb{R}^{r}$. Then $g=\tilde{f}\circ\rho$ is an
$F$–invariant Schwartz function on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ and its restriction to
$\Sigma_{K_{0}}^{V}$ is $f\circ\rho$. This proves the continuity of the map.
Conversely, given $g$ in $\mathcal{S}_{F}(\Sigma_{K_{0}}^{V})$, let
$\tilde{g}$ be an $F$–invariant Schwartz extension of $g$ to $\mathbb{R}^{d}$.
Set $h=(\mathcal{E}^{\prime}\tilde{g})_{|_{\Sigma_{K}^{W}}}$, where
$\mathcal{E}^{\prime}$ is the operator of Theorem 6.1 for the group $F$. The
proof that the dependence of $h$ on $g$ is continuous is based on the simple
observation that, for any Schwartz norm $\|\ \|_{(N)}$ on $\mathbb{R}^{d}$,
the infimum of the norms of all extensions of $g$ is the same as the infimum
restricted to its $F$–invariant extensions. ∎
We can now prove Theorem 1.1 for general $K$. Assume that $K$ is a compact
group of automorphisms of $H_{n}$ and let $K_{0}$, $F$, $V_{1},\dots,V_{d}$,
$\rho$ be as above.
Take $f$ in $L^{1}_{K}(H_{n})$. Denote by $\mathcal{G}_{V}f$ (resp.
$\mathcal{G}_{W}f$) its Gelfand tranform as a $K_{0}$–invariant (resp.
$K$–invariant) function. Then $\mathcal{G}_{V}f=\mathcal{G}_{W}f\circ\rho$. In
particular, a $K_{0}$–invariant function is $K$–invariant if and only if
$\mathcal{G}_{V}f$ is $F$–invariant.
If $f$ is in $\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$, then $f$ is also $K_{0}$–invariant and
$\mathcal{G}_{V}f$ is in $\mathcal{S}_{F}(\Sigma_{K_{0}}^{V})$ by Theorem 7.1;
therefore $\mathcal{G}_{W}f$ is in $\mathcal{S}(\Sigma_{K}^{W})$ by Lemma 8.2.
Conversely, if $\mathcal{G}_{W}f$ is in $\mathcal{S}(\Sigma_{K}^{W})$, it
follows as before that $\mathcal{G}_{V}f$ is in
$\mathcal{S}_{F}(\Sigma_{K_{0}}^{V})$ and therefore $f$ is in
$\mathcal{S}_{K}(H_{n})$ by (8.2).
## References
* [1]
* [2]
* [3] F. Astengo, B. Di Blasio, F. Ricci, Gelfand transforms of polyradial Schwartz functions on the Heisenberg group, J. Funct. Anal. 251 (2007), 772–791.
* [4] C. Benson, J. Jenkins, R. L. Lipsman, G. Ratcliff, A geometric criterion for Gelfand pairs associated with the Heisenberg group, Pacific J. Math. 178 (1997), 1–36.
* [5] C. Benson, J. Jenkins, G. Ratcliff, On Gelfand pairs associated with solvable Lie groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 321 (1990), 85–116.
* [6] C. Benson, J. Jenkins, G. Ratcliff, Bounded spherical functions on Heisenberg groups, J. Funct. Anal. 105 (1992), 409–443.
* [7] C. Benson, J. Jenkins, G. Ratcliff, The spherical transform of a Schwartz function on the Heisenberg group, J. Funct. Anal. 154 (1998), 379–423.
* [8] C. Benson, J. Jenkins, G. Ratcliff, T. Worku Spectra for Gelfand pairs associated with the Heisenberg group, Colloq. Math. 71 (1996), 305-328.
* [9] C. Benson, G. Ratcliff, Combinatorics and spherical functions on the Heisenberg group, Representation Theory 2 (1998), 79–105.
* [10] C. Benson, G. Ratcliff, Rationality of the generalized binomial coefficients for a multiplicity free action, J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A 68 (2000), 387–410.
* [11] G. Carcano, A commutativity condition for algebras of invariant functions, Boll. Un. Mat. Ital. B 1 (1987), 1091–1105.
* [12] F. Ferrari Ruffino, The topology of the spectrum for Gelfand pairs on Lie groups, Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. Sez. B 10 (2007), 569–579.
* [13] G. B. Folland, Harmonic Analysis in Phase Space, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1989.
* [14] G. B. Folland, E. M. Stein, Hardy Spaces on Homogeneous Groups, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1982.
* [15] G. B. Folland, E. M. Stein, Estimates for the $\bar{\partial}_{b}$ complex and analysis on the Heisenberg group, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 27 (1974), 429–522.
* [16] R. Gangolli, V. S. Varadarajan, Harmonic Analysis of Spherical Function on Real Reductive Groups, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.
* [17] D. Geller, Fourier analysis on the Heisenberg group. I. Schwartz space, J. Funct. Anal. 36 (1980), no. 2, 205–254.
* [18] B. Helffler, J. Nourrigat Caracterisation des operateurs hypoelliptiques homogenes invariants a gauge sur un groupe de Lie gradué, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 4 (1979), 899–958.
* [19] S. Helgason, Differential geometry and symmetric spaces, Academic Press, 1962\.
* [20] S. Helgason, Groups and Geometric Analysis, Academic Press, 1984\.
* [21] R. Howe, T. Umeda, The Capelli identity, the double commutant theorem and multiplicity-free actions, Math. Ann. 290 (1991), 565–619.
* [22] A. Hulanicki, A functional calculus for Rockland operators on nilpotent Lie groups, Studia Math. 78 (1984), 253–266.
* [23] A. Hulanicki, J. W. Jenkins, J. Ludwig, Minimum eigenvalues for positive, Rockland operators, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 94 (1985), 718–720.
* [24] V. Kač, Some remarks on nilpotent orbits, J. Algebra 64 (1980), 190–213.
* [25] B. Malgrange, Ideals of Differentiable Functions, Oxford University Press, Bombay, 1966\.
* [26] J. N. Mather, Differentiable invariants, Topology 16 (1977), 145–155.
* [27] E. Nelson, W. F. Stinespring, Representation of elliptic operators in an enveloping algebra, Amer. J. Math. 81 (1959), 547–560.
* [28] G. W. Schwarz, Smooth functions invariant under the action of a compact Lie group, Topology 14 (1975), 63–68.
* [29] A. Veneruso, Schwartz kernels on the Heisenberg group, Boll. Unione Mat. Ital. Sez. B 6 (2003), 657–666.
* [30] H. Weyl, David Hilbert and his mathematical work, Bull. AMS 50 (1994), 612–654.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-25T15:45:57 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.946227 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Francesca Astengo, Bianca Di Blasio, Fulvio Ricci",
"submitter": "Fulvio Ricci",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3809"
} |
0805.3876 | # Factorization theorems for exclusive heavy-quarkonium production
Geoffrey T. Bodwin High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory,
9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439, USA Xavier Garcia i Tormo
High Energy Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory,
9700 South Cass Avenue, Argonne, Illinois 60439, USA Jungil Lee Department
of Physics, Korea University, Seoul 136-701, Korea
###### Abstract
We outline the proofs of the factorization theorems for exclusive two-body
charmonium production in $B$-meson decay and $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation to all
orders in perturbation theory in quantum chromodynamics. We find that
factorized expressions hold up to corrections of order $m_{c}/m_{b}$ in
$B$-meson decay and corrections of order $m_{c}^{2}/s$ in $e^{+}e^{-}$
annihilation, where $m_{c}$ is the charm-quark mass, $m_{b}$ is the bottom-
quark mass, and $\sqrt{s}$ is the $e^{+}e^{-}$ center-of-momentum energy.
###### pacs:
12.38.-t, 12.38.Bx, 14.40.Gx
††preprint: ANL-HEP-PR-08-28
The exclusive decays of $B$ mesons into a light meson plus a charmonium are
significant tools for understanding the weak interactions. For example, they
could provide new constraints on the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix
and enhance our understanding of the origins of CP violation. However, the
effects of the strong interactions are significant in such processes and
present an obstacle to achieving reliable theoretical calculations of the
process rates. The exclusive production of double-charmonium in $e^{+}e^{-}$
annihilation provides an arena in which to explore the mechanisms of
charmonium production and the interplay between the perturbative and
nonperturbative regimes of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). However, measurements
of the cross sections for double-charmonium production by the Belle Abe:2004ww
and BABAR Aubert:2005tj Collaborations have spurred a re-examination of the
theoretical predictions for those cross sections Bodwin:2007ga .
In theoretical computations of the rates for the exclusive decays of $B$
mesons into a light meson plus a charmonium and of the rates for the exclusive
production of double-charmonium in $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation, a crucial step
is the separation of the effects of the strong interactions into short-
distance, perturbatively calculable contributions and long-distance,
inherently nonperturbative contributions. Such separations are usually
embodied in factorization theorems. In the case of the exclusive decays of $B$
mesons into a light meson plus a charmonium, several factorization theorems
have been posited Beneke:2000ry ; Chay:2000xn ; Bobeth:2007sh . In the case of
the exclusive production of double-charmonium in $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation,
factorization conjectures have generally been formulated in terms of
nonrelativistic QCD (NRQCD) Bodwin:2007ga . In this letter, we outline the
proofs of the factorization theorems for these processes in QCD to all orders
in perturbation theory.
We wish to show that the amplitudes for these processes can be written in a
factorized form. The meaning of this statement, for the case of exclusive
decays of $B$ mesons into a light meson plus a charmonium, is that the decay
amplitude is decomposed into the sum of products of a $B$-meson-to-light-meson
form factor and an amplitude for a charm-quark-antiquark ($c\bar{c}$) pair to
be produced at short-distances in a color-singlet state and evolve into a
charmonium. The form factor contains a term that can be decomposed into a
convolution of a hard-scattering amplitude with $B$-meson and light-meson
light-cone amplitudes and a term that cannot be decomposed further. (These two
terms are analogous to the two terms in the factorization formula in Eq. (4)
of Ref. Beneke:2000ry for the case of decays to two light mesons.) The
$c\bar{c}$-to-charmonium amplitudes can be further decomposed into a sum of
products of long-distance NRQCD matrix elements times short-distance
coefficients. We argue that this factorized form holds up to corrections of
relative order $m_{c}/\sqrt{s}$, where $s=m_{b}^{2}$. This result was
suggested previously in Ref. Beneke:2000ry . For the case of the exclusive
production of double-charmonium in $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation, factorization
means that the production amplitude decomposes into a sum of products of a
short-distance amplitude and two amplitudes for a $c\bar{c}$ pair to be
produced at short-distances in a color-singlet state and evolve into a
charmonium. Again, the $c\bar{c}$-to-charmonium amplitudes can be further
decomposed into a sum of products of long-distance NRQCD matrix elements times
short-distance coefficients. We argue that this factorized form holds up to
corrections of relative order $m_{c}^{2}/s$, where $\sqrt{s}$ is the center-
of-momentum (CM) energy of the $e^{+}e^{-}$ pair. Although our analyses are
for the specific cases of $B$ decay and $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation, the
techniques that we describe should apply to other exclusive quarkonium
production processes and may also shed light on factorization in inclusive
quarkonium production. We note that, because we consider exclusive two-body
decays, we avoid the issues raised in Ref. Nayak:2005rt concerning light
particles co-moving with the charmonium and the issues raised in Ref.
Nayak:2007mb concerning an additional heavy quark co-moving with the
charmonium.
We carry out our analyses in the $B$-meson rest frame and in the CM frame of
the $e^{+}e^{-}$ pair, choosing the three-momentum of the light meson or one
of the charmonia to be in the negative $3$ direction and choosing the three-
momentum of the other charmonium to be in the positive $3$ direction. For a
momentum $k$, we define light-cone momentum components $k^{\pm}=(k^{0}\pm
k^{3})/\\!\sqrt{2}$, $\bm{k}_{\perp}$. We model the $B$ meson as an on-shell
active bottom quark, which participates in the electroweak interaction, and an
on-shell spectator light antiquark, which does not participate in the
electroweak interaction. We take the quark and antiquark to be in a color-
singlet state. We take the bottom quark to have momentum $p_{b}$, with
$p_{b}^{0}=m_{b}$ and all other components of momentum zero. We take the
spectator quark to have momentum $p_{l}$, with
$p_{l\,\mu}\\!\sim\\!\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, the QCD scale. We neglect
$\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ and the difference between $m_{b}$ and the $B$-meson mass
in comparison with $m_{b}$. Similarly, we model the light meson as an on-shell
active light quark and an on-shell spectator light antiquark, with the quark
and antiquark in a color-singlet state. We take the active-quark momentum to
be $p_{k_{1}}\\!=\\!yp_{k}+q_{k}$ and the spectator-quark momentum to be
$p_{k_{2}}\\!\\!=\\!\\!(1\\!\\!-\\!\\!y)p_{k}-q_{k}$, where $p_{k}$ is the
light-meson momentum. $p_{k}^{-}\\!\sim\\!m_{b}$, $q_{k}^{-}=0$,
$p_{k\perp}=0$, $q_{k\perp}\sim\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, and
$p_{k}^{+}\\!\sim\\!q_{k}^{+}\\!\sim\\!\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^{2}/m_{b}$. Finally,
we model a charmonium as an on-shell $c\bar{c}$ pair in a color-singlet state,
with the momentum of the $c$ ($\bar{c}$) equal to $p_{i}$ ($\bar{p}_{i}$). We
take $p_{i}=P_{i}/2+q_{i}$ and $\bar{p}_{i}=P_{i}/2-q_{i}$, where $P_{i}$ is
the charmonium momentum and $P_{i}\cdot q_{i}=0$. In the charmonium rest
frame, $q_{i}$ has only spatial components, whose magnitudes are of order
$m_{c}v$, where $v$ is the typical charm-quark velocity in the charmonium rest
frame ($v^{2}\approx 0.3$). In the $e^{+}e^{-}$ CM frame or $B$-meson rest
frame, $P_{1}^{+}\sim P_{2}^{-}\sim Q$, $P_{1\perp}=P_{2\perp}=0$, and
$P_{1}^{-}\sim P_{2}^{+}\sim m_{c}^{2}/Q$, where $Q=\sqrt{s}$ is the large
momentum scale. One can think of the on-shell amplitude that we use in our
model as the on-shell perturbative QCD amplitude that is matched to a soft-
collinear-effective-theory amplitude in the case of the light meson, a heavy-
quark-effective-theory amplitude in the case of the $B$ meson, and an NRQCD
amplitude in the case of the charmonia.
The next step is to identify the regions of loop momenta that give
contributions that are leading in powers of $Q$ when we dress the lowest-order
decay and production amplitudes in these models with additional gluons. These
leading momentum regions correspond to particular Feynman-diagram topologies
Sterman:1978bi ; Sterman:1978bj , which we describe below. The identification
of leading regions has been discussed in detail in Ref. Collins:1989gx . For a
loop momentum $k$, the leading regions are the hard region, in which
$k_{\mu}\sim Q$; the collinear-to-plus (minus) region, in which
$|k^{+}|\\!\gg\\!|k^{-}|$ ($|k^{-}|\\!\gg\\!|k^{+}|$),
$k^{+}k^{-}\\!\sim\\!\bm{k}_{\perp}^{2}\\!\ll\\!Q^{2}$, and the soft region,
in which $k^{+}\\!\sim\\!k^{-}\\!\sim\\!\\!|\bm{k}_{\perp}|\\!\ll\\!Q$. The
collinear regions correspond to the directions of the momenta of the final-
state light meson and charmonia. We note that, in the case of $B$-meson
decays, there is also a “semi-hard region” in which propagators are off shell
by an amount of order $m_{b}\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. We treat this semi-hard region
as part of the hard region. The “Glauber” region is also leading in power
counting Bodwin:1981fv ; Bodwin:1984hc . In this region,
$|k^{+}|\\!\ll\\!|k_{\perp}|$, $|k^{-}|\\!\ll\\!|k_{\perp}|$,
$k_{\perp}^{2}\\!\ll\\!Q^{2}$. However, for the exclusive processes we are
considering here, the contours of integration of loop momenta are not pinched
in the Glauber region, and it is possible to deform them out of it on a
diagram-by-diagram basis. This is in contrast with the situation in, for
instance, the Drell-Yan process, for which such a diagram-by-diagram contour
deformation is not possible Bodwin:1984hc ; Collins:1985ue ; Collins:1989gx .
Therefore, we ignore the Glauber region in the remainder of our discussion.
Contributions from the hard (semi-hard) region involve propagator denominators
that are of order $s$ ($m_{b}\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$) and can be calculated in
perturbation theory. Integrations of gluon momenta over the soft region or a
collinear region that is associated with a massless particle encounter
singularities in propagator denominators that result in logarithmic
divergences. [The soft singularities are at $k_{\mu}=0$, and the collinear
singularities are at $k^{-}=0$, $\bm{k}_{\perp}=0$ ($k^{+}=0$,
$\bm{k}_{\perp}=0$) for the collinear-to-plus (to-minus) region.] Thus,
contributions from the soft region and the collinear regions that are
associated with a massless particle cannot be computed reliably in
perturbation theory. The essence of the proofs of the factorization theorems
that we consider here is to show that these contributions cancel or can be
absorbed into the $B$-meson-to-light-meson form factor or the nonperturbative
NRQCD matrix elements. When a gluon three-momentum becomes parallel to the
three-momentum of a charm quark or charm antiquark, the potential collinear
singularity is shielded by $m_{c}$. Hence, the contributions from such
collinear regions can be computed reliably in perturbation theory.
Nevertheless, it is important for the arguments that we will make below to
treat these regions separately from $H$. As we shall see, the contributions
from these regions cancel.
Figure 1: Leading regions for the decay of a $B$ meson to a light meson and a
charmonium. Figure 2: Leading regions for double-charmonium production in
$e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation. The wavy line represents the virtual photon.
Now let us specify the diagrammatic topologies that correspond to the leading
regions. We work in the Feynman gauge. There are two distinct topologies in
the case of $B$-meson decays: one in which the $B$-meson and light-meson
spectators participate in the hard interaction and another in which they do
not. These topologies are shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b), respectively. After
one has achieved factorization, the contribution from the first topology can
be decomposed into an expression that contains the convolution of a hard-
scattering amplitude with $B$-meson and light-meson light-cone amplitudes,
while the contribution from the second topology cannot be decomposed further.
The topology for the case of double-charmonium production is represented in
Fig. 2. The components of the topologies are as follows: a $B$ meson ($B$);
jet sub-diagrams for each of the collinear regions, corresponding to a
charmonium ($J_{1}$) and a light meson ($J_{2}$) in Fig. 1 and the two
charmonia ($J_{1}$ and $J_{2}$) in Fig. 2; a hard sub-diagram ($H$) that
includes the lowest-order annihilation or production process; and a soft sub-
diagram ($S$). In $H$, all propagator denominators are of order $s$ or
$m_{b}\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. $J_{i}$ contains the active- and spectator-quark
lines for a given meson or charmonium, as well as gluons and loops involving
quarks and ghosts with momenta collinear to the meson or charmonium. $J_{i}$
attaches to $H$ through the active- and spectator-quark lines in the topology
of Fig. 1(a), through the active-quark lines in the topology of Fig. 1(b) and
through any number of gluons. $S$ includes gluons with soft momenta and loops
involving quarks and ghost with soft momenta. $S$ attaches to $J_{i}$ and to
the $B$-meson quark and antiquark lines through any number of soft gluon
lines. Recall that the $B$-meson spectator antiquark itself carries a soft
momentum. In Fig. 1(b), the light-antiquark-spectator line carries a momentum
with minus component of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. Such a momentum can arise
either through an endpoint contribution, in which
$p_{k_{2}}^{-}\sim\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ Beneke:2000ry ; Chernyak:1990ag , or
through the soft-collinear-messenger mechanism Becher:2003qh , in which an
emitted gluon carries away most of $p_{k_{2}}$.
At this point we can outline the proof of factorization. Suppose that a gluon
from $J_{i}$ enters $H$. Then we can apply a collinear approximation to that
gluon Bodwin:1984hc ; Collins:1985ue ; Collins:1989gx . Specifically, we
replace $g_{\mu\nu}$ in the gluon-propagator numerator with
$k_{\mu}\bar{n}_{i\nu}/k\cdot\bar{n}_{i}$, where $k$ is the gluon momentum,
$\bar{n}_{1}$ ($\bar{n}_{2}$) is a unit light-like vector in the minus (plus)
direction. The index $\mu$ corresponds to the attachment of the gluon to $H$,
and the index $\nu$ corresponds to the attachment of the gluon to $J_{i}$. For
$k$ in the collinear region, the collinear approximation is valid at leading
order in $Q$. Having made the collinear approximation, one can use the factor
$k_{\mu}$ and the diagrammatic Ward identity (Feynman identity) for fermion
lines $k\cdot\gamma=[(q+k)\cdot\gamma+m]-[q\cdot\gamma+m]$ and its
generalizations to non-Abelian gauge theories to show that the gluons with
collinear momenta decouple from $H$ Bodwin:1984hc ; Collins:1985ue ;
Collins:1989gx . In general, the decoupled gluons attach to light-like eikonal
lines (path integrals of the gauge field) that connect to the point at which
an active parton enters $H$. However, in our case these eikonal lines cancel
because the light meson and the charmonia are color-singlet states. Now
suppose that a gluon from $S$ attaches to a jet sub-diagram at a line with
momentum $p$. We can apply a soft approximation to that gluon Collins:1981uk .
Specifically, we replace $g_{\mu\nu}$ in the gluon-propagator numerator with
$k_{\mu}p_{\nu}/k\cdot p$, where $k$ is the gluon momentum, the index $\mu$
corresponds to the attachment of the gluon to $J_{i}$ and the index $\nu$
corresponds to the attachment of the gluon to $S$. We would like to use the
factor $k_{\mu}$ in the soft approximation and the diagrammatic Ward
identities to decouple the soft gluons. However, in general, the momentum $p$
is different for every line to which the soft gluon attaches. That is, the
soft approximation, unlike the collinear approximation, is not independent of
the line to which the $\mu$ end of the gluon attaches. Nevertheless, we can
apply the same soft approximation to all lines in the collinear-to-light-meson
jet, since they are all proportional to the same light-like vector (up to
corrections of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/m_{b}$). For the constituents of each
charmonium, we can also apply the same soft approximation up to corrections of
order $m_{c}/Q$. The reason for this is that, in going from the rest frame of
the charmonium to the $e^{+}e^{-}$ CM frame or $B$-meson rest frame, the
momenta of constituents of the charmonium undergo boosts that render all of
the momenta nearly parallel. When we explicitly consider those boosts, it
follows that, for the charmonium with momentum $P_{1}$ ($P_{2}$), the plus
(minus) components are boosted by a factor of order $Q/m_{c}$ and the minus
(plus) components are boosted by a factor of order $m_{c}/Q$, while the
transverse components are unchanged. Thus, all of the momenta of the
constituents of the charmonium with momentum $P_{1}$ ($P_{2}$) are dominated
by the plus (minus) component, up to corrections of order $m_{c}/Q$. This
result holds provided that all of the components are of approximately the same
size in the charmonium rest frame. This is the case for $P_{i}$, $q_{i}$, but
it is also true for other momenta that characterize the charmonium in its rest
frame, such as a typical potential-gluon momentum (which has spatial
components of order $m_{c}v$ and a temporal component of order $m_{c}v^{2}$)
or a typical rest-frame soft-gluon momentum (which has all components of order
$m_{c}v$). Therefore, we use a modified soft approximation for the
constituents of the charmonium in the jet $J_{i}$ in which we replace
$g_{\mu\nu}$ in the gluon-propagator numerator with $k_{\mu}n_{i\nu}/k\cdot
n_{i}$, where $n_{1}$ ($n_{2}$) is a vector with unit component in the plus
(minus) direction and all other components equal to zero. This modified soft
approximation differs from the standard soft approximation for each
constituent of a quarkonium by terms that are suppressed as $m_{c}/Q$. Hence,
it accounts for all soft (logarithmic) singularities, up to terms that are
suppressed as $m_{c}/Q$. We can use the modified soft approximation, plus the
diagrammatic Ward identities to decouple the gluons with soft momenta from the
charmonium jets, relying on the fact that the $c$ and $\bar{c}$ in each
charmonium are in a color-singlet state Collins:1981uk ; Collins:1985ue ;
Collins:1988ig . Once the gluons with momenta collinear to the jet have been
decoupled from $H$ and the gluons with soft momenta have been decoupled from
the charmonium jets, there remain gluons with momenta collinear to the jet
that begin and end within the jet. In the rest frame of the charmonium, these
gluons correspond to soft and potential gluons. The contributions from regions
of momentum of order $m_{c}v$ or less that arise from these gluons (including
infrared divergences) can be absorbed into nonperturbative NRQCD matrix
elements Bodwin:1994jh . The associated NRQCD short-distance coefficients then
contain only contributions involving momenta of order $m_{c}$. The NRQCD
short-distance coefficients couple to the production process only through the
active $c$ and $\bar{c}$ lines. Thus, we have arrived at the factorized form.
As we have mentioned, the modified soft approximation allows us to decouple
gluons with soft momentum from the charmonium jets, up to corrections that are
suppressed as $m_{c}/Q$. Thus, in general, one would expect corrections to the
factorized form to appear at order $m_{c}/Q$. However, in the case of double-
charmonium production in $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation, $S$ decouples from both
the collinear-to-plus charmonium jet and the collinear-to-minus charmonium
jet. Each decoupling holds up to corrections of order $m_{c}/Q$, and, so, the
overall decoupling holds up to corrections of order $m_{c}^{2}/s$. In
perturbation theory, the factorization-violating corrections may be enhanced
by logarithms of $s/m_{c}^{2}$. Furthermore, they are infrared divergent. In
reality, these infrared divergences are cut off by nonperturbative effects
associated with confinement. Our analysis does not determine the size of these
factorization-violating corrections: it shows only that they are proportional
to one or two powers of $m_{c}/Q$. The constant of proportionality might be
determined through experiment and/or lattice calculations.
At the lowest order in $\alpha_{s}$ and $v$, the decoupling of soft gluons
from each charmonium is exact. At the lowest order in $\alpha_{s}$, the
charmonium has only the $c$ and $\bar{c}$ as constituents. At the lowest order
in $v$, one sets $q_{i}=0$, and the $c$ and $\bar{c}$ momenta become equal.
Then, one can apply the same soft approximation for both the $c$ and $\bar{c}$
in the charmonium. Since, at the lowest order in $\alpha_{s}$, there is, at
most, one soft gluon, the soft decoupling in double-charmonium production is
exact if either charmonium is treated at the lowest order in $v$. An explicit
calculation of the one-loop corrections to $S$-wave charmonium production in
$B$-meson decays at the lowest order in $v$ Chay:2000xn and an explicit
calculation of the one-loop corrections to $\sigma[e^{+}e^{-}\to
J/\psi+\chi_{cJ}]$, in which the $J/\psi$ is treated at lowest order in $v$
Zhang:2008gp , confirm our expectation that these corrections should be free
of infrared divergences. $P$-wave charmonium production in $B$-meson decays
was considered at the one-loop level in Ref. Song:2003yc within the
factorization framework of Ref. Beneke:2000ry . When we use the light-cone
distribution amplitudes that are specified in Ref. Beneke:2000ry , we obtain
agreement with the calculations in Ref. Song:2003yc , which yield only
infrared divergences that are suppressed as $m_{c}^{2}/s$. As we have
discussed, we find more generally that the violations of factorization are
suppressed as $m_{c}/\sqrt{s}$. At higher orders in $v$, we expect the soft
cancellation for each charmonium to hold only up to corrections of order
$m_{c}/\sqrt{s}$, even in the case of $S$-wave charmonium production.
Similarly, in relative order $\alpha_{s}^{2}$ and beyond, we expect the soft
cancellation for each charmonium to hold only up to corrections of order
$m_{c}/\sqrt{s}$, even at the lowest order in $v$.
###### Acknowledgements.
We thank Kuang-Ta Chao, Jianwei Qiu, George Sterman, and Yu-Jie Zhang for
helpful discussions. The work of G.T.B. and X.G.T. was supported by the U.S.
Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, under contract DE-
AC02-06CH11357. J.L. was supported by KOSEF under contract
R01-2008-000-10378-0.
## References
* (1) K. Abe et al. [Belle Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 70, 071102 (2004).
* (2) B. Aubert et al. [BABAR Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 72, 031101 (2005).
* (3) For a discussion of the current status of the theoretical predictions that are based on the NRQCD factorization approach, see G. T. Bodwin, J. Lee, and C. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 77, 094018 (2008).
* (4) M. Beneke et al., Nucl. Phys. B 591, 313 (2000).
* (5) J. Chay and C. Kim, arXiv:hep-ph/0009244.
* (6) C. Bobeth, B. Grinstein, and M. Savrov, Phys. Rev. D 77, 074007 (2008).
* (7) G. C. Nayak, J. W. Qiu, and G. Sterman, Phys. Lett. B 613, 45 (2005); Phys. Rev. D 72, 114012 (2005).
* (8) G. C. Nayak, J. W. Qiu, and G. Sterman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 212001 (2007); Phys. Rev. D 77, 034022 (2008).
* (9) G. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2773 (1978).
* (10) G. Sterman, Phys. Rev. D 17, 2789 (1978).
* (11) J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. Sterman, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 5, 1 (1988).
* (12) G. T. Bodwin, S. J. Brodsky, and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 1799 (1981).
* (13) G. T. Bodwin, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2616 (1985) [Erratum-ibid. D 34, 3932 (1986)].
* (14) J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 261, 104 (1985).
* (15) V. L. Chernyak and I. R. Zhitnitsky, Nucl. Phys. B 345, 137 (1990).
* (16) T. Becher, R. J. Hill, and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D 69, 054017 (2004).
* (17) J. C. Collins and D. E. Soper, Nucl. Phys. B 193, 381 (1981) [Erratum-ibid. B 213, 545 (1983)].
* (18) J. C. Collins, D. E. Soper, and G. Sterman, Nucl. Phys. B 308, 833 (1988).
* (19) G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1125 (1995) [Erratum-ibid. D 55, 5853 (1997)].
* (20) Y. J. Zhang, Y. Q. Ma, and K. T. Chao, arXiv:0802.3655 [hep-ph].
* (21) Z. Z. Song et al., Phys. Rev. D 69, 054009 (2004).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-26T05:51:24 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.955511 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Geoffrey T. Bodwin, Xavier Garcia i Tormo (Argonne), Jungil Lee (Korea\n U.)",
"submitter": "Jungil Lee",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3876"
} |
0805.3912 | 11institutetext: Department of Mathematics, University of Milan,
via Saldini 50, 10133 Milan Italy
giacomo.aletti@mat.unimi.it
bongio@mat.unimi.it
vincenzo.capasso@mat.unimi.it
# A set–valued framework for birth–and–growth process
Giacomo Aletti Enea G. Bongiorno Vincenzo Capasso
###### Abstract
We propose a set–valued framework for the well–posedness of birth–and–growth
process. Our birth–and–growth model is rigorously defined as a suitable
combination, involving Minkowski sum and Aumann integral, of two very general
set–valued processes representing nucleation and growth respectively. The
simplicity of the used geometrical approach leads us to avoid problems arising
by an analytical definition of the front growth such as boundary regularities.
In this framework, growth is generally anisotropic and, according to a
mesoscale point of view, it is not local, i.e. for a fixed time instant,
growth is the same at each space point.
## Introduction
Nucleation and growth processes arise in several natural and technological
applications (cf. [8, 7] and the references therein) such as, for example,
solidification and phase–transition of materials, semiconductor crystal
growth, biomineralization, and DNA replication (cf., e.g., [15]).
A _birth–and–growth process_ is a RaCS family given by
$\Theta_{t}=\bigcup_{n:T_{n}\leq t}\Theta_{T_{n}}^{t}(X_{n})$, for
$t\in\mathbb{R}_{+}$, where $\Theta^{t}_{T_{n}}\left(X_{n}\right)$ is the RaCS
obtained as the evolution up to time $t>T_{n}$ of the germ born at (random)
time $T_{n}$ in (random) location $X_{n}$, according to some growth model.
An analytical approach is often used to model birth–and–growth process, in
particular it is assumed that the growth is driven according to a non–negative
normal velocity, i.e. for every instant $t$, a border point
$x\in\partial\Theta_{t}$ “grows” along the outward normal unit (e.g. [3, 22,
13, 4, 6, 5, 11]). Thus, growth is pointwise isotropic; i.e. given a point
belonging $\partial\Theta_{t}$, the growth rate is independently from outward
normal direction. Note that, the existence of the outward normal vector
imposes a regularity condition on $\partial\Theta_{t}$ and also on the
nucleation process (it cannot be a point process).
This paper is an attempt to offer an original alternative approach based on a
purely geometric stochastic point of view, in order to avoid regularity
assumptions describing birth–and–growth process. In particular, Minkowski sum
(already employed in [19] to describe self–similar growth for a single convex
germ) and Aumann integral are used here to derive a mathematical model of such
process. This model, that emphasizes the geometric growth without regularity
assumptions on $\partial\Theta_{t}$, is rigorously defined as a suitable
combination of two very general set–valued processes representing nucleation
$\left\\{B_{t}\right\\}_{t\in[t_{0},T]}$ and growth
$\left\\{G_{t}\right\\}_{t\in[t_{0},T]}$ respectively
$\begin{array}[]{rl}\Theta_{t}=&\left(\Theta_{t_{0}}\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G_{s}ds\right)\cup\bigcup_{s\in[t_{0},t]}dB_{s}\\\
d\Theta_{t}=&\oplus G_{t}dt\cup dB_{t}\qquad\textrm{ or
}\qquad\Theta_{t+dt}=(\Theta_{t}\oplus G_{t}dt)\cup dB_{t}.\end{array}$
Roughly speaking, increment $d\Theta_{t}$, during an infinitesimal time
interval $dt$, is an enlargement due to an infinitesimal Minkowski addend
$G_{t}dt$ followed by the union with the infinitesimal nucleation $dB_{t}$.
As a consequence of Minkowski sum definition, for every instant $t$, each
point $x\in\Theta_{t}$ (and then each point $x\in\partial\Theta_{t}$) grows up
by $G_{t}dt$ and no regularity border assumptions are required. Then we deal
with _not–local_ growth; i.e. growth is the same Minkowski addend for every
$x\in\Theta_{t}$. Nevertheless, under mesoscale hypothesis we can only
consider constant growth region as described, for example, in [6]. On the
other hand, growth is anisotropic whenever $G_{t}$ is not a ball.
The aim of this paper is to ensure the well–posedness of such a model and,
hence, to show that above “integral” and “differential” notations are
meaningful.
In view of well–posedness, in [1], the authors show how the model leads to
different and significant statistical results.
The article is organized as follows. Section 0.1 contains some assumptions
about (random) closed sets and their basilar properties. Model assumptions are
collected in Section 0.2 and integrability properties of growth process are
studied in Section 0.3. For the sake of simplicity, we present, in Section
0.4, main results of the paper (that imply well-posedness of the model),
whilst correspondent proofs are in Section 0.4.1. At the last, Section 0.5
proposes a discrete time point of view, also justifying integral and
differential notations.
## 0.1 Preliminary results
Let $\mathbb{N}$, $\mathbb{Z}$, $\mathbb{R}$, $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ be the sets of
all non–negative integer, integer, real and non–negative real numbers
respectively. Let $\mathfrak{X}$, ${\mathfrak{X}^{*}}$, $B^{*}_{1}$ be a
Banach space, its dual space and the unit ball of the dual space centered in
the origin respectively. We shall consider
$\begin{array}[]{llcll}\mathfrak{P}^{\,0}(\mathfrak{X})&=\textrm{ the family
of all subsets of
}\mathfrak{X},&&\mathfrak{P}(\mathfrak{X})&=\mathfrak{P}^{\,0}(\mathfrak{X})\setminus\\{\emptyset\\}\\\
\mathbb{F}^{\,0}(\mathfrak{X})&=\textrm{ the family of all closed subsets of
}\mathfrak{X},&&\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})&=\mathbb{F}^{\,0}(\mathfrak{X})\setminus\\{\emptyset\\}.\end{array}$
The suffixes $c$ and $b$ denote convexity and boundedness properties
respectively (e.g. $\mathbb{F}^{\,0}_{bc}(\mathfrak{X})$ denotes the family of
all closed, bounded and convex subsets of $\mathfrak{X}$).
For all $A,B\in\mathfrak{P}^{\,0}(\mathfrak{X})$ and
$\alpha\in\mathbb{R}_{+}$, let us define
$\begin{array}[]{rll}A+B=&\left\\{a+b:a\in A,\ b\in B\right\\}=\bigcup_{b\in
B}b+A,&\textrm{(Minkowski Sum)}\\\ \alpha\cdot A=&\alpha A=\left\\{\alpha
a:a\in A\right\\},&\textrm{(Scalar Product)}\end{array}$
By definition, $\forall A\in\mathfrak{P}^{\,0}(\mathfrak{X})$,
$\alpha\in\mathbb{R}_{+}$, we have $\emptyset+A=\emptyset=\alpha\emptyset$. It
is well known that $+$ is a commutative and associative operation with a
neutral element but $(\mathfrak{P}(\mathfrak{X}),+)$ is not a group (cf.
[20]). The following relations are useful in the sequel (see [21]): for all
$\forall A,B,C\in\mathfrak{P}(\mathfrak{X})$
$\begin{array}[]{c}(A\cup B)+C=(A+C)\cup(B+C)\\\ \textrm{if }B\subseteq
C,\quad A+B\subseteq A+C\end{array}$
In the following, we shall work with closed sets. In general, if
$A,B\in\mathbb{F}^{\,0}(\mathfrak{X})$ then $A+B$ does not belong to
$\mathbb{F}^{\,0}(\mathfrak{X})$ (e.g., in $\mathfrak{X}=\mathbb{R}$ let
$A=\left\\{n+1/n:n>1\right\\}$ and $B=\mathbb{Z}$, then
$\left\\{1/n=\left(n+1/n\right)+(-n)\right\\}\subset A+B$ and $1/n\downarrow
0$, but $0\not\in A+B$). In view of this fact, we define $A\oplus
B=\overline{A+B}$ where $\overline{(\cdot)}$ denotes the closure in
$\mathfrak{X}$.
For any $A,B\in\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})$ the _Hausdorff distance_ (or
_metric_) is defined by
$\delta_{H}(A,B)=\max\left\\{\sup_{a\in A}\inf_{b\in
B}\left\|a-b\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}},\sup_{b\in B}\inf_{a\in
A}\left\|a-b\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}}\right\\}.$
For all $(x^{*},A)\in B^{*}_{1}\times\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})$, the _support
function_ is defined by $s(x^{*},A)=\sup_{a\in A}x^{*}(a)$. It can be proved
(cf. [14, 2]) that for each $A,B\in\mathbb{F}_{bc}(\mathfrak{X})$,
$\delta_{H}(A,B)=\sup\left\\{\left|s(x^{*},A)-s(x^{*},B)\right|:x^{*}\in
B^{*}_{1}\right\\}.$ (1)
Let $(\Omega,\mathfrak{F})$ be a measurable space with $\mathfrak{F}$ complete
with respect to some $\sigma$-finite measure, let
$X:\Omega\to\mathfrak{P}^{\,0}(\mathfrak{X})$ be a set–valued map, and
$\displaystyle D(X)$
$\displaystyle=\left\\{\omega\in\Omega:X(\omega)\neq\emptyset\right\\}$ be the
domain of $X$ $\displaystyle X^{-1}(A)$
$\displaystyle=\left\\{\omega\in\Omega:X(\omega)\cap
A\neq\emptyset\right\\},\quad A\subset\mathfrak{X},$ be the inverse image of
$X$
Roughly speaking, $X^{-1}(A)$ is the set of all $\omega$ such that $X(\omega)$
hits set $A$.
Different definitions of measurability for set–valued functions are developed
over the years by several authors (cf. [17, 10, 2, 16] and reference therein).
Here, $X$ is _measurable_ if, for each $O$, open subset of $\mathfrak{X}$,
$X^{-1}(O)\in\mathfrak{F}$.
###### Proposition 0.1.1
_(See[17]) _ $X:\Omega\to\mathfrak{P}^{\,0}(\mathfrak{X})$ is a measurable
set–valued map if and only if $D(X)\in\mathfrak{F}$, and $\omega\mapsto
d(x,X(\omega))$ is a measurable function of $\omega\in D(X)$ for each
$x\in\mathfrak{X}$.
From now on, $\mathcal{U}[\Omega,\mathfrak{F},\mu;\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})]$
($=\mathcal{U}[\Omega;\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})]$ if the measure $\mu$ is
clear) denotes the family of $\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})$–valued measurable maps
(analogous notation holds whenever $\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})$ is replaced by
another family of subsets of $\mathfrak{X}$).
Let $(\Omega,\mathfrak{F},\mathbb{P})$ be a complete probability space and let
$X\in\mathcal{U}[\Omega,\mathfrak{F},\mathbb{P};\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})]$,
then $X$ is a RaCS.
It can be proved (see [18]) that, if $X,X_{1},X_{2}$ are RaCS and if $\xi$ is
a measurable real–valued function, then $X_{1}\oplus X_{2}$, $X_{1}\ominus
X_{2}$, $\xi X$ and $(\textrm{Int}\ X)^{C}$ are RaCS. Moreover, if
$\left\\{X_{n}\right\\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a sequence of RaCS then
$X=\overline{\bigcup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}X_{n}}$ is so.
Let $(\Omega,\mathfrak{F},\mu)$ be a finite measure space (although most of
the results are valid for $\sigma$-finite measures space). The _Aumann
integral_ of
$X\in\mathcal{U}[\Omega,\mathfrak{F},\mu;\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})]$ is defined
by
$\int_{\Omega}Xd\mu=\left\\{\int_{\Omega}xd\mu:x\in S_{X}\right\\},$
where $S_{X}=\left\\{x\in L^{1}[\Omega;\mathfrak{X}]:x\in X\
\mu-\textrm{a.e.}\right\\}$ and $\int_{\Omega}xd\mu$ is the usual Bochner
integral in $L^{1}[\Omega;\mathfrak{X}]$. Moreover,
$\int_{A}Xd\mu=\left\\{\int_{A}xd\mu:x\in S_{X}\right\\}$ for
$A\in\mathfrak{F}$. If $\mu$ is a probability measure, we denote the Aumann
integral by $\mathbb{E}{X}=\int_{\Omega}Xd\mu$.
Let $X\in\mathcal{U}[\Omega,\mathfrak{F},\mu;\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})]$, it is
_integrably bounded_ , and we shall write $X\in
L^{1}[\Omega,\mathfrak{F},\mu;\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})]=L^{1}[\Omega;\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})]$,
if $\left\|X\right\|_{h}\in L^{1}[\Omega,\mathfrak{F},\mu;\mathbb{R}]$.
## 0.2 Model assumptions
Let us consider
$\begin{array}[]{rl}\Theta_{t}=&\left(\Theta_{t_{0}}\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G_{s}ds\right)\cup\bigcup_{s\in[t_{0},t]}dB_{s}\\\
d\Theta_{t}=&\oplus G_{t}dt\cup dB_{t}\qquad\textrm{ or
}\qquad\Theta_{t+dt}=(\Theta_{t}\oplus G_{t}dt)\cup dB_{t}.\end{array}$ (2)
In fact, above equation is not a definition since, for example, problems arise
handling non–countable union of (random) closed sets. The well–posedness of
(2) and hence the existence of such a process are the main purpose of this
paper.
From now on, let us consider the following assumptions.
* (A-0)
* -
$(\mathfrak{X},\left\|\cdot\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}})$ is a reflexive Banach
space with separable dual space
$({\mathfrak{X}^{*}},\left\|\cdot\right\|_{{\mathfrak{X}^{*}}})$, (then,
$\mathfrak{X}$ is separable too, see [12, Lemma II.3.16 p. 65]).
* -
$[t_{0},T]\subset\mathbb{R}$ is the _time observation interval_ (or _time
interval_),
* -
$\left(\Omega,\mathfrak{F},\left\\{\mathfrak{F}_{t}\right\\}_{t\in[t_{0},T]},\mathbb{P}\right)$
is a filtered probability space, where the filtration
$\left\\{\mathfrak{F}_{t}\right\\}_{t\in[t_{0},T]}$ is assumed to have the
usual properties.
(_Nucleation Process_). $B=\left\\{B(\omega,t)=B_{t}:\omega\in\Omega,\
t\in[t_{0},T]\right\\}$ is a process with non–empty closed values, i.e.
$B:\Omega\times[t_{0},T]\to\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})$ such that
* (A-1)
$B(\cdot,t)\in\mathcal{U}[\Omega,\mathfrak{F}_{t},\mathbb{P};\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})]$,
for every $t\in[t_{0},T]$, i.e. $B_{t}$ is an _adapted_ (to
$\left\\{\mathfrak{F}_{t}\right\\}_{t\in[t_{0},T]}$) process.
* (A-2)
$B_{t}$ is increasing: for every $t,s\in[t_{0},T]$ with $s<t$, $B_{s}\subseteq
B_{t}$.
(_Growth Process_). $G=\left\\{G_{t}=G(\omega,t):\omega\in\Omega,\
t\in[t_{0},T]\right\\}$ is a process with non–empty closed values, i.e.
$G:\Omega\times[t_{0},T]\to\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})$ such that
* (A-3)
for every $\omega\in\Omega$ and $t\in[t_{0},T]$, $0\in G(\omega,t)$.
* (A-4)
for every $\omega\in\Omega$ and $t\in[t_{0},T]$, $G(\omega,t)$ is convex, i.e.
$G:\Omega\times[t_{0},T]\to\mathbb{F}_{c}(\mathfrak{X})$.
* (A-5)
there exists $K\in\mathbb{F}_{b}(\mathfrak{X})$ such that
$G(\omega,t)\subseteq K$ for every $t\in[t_{0},T]$ and $\omega\in\Omega$.
As a consequence, $G(\omega,t)\in\mathbb{F}_{b}(\mathfrak{X})$ and
$\left\|G(\omega,t)\right\|_{h}\leq\left\|K\right\|_{h}$,
$\forall(\omega,t)\in\Omega\times[t_{0},T]$.
In order to establish the well–posedness of integral $\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G_{s}ds$
in (2), let us consider a suitable hypothesis of measurability for $G$
(analogously to what is).
A $\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})$–valued process
$G=\left\\{G_{t}\right\\}_{t\in[t_{0},T]}$ has _left continuous trajectories_
on $[t_{0},T]$ if, for every $\overline{t}\in[t_{0},T]$ with $t<\overline{t}$,
$\lim_{t\to\overline{t}}\delta_{H}\left(G(\omega,t),G(\omega,\overline{t})\right)=0,\qquad\textrm{a.s.}$
The $\sigma$-algebra on $\Omega\times[t_{0},T]$ generated by the processes
$\left\\{G_{t}\right\\}_{t\in[t_{0},T]}$ with left continuous trajectories on
$[t_{0},T]$, is called the _previsible_ (or _predictable_) $\sigma$-algebra
and it is denoted by $\mathcal{P}$.
###### Proposition 0.2.1
__The previsible $\sigma$-algebra is also generated by the collection of
random sets $A\times t_{0}$ where $A\in\mathfrak{F}_{t_{0}}$ and
$A\times(s,t]$ where $A\in\mathfrak{F}_{s}$ and $(s,t]\subset[t_{0},T]$.
Proof. Let the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the above collection of sets be
denoted by $\mathcal{P}^{\prime}$. We shall show
$\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}^{\prime}$. Let $G$ be a left continuous process and
let $\alpha=(T-t_{0})$, consider for $n\in\mathbb{N}$
$G_{n}(\omega,t)=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}G(\omega,t_{0}),&t=t_{0}\\\ \\\
G\left(\omega,t_{0}+\frac{k\alpha}{2^{n}}\right),&\begin{array}[]{c}\left(t_{0}+\frac{k\alpha}{2^{n}}\right)<t\leq\left(t_{0}+\frac{(k+1)\alpha}{2^{n}}\right)\\\
k\in\left\\{0,\ldots,(2^{n}-1)\right\\}\end{array}\end{array}\right.$
It is clear that $G_{n}$ is $\mathcal{P}^{\prime}$-measurable, since $G$ is
adapted. As $G$ is left continuous, the above sequence of left-continuous
processes converges pointwise (with respect to $\delta_{H}$) to $G$ when $n$
tends to infinity, so $G$ is $\mathcal{P}^{\prime}$-measurable, thus
$\mathcal{P}\subseteq\mathcal{P}^{\prime}$.
Conversely consider $A\times(s,t]\in\mathcal{P}^{\prime}$ with
$(s,t]\subset[t_{0},T]$ and $A\in\mathfrak{F}_{s}$. Let
$b\in\mathfrak{X}\setminus\\{0\\}$ and $G$ be the process
$G(\omega,v)=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}b,&v\in(s,t],\ \omega\in A\\\
0,&\textrm{otherwise}\end{array}\right.$
this function is adapted and left continuous, hence
$\mathcal{P}^{\prime}\subseteq\mathcal{P}$. $\blacksquare$
Then let us consider the following assumption.
* (A-6)
$G$ is $\mathcal{P}$-measurable.
## 0.3 Growth process properties
Theorem 0.3.2 is the main result in this section. It shows that
$\omega\mapsto\int_{a}^{b}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau$ is a RaCS with non–empty
bounded convex values. This is the first step in order to obtain
well–posedness of (2).
###### Proposition 0.3.1
__Suppose (A-3), …, (A-6), and let $\mu_{\lambda}$ be the
Lebesgue measure on $[t_{0},T]$, then
* •
$G(\omega,\cdot)\in\mathcal{U}\left[[t_{0},T],\mathcal{B}_{[t_{0},T]},\mu_{\lambda};\mathbb{F}_{bc}(\mathfrak{X})\right]$
for every $\omega\in\Omega$.
* •
$G(\cdot,t)\in\mathcal{U}[\Omega,\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}_{t^{-}},\mathbb{P};\mathbb{F}_{bc}(\mathfrak{X})]$
for each $t\in[t_{0},T]$, where $\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}_{t^{-}}$ is the so
called _history $\sigma$-algebra_ i.e.
$\widetilde{\mathfrak{F}}_{t^{-}}=\sigma\left(\mathfrak{F}_{s}:0\leq
s<t\right)\subseteq\mathfrak{F}$.
* •
$G\in\
L^{1}[[t_{0},T],\mathcal{B}_{[t_{0},T]},\mu_{\lambda};\mathbb{F}_{bc}(\mathfrak{X})]\cap
L^{1}[\Omega,\mathfrak{F},\mathbb{P};\mathbb{F}_{bc}(\mathfrak{X})]$
Proof. Assumptions (A-3) and (A-4) imply that $G$ is
non–empty and convex. Measurability and integrability properties are
consequence of (A-6) and (A-5) respectively.
$\blacksquare$
###### Theorem 0.3.2
__Suppose (A-3), …, (A-6). For every $a,b\in[t_{0},T]$,
the integral $\int_{a}^{b}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau$ is non–empty and the set–valued
map
$\begin{array}[]{rccl}G_{a,b}:&\Omega&\to&\mathfrak{P}(\mathfrak{X})\\\
&\omega&\mapsto&\int_{a}^{b}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\end{array}$
is measurable. Moreover, $G_{a,b}$ is a non–empty, bounded convex RaCS.
In order to prove Theorem 0.3.2, consider following properties for real
processes.
A real–valued process $X=\left\\{X_{t}\right\\}_{t\in[t_{0},T]}$ is
_predictable_ with respect to filtration
$\left\\{\mathfrak{F}_{t}\right\\}_{t\in\mathbb{R}_{+}}$, if it is measurable
with respect to the _predictable $\sigma$-algebra_ $\mathcal{P}_{\mathbb{R}}$,
i.e. the $\sigma$-algebra generated by the collection of random sets
$A\times\left\\{0\right\\}$ where $A\in\mathfrak{F}_{0}$ and $A\times(s,t]$
where $A\in\mathfrak{F}_{s}$.
###### Proposition 0.3.3
_(See[9, Propositions 2.30, 2.32 and 2.41]) _Let
$X=\left\\{X_{t}\right\\}_{t\in[t_{0},T]}$ be a predictable real–valued
process, then $X$ is
$(\mathfrak{F}\otimes\mathcal{B}_{[t_{0},T]},\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{R}})$-measurable.
Further, for every $\omega\in\Omega$, the trajectory
$X(\omega,\cdot):[t_{0},T]\to\mathbb{R}$ is
$(\mathcal{B}_{[t_{0},T]},\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{R}})$-measurable .
###### Lemma 0.3.4
__Let $x^{*}$ be an element of the unit ball in the dual space $B^{*}_{1}$,
then $G\mapsto s(x^{*},G)$ is a measurable map.
Proof. By definition $s(x^{*},G)=\sup\left\\{x^{*}(g):g\in G\right\\}$. Since
$\mathfrak{X}$ is separable (A-0), there exists
$\left\\{g_{n}\right\\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset G$ such that
$G=\overline{\left\\{g_{n}\right\\}}$. Then, for every $x^{*}\in B^{*}_{1}$ we
have
$s(x^{*},G)=\sup_{g\in G}x^{*}(g)=\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}x^{*}(g_{n}).$
Since $x^{*}$ is a continuous map then, $s(x^{*},\cdot)$ is measurable.
$\blacksquare$
Proof of Theorem 0.3.2. At first, we prove that $G_{a,b}$ is a measurable
map. From Proposition 0.3.1, integral
$G_{a,b}=\int_{a}^{b}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau$ is well defined for all
$\omega\in\Omega$. Assumption (A-3) implies $0\in
G_{a,b}(\omega)\neq\emptyset$ for every $\omega\in\Omega$. Hence, the domain
of $G_{a,b}$ is the whole $\Omega$ for all $a,b\in[t_{0},T]$
$D\left(G_{a,b}\right)=\left\\{\omega\in\Omega:G_{a,b}\neq\emptyset\right\\}=\Omega\in\mathfrak{F}.$
Thus, by Proposition 0.1.1 and for a fixed couple $a,b\in[t_{0},T]$, $G_{a,b}$
is (weakly) measurable if and only if, for every $x\in\mathfrak{X}$, the map
$\omega\mapsto
d\left(x,\int_{a}^{b}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\right)=\delta_{H}\left(x,\int_{a}^{b}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\right)$
(3)
is measurable. Equation (1) guarantees that (3) is measurable if and only if,
for every $x\in\mathfrak{X}$, the map
$\omega\mapsto\sup_{x^{*}\in
B^{*}_{1}}\left|s(x^{*},x)-s\left(x^{*},\int_{a}^{b}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\right)\right|$
is measurable. The above expression can be computed on a countable family
dense in $B^{*}_{1}$ (note that such family exists since ${\mathfrak{X}^{*}}$
is assumed separable (A-0)):
$\omega\mapsto\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\left|s(x^{*}_{i},x)-s\left(x^{*}_{i},\int_{a}^{b}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\right)\right|.$
It can be proved ([18, Theorem 2.1.12 p. 46]) that
$s\left(x^{*},\int_{a}^{b}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\right)=\int_{a}^{b}s\left(x^{*},G(\omega,\tau)\right)d\tau,\qquad\forall
x^{*}\in B^{*}_{1}$
and therefore, since $s(x^{*}_{i},x)$ is a constant, $G_{a,b}$ is measurable
if, for every $x^{*}\in\left\\{x_{i}^{*}\right\\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$, the
following map
$\begin{array}[]{ccl}(\Omega,\mathfrak{F})&\to&(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{R}})\\\
\omega&\mapsto&\int_{a}^{b}s\left(x^{*},G(\omega,\tau)\right)d\tau\end{array}$
(4)
is measurable. Note that $s(x^{*},G(\cdot,\cdot))$, as a map from
$\Omega\times[t_{0},T]$ to $\mathbb{R}$, is predictable since it is the
composition of a predictable map (A-6) with a measurable one (see
Lemma 0.3.4):
$\begin{array}[]{rccccc}s\left(x^{*},G(\cdot,\cdot)\right):&(\Omega\times[t_{0},T],\mathcal{P})&\to&(\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X}),\sigma_{f})&\to&(\mathbb{R},\mathcal{B}_{\mathbb{R}})\\\
&(\omega,t)&\mapsto&G(\omega,t)&\mapsto&s\left(x^{*},G(\omega,t)\right)\end{array}$
thus, by Proposition 0.3.3, it is a $\mathcal{P}$-measurable map and hence (4)
is a measurable map.
In view of the first part, it remains to prove that $G_{a,b}$ is a bounded
convex set for a.e. $\omega\in\Omega$. Since $\mathfrak{X}$ is reflexive
(A-0), by Proposition 0.3.1 we have that $G_{a,b}$ is closed ([18,
Theorem 2.2.3]). Further, $G_{a,b}$ is also convex (see [18, Theorem 2.1.5 and
Corollary 2.1.6]).
To conclude the proof, it is sufficient to show that $G_{a,b}$ is included in
a bounded set:
$\displaystyle\int_{a}^{b}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left\\{\int_{a}^{b}g(\omega,\tau)d\tau:g(\omega,\cdot)\in
G(\omega,\cdot)\subseteq K\right\\}$ $\displaystyle\subseteq$
$\displaystyle\left\\{\int_{a}^{b}kd\tau:k\in K\right\\}=\left\\{(b-a)k:k\in
K\right\\}=(b-a)K.$
$\blacksquare$
## 0.4 Geometric Random Process
For the sake of simplicity, let us present the main results which proofs will
be given in Section 0.4.1.
Let us assume conditions from (A-0) to (A-6). For every
$t\in[t_{0},T]\subset\mathbb{R}$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and
$\Pi=\left(t_{i}\right)_{i=0}^{n}$ partition of $[t_{0},t]$, let us define
$\displaystyle s_{\Pi}(t)=$
$\displaystyle\left(B_{t_{0}}\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}\left(\Delta
B_{t_{i}}\oplus\int_{t_{i}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)$ (5) $\displaystyle
S_{\Pi}(t)=$
$\displaystyle\left(B_{t_{0}}\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}\left(\Delta
B_{t_{i}}\oplus\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)$ (6)
where $\Delta B_{t_{i}}=B_{t_{i}}\setminus B_{t_{i-1}}^{o}$ ($B_{t_{i-1}}^{o}$
denotes the interior set of $B_{t_{i-1}}$) and where the integral is in the
Aumann sense with respect to the Lebesgue measure $d\tau=d\mu_{\lambda}$. We
write $s_{\Pi}$ and $S_{\Pi}$ instead of $s_{\Pi}(t)$ and $S_{\Pi}(t)$ when
the dependence on $t$ is clear.
Proposition 0.4.1 guarantees that both $s_{\Pi}$ and $S_{\Pi}$ are well
defined RaCS, further, Proposition 0.4.3 shows $s_{\Pi}\subseteq S_{\Pi}$ as a
consequence of different time intervals integration: if the time interval
integration of $G$ increases then the integral of $G$ does not decrease with
respect to set-inclusion (Lemma 0.4.2). Proposition 0.4.4 means that
$\left\\{s_{\Pi}\right\\}$ ($\left\\{S_{\Pi}\right\\}$) increases (decreases)
whenever a refinement of $\Pi$ is considered. At the same time, Proposition
0.4.5 implies that $s_{\Pi}$ and $S_{\Pi}$ become closer each other (in the
Hausdorff distance sense) when partition $\Pi$ becomes finer. The “limit” is
independent on the choice of the refinement as consequence of Proposition
0.4.6.
Corollary 0.4.7 means that, given any
$\left\\{\Pi_{j}\right\\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ refinement sequence of
$[t_{0},t]$, the random closed sets $s_{\Pi_{j}}$ and $S_{\Pi_{j}}$ play the
same role that lower sums and upper sums have in classical analysis when we
define the Riemann integral. In fact, if $\Theta_{t}$ denotes their limit
value (see (7)), $s_{\Pi_{j}}$ and $S_{\Pi_{j}}$ are a lower and an upper
approximation of $\Theta_{t}$ respectively. Note that, as a consequence of
monotonicity of $s_{\Pi_{j}}$ and $S_{\Pi_{j}}$, we avoid problems that may
arise considering uncountable unions in integral expression in (2).
###### Proposition 0.4.1
__Let $\Pi$ be a partition of $[t_{0},t]$. Both $s_{\Pi}$ and $S_{\Pi}$,
defined in (5) and (6), are RaCS.
###### Lemma 0.4.2
__Let $X\in L^{1}[I,\mathfrak{F},\mu_{\lambda};\mathbb{F}(\mathfrak{X})]$,
where $I$ is a bounded interval of $\mathbb{R}$, such that $0\in X$
$\mu_{\lambda}$-almost everywhere on $I$ and let $I_{1},I_{2}$ be two other
intervals of $\mathbb{R}$ with $I_{1}\subset I_{2}\subset I$. Then
$\int_{I_{1}}X(\tau)d\tau\subseteq\int_{I_{2}}X(\tau)d\tau.$
###### Proposition 0.4.3
__Let $\Pi$ be a partition of $[t_{0},t]$. Then $s_{\Pi}\subseteq S_{\Pi}$
almost surely.
###### Proposition 0.4.4
__Let $\Pi$ and $\Pi^{\prime}$ be two partitions of $[t_{0},t]$ such that
$\Pi^{\prime}$ is a refinement of $\Pi$. Then, almost surely,
$s_{\Pi}\subseteq s_{\Pi^{\prime}}$ and $S_{\Pi^{\prime}}\subseteq S_{\Pi}$.
###### Proposition 0.4.5
__Let $\left\\{\Pi_{j}\right\\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a refinement sequence of
$[t_{0},t]$ (i.e. $\left|\Pi_{j}\right|\to 0$ if $j\to\infty$). Then, almost
surely, $\lim_{j\to\infty}\delta_{H}\left(s_{\Pi_{j}},S_{\Pi_{j}}\right)=0$.
###### Proposition 0.4.6
__Let $\left\\{\Pi_{j}\right\\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ and
$\left\\{\Pi_{l}^{\prime}\right\\}_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ be two distinct
refinement sequences of $[t_{0},t]$, then, almost surely,
$\lim_{\textrm{\tiny$\begin{array}[]{c}j\rightarrow\infty\\\
l\rightarrow\infty\end{array}$}}\delta_{H}\left(s_{\Pi_{j}},s_{\Pi^{\prime}_{l}}\right)=0\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad\lim_{\textrm{\tiny$\begin{array}[]{c}j\rightarrow\infty\\\
l\rightarrow\infty\end{array}$}}\delta_{H}\left(S_{\Pi_{j}},S_{\Pi^{\prime}_{l}}\right)=0.$
###### Corollary 0.4.7
__For every $\left\\{\Pi_{j}\right\\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ refinement sequence of
$[t_{0},t]$, the following limits exist
$\overline{\left(\bigcup_{j\in\mathbb{N}}s_{\Pi_{j}}\right)},\
\overline{\left(\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}s_{\Pi_{j}}\right)},\
\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}S_{\Pi_{j}},\ \bigcap_{j\in\mathbb{N}}S_{\Pi_{j}},$
(7)
and they are equals almost surely. The convergences is taken with respect to
the Hausdorff distance.
We are now ready to define the continuous time stochastic process.
###### Definition 0.4.8
__Assume (A-0), …, (A-6). For every $t\in[t_{0},T]$, let
$\left\\{\Pi_{j}\right\\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ be a refinement sequence of the
time interval $[t_{0},t]$ and let $\Theta_{t}$ be the RaCS defined by
$\overline{\left(\bigcup_{j\in\mathbb{N}}s_{\Pi_{j}}(t)\right)}=\overline{\left(\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}s_{\Pi_{j}}(t)\right)}=\Theta_{t}=\lim_{j\rightarrow\infty}S_{\Pi_{j}}(t)=\bigcap_{j\in\mathbb{N}}S_{\Pi_{j}}(t),$
then, the family $\Theta=\left\\{\Theta_{t}:t\in[t_{0},T]\right\\}$ is called
_geometric random process G-RaP_ (on $[t_{0},T]$).
###### Theorem 0.4.9
__Let $\Theta$ be a G-RaP on $[t_{0},T]$, then $\Theta$ is a non-decreasing
process with respect to the set inclusion, i.e.
$\mathbb{P}\left(\Theta_{s}\subseteq\Theta_{t},\ \forall t_{0}\leq s<t\leq
T\right)=1.$
Moreover, $\Theta$ is adapted with respect to filtration
$\left\\{\mathfrak{F}_{t}\right\\}_{t\in[t_{0},T]}$.
###### Remark 0.4.10
__We want to point out that, assumptions we considered on
$\left\\{B_{t}\right\\}$ and $\left\\{G_{t}\right\\}$ are so general, that a
wide family of classical random sets and evolution processes can be described
(for example, Boolean model is a birth–and–growth process with “null growth”).
### 0.4.1 Proofs of Propositions in Section 0.4
Proof of Proposition 0.4.1. For every $i\in\left\\{0,\ldots,n\right\\}$,
$\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau$ is a RaCS (Theorem 0.3.2). Thus,
measurability Assumption (A-1) on $B$ guarantees that, for every
$t_{i}\in\Pi$, $B_{t_{i}}$, $\Delta B_{t_{i}}$, $\left(\Delta
B_{t_{i}}\oplus\int_{t_{i}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)$, and hence $s_{\Pi}$ and
$S_{\Pi}$ are RaCS. $\blacksquare$
Proof of Lemma 0.4.2. Let $y\in\left(\int_{I_{1}}X(\tau)d\tau\right)$, then
there exists $x\in S_{X}$, for which
$y=\left(\int_{I_{1}}x(\tau)d\tau\right)$. Let us define on $I_{2}(\supset
I_{1})$
$x^{\prime}(\tau)=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}x(\tau),&\tau\in I_{1}\\\
0,&\tau\in I_{2}\setminus I_{1}\end{array}\right.$
then $x^{\prime}\in S_{X}$ and
$y=\left(\int_{I_{2}}x^{\prime}(\tau)d\tau\right)\in\left(\int_{I_{2}}X(\tau)d\tau\right)$.
$\blacksquare$
Proof of Proposition 0.4.3. Thesis is a consequence of Lemma 0.4.2 and
Minkowski addition properties, in fact
$\left(\int_{t_{i-1}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\subseteq\left(\int_{t_{i}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)$
implies $s_{\Pi}\subseteq S_{\Pi}$. $\blacksquare$
Proof of Proposition 0.4.4. Let $\Pi^{\prime}$ be a refinement of partition
$\Pi$ of $[t_{0},t]$, i.e. $\Pi\subset\Pi^{\prime}$. We prove that
$s_{\Pi}\subseteq s_{\Pi^{\prime}}$ ($S_{\Pi^{\prime}}\subseteq S_{\Pi}$ is
analogous). It is sufficient to show the thesis only for
$\Pi^{\prime}=\Pi\cup\left\\{\overline{t}\right\\}$ where
$\Pi=\left\\{t_{0},\ldots,t_{n}\right\\}$ with $t_{0}<\ldots<t_{n}=t$ and
$\overline{t}\in(t_{0},t)$. Let $i\in\left\\{0,\ldots,(n-1)\right\\}$ be such
that $t_{i}\leq\overline{t}\leq t_{i+1}$ then
$\displaystyle s_{\Pi}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(B_{t_{0}}\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup\bigcup_{\textrm{\tiny$\begin{array}[]{c}j=1\\\
j\neq i+1\end{array}$}}^{n}\left(\Delta
B_{t_{j}}\oplus\int_{t_{j}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup$
$\displaystyle\left[\left(B_{t_{i+1}}\setminus
B_{t_{i}}^{o}\right)\oplus\int_{t_{i+1}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right]$
and
$\displaystyle s_{\Pi^{\prime}}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(B_{t_{0}}\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup\bigcup_{\textrm{\tiny$\begin{array}[]{c}j=1\\\
j\neq i+1\end{array}$}}^{n}\left(\Delta
B_{t_{j}}\oplus\int_{t_{j}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup$
$\displaystyle\left[\left(B_{\overline{t}}\setminus
B_{t_{i}}^{o}\right)\oplus\int_{\overline{t}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right]\cup\left[\left(B_{t_{i+1}}\setminus
B_{\overline{t}}^{o}\right)\oplus\int_{t_{i+1}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right]$
Definitely, in order to prove that $s_{\Pi}\subseteq s_{\Pi^{\prime}}$ we have
to prove that
$\displaystyle\left\\{\left[\left(B_{\overline{t}}\setminus
B_{t_{i}}^{o}\right)\oplus\int_{\overline{t}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right]\cup\left[\left(B_{t_{i+1}}\setminus
B_{\overline{t}}^{o}\right)\oplus\int_{t_{i+1}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right]\right\\}$
$\displaystyle\supseteq\left[\left(B_{t_{i+1}}\setminus
B_{t_{i}}^{o}\right)\oplus\int_{t_{i+1}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right].$
This inclusion is a consequence of
$\left(\int_{\overline{t}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\supseteq\left(\int_{t_{i+1}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)$
(Lemma 0.4.2) and of the Minkowski distribution property. $\blacksquare$
Proof of Proposition 0.4.5. Let $\Pi_{j}=\left(t_{i}\right)_{i=0}^{n}$ be the
$j$-partition of the refinement sequence
$\left\\{\Pi_{j}\right\\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$, then
$\delta_{H}\left(s_{\Pi_{j}},S_{\Pi_{j}}\right)=\max\left\\{\sup_{x\in
s_{\Pi_{j}}}d(x,S_{\Pi_{j}}),\sup_{y\in S_{\Pi_{j}}}d(y,s_{\Pi_{j}})\right\\}$
where $d(x,S_{\Pi_{j}})=\inf_{y\in
S_{\Pi_{j}}}\left\|x-y\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}}$. By Proposition 0.4.3,
$s_{\Pi_{j}}\subseteq S_{\Pi_{j}}$ then
$\sup_{x\in s_{\Pi_{j}}}d(x,S_{\Pi_{j}})=0$
and hence we have to prove that, whenever $j\to\infty$ (i.e.
$\left|\Pi_{j}\right|\to 0$),
$\delta_{H}\left(s_{\Pi_{j}},S_{\Pi_{j}}\right)=\sup_{y\in
S_{\Pi_{j}}}d(y,s_{\Pi_{j}})=\sup_{y\in S_{\Pi_{j}}}\inf_{x\in
s_{\Pi_{j}}}\left\|x-y\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}}\longrightarrow 0.$
For every $\omega\in\Omega$, let $y$ be any element of $S_{\Pi_{j}}(\omega)$,
then we distinguish two cases:
(1) if
$y\in\left(B_{t_{0}}(\omega)\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\right)$,
then it is also an element of $s_{\Pi_{j}}(\omega)$, and hence
$d\left(s_{\Pi_{j}}(\omega),y\right)=0$.
(2) if
$y\not\in\left(B_{t_{0}}(\omega)\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\right)$,
then there exist $j\in\left\\{1,\ldots,n\right\\}$ such that
$y\in\left(\Delta
B_{t_{j}}(\omega)\oplus\int_{t_{j-1}}^{t}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\right).$
By definition of $\oplus$, for every $\omega\in\Omega$, there exist
$\left\\{y_{m}\right\\}_{m\in\mathbb{N}}\subseteq\left(\Delta
B_{t_{j}}(\omega)+\int_{t_{j-1}}^{t}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\right),$
such that $\lim_{m\to\infty}y_{m}=y$. Then, for every $\omega\in\Omega$, there
exist $h_{m}\in\Delta B_{t_{j}}(\omega)$ and
$g_{m}\in\left(\int_{t_{j-1}}^{t}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\right)$ such that
$y_{m}=(h_{m}+g_{m})$ and hence
$y=\lim_{m\to\infty}(h_{m}+g_{m})=\lim_{m\to\infty}y_{m}$
where the convergence is in the Banach norm, then let
$\overline{m}\in\mathbb{N}$ be such that
$\left\|y-y_{m}\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}}<\left|\Pi_{j}\right|$, for every
$m>\overline{m}$.
Note that, for every $\omega\in\Omega$ and $m\in\mathbb{N}$, by Aumann
integral definition, there exists a selection $\widehat{g_{m}}(\cdot)$ of
$G(\omega,\cdot)$ (i.e. $\widehat{g_{m}}(t)\in G(\omega,t)$
$\mu_{\lambda}$-a.e.) such that
$g_{m}=\int_{t_{j-1}}^{t}\widehat{g_{m}}(\tau)d\tau\qquad\textrm{ and }\qquad
y_{m}={h_{m}+\int_{t_{j-1}}^{t}\widehat{g_{m}}(\tau)d\tau}.$
For every $\omega\in\Omega$, let us consider
$x_{m}=h_{m}+\int_{t_{j}}^{t}\widehat{g_{m}}(\tau)d\tau$
then $x_{m}\in s_{\Pi_{j}}(\omega)$ for all $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Moreover, the
following chain of inequalities hold, for all $m>\overline{m}$ and
$\omega\in\Omega$,
$\displaystyle\inf_{x^{\prime}\in
s_{\Pi_{j}}}\left\|x^{\prime}-y\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}}$ $\displaystyle\leq$
$\displaystyle\left\|x_{m}-y\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}}\leq\left\|x_{m}-y_{m}\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}}+\left\|y_{m}-y\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}}$
$\displaystyle\leq$
$\displaystyle\left\|\int_{t_{j-1}}^{t_{j}}\widehat{g_{m}}(\tau)d\tau\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}}+\left|\Pi_{j}\right|\leq\int_{t_{j-1}}^{t_{j}}\left\|\widehat{g_{m}}(\tau)\right\|_{\mathfrak{X}}d\tau+\left|\Pi_{j}\right|$
$\displaystyle\leq$
$\displaystyle\int_{t_{j-1}}^{t_{j}}\left\|G(\tau)\right\|_{h}d\tau+\left|\Pi_{j}\right|\leq\left|t_{j}-t_{j-1}\right|\left\|K\right\|_{h}+\left|\Pi_{j}\right|$
$\displaystyle\leq$
$\displaystyle\left|\Pi_{j}\right|\left(\left\|K\right\|_{h}+1\right)\stackrel{{\scriptstyle
j\to\infty}}{{\longrightarrow}}0$
since $\left\|K\right\|_{h}$ is a positive constant. By the arbitrariness of
$y\in S_{\Pi_{j}}(\omega)$ we obtain the thesis. $\blacksquare$
Proof of Proposition 0.4.6. Let $\Pi_{j}$ and $\Pi_{l}^{\prime}$ be two
partitions of the two distinct refinement sequences
$\left\\{\Pi_{j}\right\\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ and
$\left\\{\Pi_{l}^{\prime}\right\\}_{l\in\mathbb{N}}$ of $[t_{0},t]$. Let
$\Pi^{\prime\prime}=\Pi_{j}\cup\Pi_{l}^{\prime}$ be the refinement of both
$\Pi_{j}$ and $\Pi_{l}^{\prime}$. Then Proposition 0.4.4 and Proposition 0.4.3
imply that $s_{\Pi_{j}}\subseteq s_{\Pi^{\prime\prime}}\subseteq
S_{\Pi^{\prime\prime}}\subseteq S_{\Pi_{l}^{\prime}}$. Therefore
$s_{\Pi_{j}}\subseteq S_{\Pi_{l}^{\prime}}$ for every $j,l\in\mathbb{N}$. Then
$\overline{\left(\bigcup_{j\in\mathbb{N}}s_{\Pi_{j}}\right)}\subseteq\bigcap_{l\in\mathbb{N}}S_{\Pi_{l}^{\prime}}.$
Analogously
$\overline{\left(\bigcup_{l\in\mathbb{N}}s_{\Pi_{l}^{\prime}}\right)}\subseteq\bigcap_{j\in\mathbb{N}}S_{\Pi_{j}}.$
Proposition 0.4.5 concludes the proof. $\blacksquare$
In order to prove Theorem 0.4.9, let us consider the following Lemma.
###### Lemma 0.4.11
__Let $s,t\in[t_{0},T]$ with $t_{0}<s<t$ and let $\Pi^{s}$ and $\Pi^{t}$ be
two partition of $[t_{0},s]$ and $[t_{0},t]$ respectively, such that
$\Pi^{s}\subset\Pi^{t}$. Then
$s_{\Pi^{s}}(s)\subseteq s_{\Pi^{t}}(t)\qquad\textrm{ and }\qquad
S_{\Pi^{s}}(s)\subseteq S_{\Pi^{t}}(t).$
Proof. The proofs of the two inclusions are similar. Let us prove that
$s_{\Pi^{s}}(s)\subseteq s_{\Pi^{t}}(t)$.
Since $\Pi^{s}\subset\Pi^{t}$, then $\Pi^{s}=\left(t_{i}\right)_{i=0}^{n}$ and
$\Pi^{t}=\Pi^{s}\cup\left(t_{i}\right)_{i=n+1}^{n+m}$ with $m\in\mathbb{N}$.
By Lemma 0.4.2, we have that
$\displaystyle s_{\Pi^{s}}(s)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(B_{t_{0}}\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{s}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}\left(\Delta
B_{t_{i}}\oplus\int_{t_{i}}^{s}G(\tau)d\tau\right)$ $\displaystyle\subseteq$
$\displaystyle\left(B_{t_{0}}\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}\left(\Delta
B_{t_{i}}\oplus\int_{t_{i}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)$ $\displaystyle\subseteq$
$\displaystyle\left(B_{t_{0}}\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^{n}\left(\Delta
B_{t_{i}}\oplus\int_{t_{i}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)$
$\displaystyle\cup\bigcup_{i=n+1}^{n+m}\left(\Delta
B_{t_{i}}\oplus\int_{t_{i}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)$
i.e. $s_{\Pi^{s}}(s)\subseteq s_{\Pi^{t}}(t)$. $\blacksquare$
Proof of Theorem 0.4.9. For every $s,t\in[t_{0},T]$ with $s<t$, let
$\left\\{\Pi^{s}_{i}\right\\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ and
$\left\\{\Pi^{t}_{i}\right\\}_{i\in\mathbb{N}}$ be two refinement sequences of
$[t_{0},s]$ and $[t_{0},t]$ respectively, such that
$\Pi^{s}_{i}\subset\Pi^{t}_{i}$ for every $i\in\mathbb{N}$. Then, by Lemma
0.4.11, $S_{\Pi^{s}_{i}}\subseteq S_{\Pi^{t}_{i}}$. Now, as $i$ tends to
infinity, we obtain
$\Theta_{s}=\bigcap_{i\rightarrow\infty}S_{\Pi^{s}_{i}}\subseteq\bigcap_{i\rightarrow\infty}S_{\Pi^{t}_{i}}=\Theta_{t}.$
For the second part, note that Theorem 0.3.2 still holds replacing
$\mathfrak{F}_{t}$ instead of $\mathfrak{F}$, so that for every
$s\in[t_{0},T]$, the family
$\left\\{\int_{s}^{t}G(\omega,\tau)d\tau\right\\}_{t\in[s,T]}$ is an adapted
process to the filtration $\left\\{\mathfrak{F}_{t}\right\\}_{t\in[t_{0},T]}$.
This fact together with Assumption (A-1) guarantees that
$\left\\{S_{\Pi}\right\\}_{t\in[s,T]}$ is adapted for every partition $\Pi$ of
$[s,T]$ and hence $\Theta$ is adapted too. $\blacksquare$
## 0.5 Discrete time case and infinitesimal notations
Let us consider $\Theta_{s}$ and $\Theta_{t}$ with $s<t$. Let
$\left\\{\Pi^{s}_{j}\right\\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ and
$\left\\{\Pi^{t}_{j}\right\\}_{j\in\mathbb{N}}$ be two refinement sequences of
$[t_{0},s]$ and $[t_{0},t]$ respectively, such that
$\Pi^{s}_{j}\subset\Pi^{t}_{j}$ for every $j\in\mathbb{N}$ (i.e.
$\Pi_{j}^{s}=\left(t_{i}\right)_{i=0}^{n}$ and
$\Pi_{j}^{t}=\Pi_{j}^{s}\cup\left(t_{i}\right)_{i=n+1}^{n+m}$ with
$n,m\in\mathbb{N}$). It is easy to compute
$s_{\Pi^{t}_{j}}=\left(s_{\Pi^{s}_{j}}\oplus\int_{s}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup\bigcup_{i=n+1}^{n+m}\left(\Delta
B_{t_{i}}\oplus\int_{t_{i}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right).$
Then, by Definition 0.4.8, whenever $\left|\Pi^{t}_{j}\right|\to 0$, we obtain
$\Theta_{t}=\left(\Theta_{s}\oplus\int_{s}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup\lim_{\left|\Pi^{t}_{j}\right|\rightarrow
0}\bigcup_{i=n+1}^{n+m}\left(\Delta
B_{t_{i}}\oplus\int_{t_{i}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right).$ (10)
The following notations
$G_{k}=\int_{s}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad
B_{k}=\lim_{\left|\Pi^{t}_{j}\right|\rightarrow
0}\bigcup_{i=n+1}^{n+m}\left(\Delta
B_{t_{i}}\oplus\int_{t_{i}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)$
lead us to the set-valued discrete time stochastic process
$\Theta_{k}=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}(\Theta_{k-1}\oplus G_{k})\cup
B_{k},&k\geq 1,\\\ B_{0},&k=0.\end{array}\right.$
In view of this, we are able to justify infinitesimal notations introduced in
(2). In particular, from Equation (10), whenever
$\left|\Pi^{t}_{j}\right|\rightarrow 0$, we obtain
$\Theta_{t}=\left(B_{t_{0}}\oplus\int_{t_{0}}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right)\cup\bigcup_{s=t_{0}}^{t}\left(dB_{s}\oplus\int_{s}^{t}G(\tau)d\tau\right),\qquad
t\in[t_{0},T].$
Moreover, with a little abuse of this infinitesimal notation, we get two
differential formulations
$d\Theta_{t}=\oplus G_{t}dt\cup
dB_{t}\qquad\textrm{and}\qquad\Theta_{t+dt}=(\Theta_{t}\oplus G_{t}dt)\cup
dB_{t}.$
## References
* [1] G. Aletti, E. G. Bongiorno, and V. Capasso. Statistical aspects of set–valued continuous time stochastic processes. (submitted).
* [2] J. Aubin and H. Frankowska. Set–valued Analysis, volume 2 of Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications. Birkhäuser Boston Inc., 1990.
* [3] G. Barles, H. M. Soner, and P. E. Souganidis. Front propagation and phase field theory. SIAM J. Control Optim., 31(2):439–469, 1993.
* [4] M. Burger. Growth of multiple crystals in polymer melts. European J. Appl. Math., 15(3):347–363, 2004.
* [5] M. Burger, V. Capasso, and A. Micheletti. An extension of the Kolmogorov–Avrami formula to inhomogeneous birth–and–growth processes. In Math Everywhere (G. Aletti et al., Eds). Springer, Berlin, 63–76, 2007.
* [6] M. Burger, V. Capasso, and L. Pizzocchero. Mesoscale averaging of nucleation and growth models. Multiscale Model. Simul., 5(2):564–592 (electronic), 2006.
* [7] V. Capasso, editor. Mathematical Modelling for Polymer Processing. Polymerization, Crystallization, Manufacturing. Mathematics in Industry, Vol. 2, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 2003.
* [8] V. Capasso. On the stochastic geometry of growth. In Morphogenesis and Pattern Formation in Biological Systems (Sekimura, T. et al. Eds). Springer, Tokyo, 45–58, 2003.
* [9] V. Capasso and D. Bakstein. An Introduction to Continuous–Time Stochastic Processes. Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology. Birkhäuser Boston Inc., 2005.
* [10] C. Castaing and M. Valadier. Convex Analysis and Measurable Multifunctions. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 580, Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1977\.
* [11] S. N. Chiu. Johnson–Mehl tessellations: asymptotics and inferences. In Probability, finance and insurance, pages 136–149. World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 2004.
* [12] N. Dunford and J. T. Schwartz. Linear Operators. Part I. Wiley Classics Library. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1988.
* [13] H. J. Frost and C. V. Thompson. The effect of nucleation conditions on the topology and geometry of two–dimensional grain structures. Acta Metallurgica, 35:529–540, 1987.
* [14] E. Giné, M. G. Hahn, and J. Zinn. Limit theorems for random sets: an application of probability in Banach space results. In Probability in Banach Spaces, IV (Oberwolfach, 1982). Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 990, 112–135, Springer, Berlin, 1983.
* [15] J. Herrick, S. Jun, J. Bechhoefer, and A. Bensimon. Kinetic model of DNA replication in eukaryotic organisms. J.Mol.Biol., 320:741–750, 2002.
* [16] F. Hiai and H. Umegaki. Integrals, conditional expectations, and martingales of multivalued functions. J. Multivariate Anal., 7(1):149–182, 1977.
* [17] C. J. Himmelberg. Measurable relations. Fund. Math., 87:53–72, 1975.
* [18] S. Li, Y. Ogura, and V. Kreinovich. Limit Theorems and Applications of Set–Valued and Fuzzy Set–Valued Random Variables. Vol. 43 of Theory and Decision Library. Series B: Mathematical and Statistical Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, Dordrecht, 2002.
* [19] A. Micheletti, S. Patti, and E. Villa. Crystal growth simulations: a new mathematical model based on the Minkowski sum of sets. In Industry Days 2003-2004 (D.Aquilano et al. Eds), volume 2 of The MIRIAM Project, pages 130–140. Esculapio, Bologna, 2005\.
* [20] H. Rådström. An embedding theorem for spaces of convex sets. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 3:165–169, 1952.
* [21] J. Serra. Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology. Academic Press Inc. [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers], London, 1984\.
* [22] Bo Su and Martin Burger. Global weak solutions of non-isothermal front propagation problem. Electron. Res. Announc. Amer. Math. Soc., 13:46–52 (electronic), 2007.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-26T10:20:42 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.960787 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Giacomo Aletti, Enea G. Bongiorno, Vincenzo Capasso",
"submitter": "Giacomo Aletti",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3912"
} |
0805.3951 | ††thanks: Corresponding author
# Quantum strategy in moving frames
Jian-Chuan Tan tanjc@mail.ustc.edu.cn Quantum Theory Group, Department of
Modern Physics
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, P.R.China An
Min Wang anmwang@ustc.edu.cn Quantum Theory Group, Department of Modern
Physics
University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, P.R.China
###### Abstract
We investigate quantum strategy in moving frames by considering Prisoner’s
Dilemma and propose four thresholds of $\gamma$ for two players to determine
their Nash Equilibria. Specially, an interesting phenomenon appears in
relativistic situation that the quantum feature of the game would be enhanced
and diminished for different players whose particle’s initial spin direction
are respectively parallel and antiparallel to his/her movement direction, that
is, for the former the quantum feature of the game is enhanced while for the
latter the quantum feature would be diminished. Thus a classical latter could
still maintain his/her strictly dominant strategy (classical strategy) even if
the game itself is highly entangled.
###### pacs:
03.67.-a, 03.65.Bz, 02.50.Le, 03.75.-b, 03.65.Pm
Strategy theory (or Game theory) is a branch of applied mathematics devised to
analyze certain situations in which there is an interplay between parties that
may have similar, opposed, or mixed interests. It draws broad attention
because of its practical application in Economics, Politics, and other fields
which involve cooperation or conflict Game theory . As an applied mathematical
theory, strategy theory inevitably possesses its own physical properties. It
is not surprising, since a game should be played through some strategies, and
these strategies must be put in practice to some physical carriers. Thus the
traits of the carriers under some certain physical conditions would affect the
result of a game. Based on this consideration, to explore how to gain as much
as reward in a game in some particular physical situations has been a popular
research aspect in recent years.
In 1999, Eisert et al. proposed a novel model of quantum game in terms of the
famous nonzero sum game— Prisoners’ Dilemma, in which the physical carriers
are two spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particles, and players could adopt some unitary
quantum operations as strategies. Although this model was criticized for not
possessing the dominance over a classical game Enk' , we find it is actually
go beyond a classical game and worth studying based on the considerations that
it is important for us to distinguish the difference between the equivalence
of payoffs and the equivalence of strategies, and that to understand the
essences of a cooperative game and a noncooperative game is of high
significance in studying a game with a physical background. More
interestingly, a physical carrier possesses not only quantum traits but also
relativistic ones. So we are concerning on this effect by using Eisert et
al.’s model. In this model, two particles (start in a produce state
$\left|CC\right\rangle$) are initially entangled by a gate $\hat{J}$ to form a
pairs of physical carriers of this game, and then be distributed to two
players, Alice and Bob, who independently chooses a quantum strategy
$\hat{U}(\theta,\phi)=\left(\begin{array}[]{ccc}e^{{\rm
i}\phi}\cos{\theta/2}&\sin{\theta/2}\\\ -\sin{\theta/2}&e^{-{\rm
i}\phi}\cos{\theta/2}\\\ \end{array}\right),$ (1)
with $0\leq\theta\leq\pi$ and $0\leq\phi\leq\pi/2$. Finally, a disentangling
gate $\hat{J}^{\dagger}$ is carried out and the carrier pair is measured in
the computational basis. In terms of game theory, it exists a new Nash
Equilibrium (NE), that is, both of the players choose strategy
$\hat{Q}=\hat{U}(0,\pi/2)$, because strategy $\hat{Q}$ has the property of
being Pareto optimal, and help players escape the dilemma in classical game
Game theory ; Eisert .
Let us restrict the physical carriers to be two spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ particles
and denote the states of the particles as:
$\left|\frac{1}{2}\right\rangle=\left|\textit{C}\right\rangle=\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\\
0\end{array}\right)$, and
$\left|-\frac{1}{2}\right\rangle=\left|\textit{D}\right\rangle=\left(\begin{array}[]{c}0\\\
1\end{array}\right)$. Meanwhile, an arbiter is needed to determine each
player’s payoff by measuring the state of the two particles with a physical
measurement device, and the principle of the determination is well known to
both players. The players could only gain expected payoff since quantum
mechanics itself is a probabilistic theory. Alice’s and Bob’s expected payoffs
are given by
$\begin{array}[]{c}\$_{A}=\textit{r}\textit{P}_{CC}+\textit{p}\textit{P}_{DD}+\textit{t}\textit{P}_{DC}+\textit{s}\textit{P}_{CD},\\\
\$_{B}=\textit{r}\textit{P}_{CC}+\textit{p}\textit{P}_{DD}+\textit{s}\textit{P}_{DC}+\textit{t}\textit{P}_{CD},\\\
\end{array}$ (2)
where $P_{ab}=\left|\left\langle ab|\psi_{f}\right\rangle\right|^{2}$
($a,b=C,D$) is the joint probability that the arbiter’s measure device would
display $a,b$. We take $\textit{t}=5,\textit{r}=3,\textit{p}=1$ and
$\textit{s}=0$ in this model Eisert . In this game, we assume that the arbiter
moves in the _x_ direction, Alice’s particle moves in the _z_ direction, and
Bob’s the -_z_ direction. Thus their movements cause boosts in the direction
of _x_ , _z_ , and -_z_ , respectively. Thus, Alice’s and Bob’s movement
directions are respectively parallel and antiparallel to their particles’
initial spin directions. We denote the boosts with each’s rapidity as $\alpha$
for the arbiter, $\delta_{A}$ for Alice, and $\delta_{B}$ for Bob.
Of course, the arbiter’s boost $\alpha$ respect to a player could also be
equivalent to the player emitting the particle to the arbiter with a rapidity
$-\alpha$ (that is, with $\alpha$ in the -_x_ direction). In this case, we
could further think that the arbiter is at rest, and the two players are far
away from the arbiter, so they have to take part in this game by emitting
their own particles to the arbiter, and the rapidity of each particle will
sort of determine how much payoff the players would attain. Thus, at what
speed the particle is emitted could be controlled by the player, and we name
this speed-control as a relativistic operation. From our point of view, this
model should be worth studying since it is a well guidance to long-distance
games, and even in the near future when interstellar travel comes true, this
model would also be useful.
Now we set out our game model and its process is illustrated in Fig.1, in
which the Lorentz boost is introduced in Refs.Alsing ; Ahn , and $\gamma$ is a
monotonic function with the measure of entanglement, indicating how much the
two particles entangle. The degree of entanglement between the two particles
would decrease if their momentum have distributions, say, with width. So
tracing out the momentum from the Lorentz-transformation density matrix
destroys some of the entanglement Gingrich . We assume the momentum of both
particles to be exact, namely no distributions, thus their degree of
entanglement would remain invariant under Lorentz transformation, and so does
$\gamma$. When $\gamma=0$, the game’s players are separable and the game does
not display any features which go beyond the classical game.
Figure 1: Process of the game model. $\hat{J}=\exp({\rm
i}\gamma\hat{D}\otimes\hat{D}/2)$, $\gamma\in\left[0,\pi/2\right]$,
$\hat{D}=\hat{U}(\pi,0)$, is defined in Eisert to make the two particles
entangle. $R(\Lambda,\bm{p})$ is the Wigner rotation applied to a particle.
$\hat{U}_{A}$ and $\hat{U}_{B}$ are operations Alice and Bob applies to her
and his own particle respectively.
The Lorentz transformation $\Lambda$ results in a unitary transformation on
states in the Hilbert space that
$\mbox{$\left|{\Psi}\right\rangle$}\rightarrow
U(\Lambda)\mbox{$\left|{\Psi}\right\rangle$}$. Thus, the state of entangled
particles under the Lorentz transformation is given by
$U(\Lambda)(\hat{U}_{A}\otimes\hat{U}_{B})\hat{J}\left|\bm{p}_{A},\\!C;\bm{p}_{B},\\!C\right\rangle=\sum_{a,b=C,D}k_{ab}\mbox{$\left|{\psi_{ab}}\right\rangle$},$
(3) $\left|{\psi_{CC}}\right\rangle$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\\!\\!\sqrt{\frac{(\Lambda\bm{p}_{A})^{0}}{\bm{p}_{A}^{0}}}\sqrt{\frac{(\Lambda\bm{p}_{B})^{0}}{\bm{p}_{B}^{0}}}\sum_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}{D}_{\sigma,\frac{1}{2}}^{(\frac{1}{2})}\left(\emph{R}(\Lambda_{A})\right)$
(4)
$\displaystyle{D}_{\sigma^{\prime},\frac{1}{2}}^{(\frac{1}{2})}\left(\emph{R}(\Lambda_{B})\right)a^{\dagger}(\bm{p}_{A_{\Lambda}},\sigma)a^{\dagger}(\bm{p}_{B_{\Lambda}},\sigma^{\prime})\mbox{$\left|{\psi_{0}}\right\rangle$},$
$\left|{\psi_{CD}}\right\rangle$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\\!\\!\sqrt{\frac{(\Lambda\bm{p}_{A})^{0}}{\bm{p}_{A}^{0}}}\sqrt{\frac{(\Lambda\bm{p}_{B})^{0}}{\bm{p}_{B}^{0}}}\sum_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}{D}_{\sigma,\frac{1}{2}}^{(\frac{1}{2})}\left(\emph{R}(\Lambda_{A})\right)$
(5)
$\displaystyle{D}_{\sigma^{\prime},-\frac{1}{2}}^{(\frac{1}{2})}\left(\emph{R}(\Lambda_{B})\right)a^{\dagger}(\bm{p}_{A_{\Lambda}},\sigma)a^{\dagger}(\bm{p}_{B_{\Lambda}},\sigma^{\prime})\mbox{$\left|{\psi_{0}}\right\rangle$},$
$\left|{\psi_{DC}}\right\rangle$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\\!\\!\sqrt{\frac{(\Lambda\bm{p}_{A})^{0}}{\bm{p}_{A}^{0}}}\sqrt{\frac{(\Lambda\bm{p}_{B})^{0}}{\bm{p}_{B}^{0}}}\sum_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}{D}_{\sigma,-\frac{1}{2}}^{(\frac{1}{2})}\left(\emph{R}(\Lambda_{A})\right)$
(6)
$\displaystyle{D}_{\sigma^{\prime},\frac{1}{2}}^{(\frac{1}{2})}\left(\emph{R}(\Lambda_{B})\right)a^{\dagger}(\bm{p}_{A_{\Lambda}},\sigma)a^{\dagger}(\bm{p}_{B_{\Lambda}},\sigma^{\prime})\mbox{$\left|{\psi_{0}}\right\rangle$},$
$\left|{\psi_{DD}}\right\rangle$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\\!\\!\sqrt{\frac{(\Lambda\bm{p}_{A})^{0}}{\bm{p}_{A}^{0}}}\sqrt{\frac{(\Lambda\bm{p}_{B})^{0}}{\bm{p}_{B}^{0}}}\sum_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}{D}_{\sigma,-\frac{1}{2}}^{(\frac{1}{2})}\left(\emph{R}(\Lambda_{A})\right)$
(7)
$\displaystyle{D}_{\sigma^{\prime},-\frac{1}{2}}^{(\frac{1}{2})}\left(\emph{R}(\Lambda_{B})\right)a^{\dagger}(\bm{p}_{A_{\Lambda}},\sigma)a^{\dagger}(\bm{p}_{B_{\Lambda}},\sigma^{\prime})\mbox{$\left|{\psi_{0}}\right\rangle$}.$
where $\left|{\psi_{0}}\right\rangle$ is the Lorentz invariant vacuum state,
and
$\displaystyle k_{CC}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle e^{{\rm
i}(\phi_{A}+\phi_{B})}c_{\theta_{A}}c_{\theta_{B}}c_{\gamma}+{\rm
i}s_{\theta_{A}}s_{\theta_{B}}s_{\gamma},$ (8) $\displaystyle k_{CD}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-e^{{\rm
i}\phi_{A}}c_{\theta_{A}}s_{\theta_{B}}c_{\gamma}+{\rm i}e^{-{\rm
i}\phi_{B}}s_{\theta_{A}}c_{\theta_{B}}s_{\gamma},$ (9) $\displaystyle k_{DC}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-e^{{\rm
i}\phi_{B}}s_{\theta_{A}}c_{\theta_{B}}c_{\gamma}+{\rm i}e^{-{\rm
i}\phi_{A}}c_{\theta_{A}}s_{\theta_{B}}s_{\gamma},$ (10) $\displaystyle
k_{DD}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
s_{\theta_{A}}s_{\theta_{B}}c_{\gamma}+{\rm i}e^{-{\rm
i}(\phi_{A}+\phi_{B})}c_{\theta_{A}}c_{\theta_{B}}s_{\gamma}.$ (11)
For simplicity, we denote
$c_{x}=\cos\frac{x}{2},\quad s_{x}=\sin\frac{x}{2},$ (12)
where $x$ can be taken as $\theta_{A}$, $\theta_{B}$ and $\gamma$ as well as
so-called Wigner angle $\Omega_{A}$ and $\Omega_{B}$ respectively with Alice’s
and Bob’s particles. Note that a particle’s Wigner angle is determined by the
rapidities of itself ($\delta$) and the arbiter ($\alpha$) Alsing Ahn ,
$\Omega_{\tau}=\arctan\frac{\sinh\alpha\sinh\delta_{\tau}}{\cosh\alpha+\cosh\delta_{\tau}},\tau=A,B.$
(13)
The final state measured by the arbiter is
$\left|\psi_{f}\right\rangle=\hat{J}^{\dagger}U(\Lambda)(\hat{U}_{A}\otimes\hat{U}_{B})\hat{J}\left|\bm{p}_{A},C;\bm{p}_{B},C\right\rangle$.
We have
$\left(\begin{array}[]{c}\mathfrak{p}_{1}\\\ \mathfrak{p}_{2}\\\
\mathfrak{p}_{3}\\\
\mathfrak{p}_{4}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}[]{cccc}\omega_{1}&\omega^{*}_{2}&-\omega^{*}_{3}&-\omega_{4}\\\
-\omega^{*}_{2}&\omega_{1}&\omega_{4}&-\omega_{3}\\\
\omega^{*}_{3}&\omega_{4}&\omega_{1}&-\omega_{2}\\\
-\omega_{4}&\omega^{*}_{3}&-\omega^{*}_{2}&\omega_{1}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{c}k_{CC}\\\
k_{CD}\\\ k_{DC}\\\ k_{DD}\end{array}\right),$ (14)
where $\omega_{1}=c_{\gamma}c_{\Omega_{A}}c_{\Omega_{B}}+{\rm
i}s_{\gamma}s_{\Omega_{A}}s_{\Omega_{B}}$,
$\omega_{2}=c_{\gamma}c_{\Omega_{A}}s_{\Omega_{B}}+{\rm
i}s_{\gamma}s_{\Omega_{A}}c_{\Omega_{B}}$,
$\omega_{3}=c_{\gamma}s_{\Omega_{A}}c_{\Omega_{B}}+{\rm
i}s_{\gamma}c_{\Omega_{A}}s_{\Omega_{B}}$, and
$\omega_{4}=c_{\gamma}s_{\Omega_{A}}s_{\Omega_{B}}+{\rm
i}s_{\gamma}c_{\Omega_{A}}c_{\Omega_{B}}$, and $*$ denotes complex
conjugation. Thus we get ${P}_{CC}=\left|\mathfrak{p}_{1}\right|^{2}$,
${P}_{CD}=\left|\mathfrak{p}_{2}\right|^{2}$,
${P}_{DC}=\left|\mathfrak{p}_{3}\right|^{2}$, and
${P}_{DD}=\left|\mathfrak{p}_{4}\right|^{2}$.
Actually, how much the two particles are initially entangled would be
essential to this game model, since $\gamma$ induces some features which go
beyond the classical game. Du et al. found two thresholds of $\gamma$ in the
Quantum Prisoners’ Dilemma— $\gamma_{th1}=\arcsin{\sqrt{1/5}}$ and
$\gamma_{th2}=\arcsin{\sqrt{2/5}}$, which separate the game into three
regions: classical region ($\gamma\in\left[0,\gamma_{th1}\right)$),
intermediate region ($\gamma\in\left[\gamma_{th1},\gamma_{th2}\right)$), and
fully quantum region ($\gamma\in\left[\gamma_{th2},\pi/2\right]$), see Ref.Du
Du' . According to Du, the classical region means in this domain, the game
behaves classically, i.e., the NE of the game is $\hat{D}\otimes\hat{D}$; in
the quantum region, the game is similar to the maximally entangled one in
Eisert’s Letter Eisert that $\hat{Q}\otimes\hat{Q}$ becomes the new NE and
has the property to be _Pareto Optimal_ ; while the intermediate region
possesses compatibility to $\hat{D}$ and $\hat{Q}$, where
$\hat{D}\otimes\hat{D}$ is no longer the NE because each player could improve
his/her payoff by unilaterally deviating from the strategy $\hat{D}$, thus two
Nash Equilibria (NE’s) $\hat{D}\otimes\hat{Q}$ and $\hat{Q}\otimes\hat{D}$
emerge Du .
In order to explore the relativistic-quantum features of this game, we take
four situations as examples, in which $4$-kinds of payoffs are considered for
each player— (a) Alice moves at low speed (AL) & Bob moves at low speed (BL),
(b) Alice moves at low speed (AL) & Bob moves at high speed (BH), (c) Alice
moves at high speed (AH) & Bob moves at low speed (BL), and (d) Alice moves at
high speed (AH) & Bob moves at high speed (BH); and
$G_{1}:=\$(\hat{D}\otimes\hat{D})$, $G_{2}:=\$(\hat{Q}\otimes\hat{D})$,
$G_{3}:=\$(\hat{D}\otimes\hat{Q})$, and $G_{4}:=\$(\hat{Q}\otimes\hat{Q})$.
And we concentrate our discussion to a simple but typical strategy set
$S=\\{\hat{D},\hat{Q}\\}$, since $\hat{D}=\hat{U}(\pi,0)$ is a classical spin-
rotating operation which could be implemented by sort of classical equipments,
while $\hat{Q}=\hat{U}(0,\pi/2)$ is a purely phase-controlling operation which
could only be implemented by a quantum gate. It is an essential difference
between these two strategies. Thus, there are at most six thresholds of
$\gamma$ ($\gamma_{\mu\nu},\mu,\nu=1,2,3,4$, with $\mu<\nu$, where
$\gamma_{\mu\nu}$ is the point where $G_{\mu}=G_{\nu}$) for each player’s
payoff in each situation. Among these $\gamma_{\mu\nu}$, there are two
thresholds are essential for each player— for Alice, they are $\gamma_{12}$
and $\gamma_{34}$, we denote them as $\gamma^{A}_{12}$ and $\gamma^{A}_{34}$;
similarly, for Bob, they are $\gamma^{B}_{13}$ and $\gamma^{B}_{24}$. These
four thresholds are essential because they demonstrate Alice’s and Bob’s
strictly dominant strategies (SDS) for different
$\gamma\in\left[0,\frac{\pi}{2}\right]$ Game theory . Fig.2 illustrates
Alice’s and Bob’s payoffs in the four situations. Here, as for low and high
speed we can respectively take $\Omega_{\tau}=\frac{\pi}{16}$ and
$\Omega_{\tau}=\frac{7\pi}{16}$. As is mentioned in Ref.Ahn , $\Omega_{\tau}$
is a monotonic function with player $\tau$’s and the arbiter’s speeds. Thus in
this example, $\Omega_{\tau}=\frac{\pi}{16}$ corresponds to arbiter’s speed
0.01c and $\tau$’s speed 0.001c, while $\Omega_{\tau}=\frac{7\pi}{16}$
corresponds to arbiter’s speed 0.97c and $\tau$’s speed 0.908c, where c is the
light-speed. The arbiter’s speed is equivalent to the same speed that the
player emits his/her particle in the -_x_ direction, as mentioned above.
Figure 2: (Color online) Alice’s and Bob’s payoffs in 4 situations— (a) AL &
BL, (b) AL & BH, (c) AH & BL, and (d) AH & BH.
In Fig.2, we name the region where $\gamma^{A}_{12}<\gamma<\gamma^{A}_{34}$
Alice’s transition region ($\mathcal{T}_{A}$), and where
$\gamma^{B}_{13}<\gamma<\gamma^{B}_{24}$ Bob’s transition region
($\mathcal{T}_{B}$). If $\gamma$ is on the left side of $\mathcal{T}_{\tau}$,
then $\tau$’s SDS is $\hat{D}$ (purely classical strategy); if $\gamma$ is on
the right side of $\mathcal{T}_{\tau}$, the SDS is $\hat{Q}$ (purely quantum
strategy); while if $\gamma$ is in $\mathcal{T}_{\tau}$, $\tau$ would have no
SDS, but the NE still exist. Game theory proves that the combination of each
player’s SDS must be the NE of the game, but a NE may not be the combination
of each’s SDS Game theory . From Fig.2, we could see that in some situations,
$\mathcal{T}_{A}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{B}$ overlap partially with each other, and
in the overlapping region, two new NE’s $\hat{D}\otimes\hat{Q}$ and
$\hat{Q}\otimes\hat{D}$ appear, although there is no SDS exists for each
player. On the other hand, if $\gamma$ is in $\mathcal{T}_{A}$ but not in
$\mathcal{T}_{B}$, Bob has SDS $\hat{D}$ or $\hat{Q}$, but Alice has not, in
this case, the NE is $\hat{Q}\otimes\hat{D}$ or $\hat{D}\otimes\hat{Q}$, that
is to say, Alice should choose the strategy opposite to Bob’s SDS. It is
similar to the case that $\gamma$ is in $\mathcal{T}_{B}$ but not in
$\mathcal{T}_{A}$. What is noteworthy is the highly relativistic situation in
Fig.2.(d): $\Omega_{A}=\Omega_{B}=\frac{7\pi}{16}$. In this case, there is no
transition region for Bob, and for all
$\gamma\in\left[0,\frac{\pi}{2}\right]$, Bob’s SDS is $\hat{D}$, that is to
say, when Alice’s and Bob’s particles both move at very high speed, the game
behaves classically for Bob, even if he is highly entangled with Alice. It is
an interesting phenomenon that the relativistic operations would diminish the
quantum feature of the game. Fig.3 shows the area where Bob’s SDS is $\hat{D}$
for all $\gamma\in\left[0,\frac{\pi}{2}\right]$, i.e., where the relativistic
operation entirely eliminate the quantum feature of the game for Bob.
Figure 3: The shadowed area indicates the situation in which Bob’s SDS is
always $\hat{D}$ in spite of how much the two particles are entangled.
In fact, the four thresholds vary with $\Omega_{A}$ and $\Omega_{B}$ as
$\displaystyle\gamma^{A}_{12}\\!=\\!\arcsin\\!{\sqrt{\frac{c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!2s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!+\\!2c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}}{5c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!5s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!+\\!3c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!+\\!2s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}}}},$
(15)
$\displaystyle\gamma^{A}_{34}\\!=\\!\arcsin\\!{\sqrt{\frac{2c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!+\\!c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!2s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}}{5c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!5s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!+\\!3c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!+\\!2s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}}}},$
(16)
$\displaystyle\gamma^{B}_{13}\\!=\\!\arcsin\\!{\sqrt{\frac{c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!2s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!+\\!2s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}}{5c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!5s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!3c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!2s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}}}},$
(17)
$\displaystyle\gamma^{B}_{24}\\!=\\!\arcsin\\!{\sqrt{\frac{2c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!2c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!+\\!s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}}{5c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!5s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!3c^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}s^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}\\!-\\!2s^{2}_{\Omega_{A}}c^{2}_{\Omega_{B}}}}}.$
(18)
always with $\gamma^{A}_{12}<\gamma^{A}_{34}$ and
$\gamma^{B}_{13}<\gamma^{B}_{24}$. We plot these four thresholds in Fig.4. In
particular, when Alice, Bob and the arbiter are all at rest, i.e.,
$\Omega_{A}=\Omega_{B}=0$, $\mathcal{T}_{A}$ and $\mathcal{T}_{B}$ overlap
entirely with each other. In this case,
$\gamma^{A}_{12}=\gamma^{B}_{13}=\gamma_{th1}$ in Du’s paper Du , and
$\gamma^{A}_{34}=\gamma^{B}_{24}=\gamma_{th2}$, thus two NE’s emerge in the
overlapping region.
Figure 4: The four thresholds $\gamma^{A}_{12}$, $\gamma^{A}_{34}$,
$\gamma^{B}_{13}$ and $\gamma^{B}_{24}$, which divide the game into three
regions respectively according to $\gamma$, and determine the Nash Equilibrim
of this game.
Finally, we could see in Fig.4.(b) that for Alice,
$\gamma^{A}_{34}<\frac{\pi}{2}$ in all situations, and
$\gamma^{A}_{34}\rightarrow 0$ when $\Omega_{A}\rightarrow\frac{\pi}{2}$,
i.e., when Alice’s particle moves at very high speed, her SDS would be
$\hat{Q}$ even if the two particles are entirely separable; while in
Fig.4.(c), $\gamma^{B}_{13}>\frac{\pi}{2}$ in some situations, where the
quantum feature of the game is entirely eliminated for Bob, so his SDS is
$\hat{D}$ even if the two particles are entirely entangled. That is to say, in
the same game, the relativistic operations enhance the quantum feature of the
game for Alice, but diminish it for Bob.
In summary, we have demonstrated that some new and interesting features appear
if classical games such as Prisoners’ Dilemma are extended to the quantum and
relativistic domain, in which the initial symmetry of this game is broken by
the respect movements of the two players. We also propose four thresholds for
Alice and Bob, which divide the game into three regions in which different
strictly dominant strategies emerge, and how Nash Equilibrium is determined in
different situations. Moreover, a interesting phenomenon appears in
relativistic situation that the relativistic operations could enhance the
quantum feature of the game for the player whose particle’s initial spin
direction is parallel to its movement direction (Alice), but diminish it for
the one whose particle’s initial spin direction is antiparallel to its
movement direction (Bob), i.e., the respect movements of Alice, Bob and the
arbiter determine “how quantum” the game is for each player. We believe these
properties would be useful to guide remote games in the future and that
extending game theory to quantum and relativistic domain would lead us to
understand the physical essence of game theory.
We are grateful to all the collaborators of our quantum theory group in the
institute for theoretical physics of our university. We thank Prof. Lewenstein
and Zeyang Liao for triggering and useful discussion. This work was supported
by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 60573008.
## References
* (1) For an introduction, see, e.g., R.B. Myerson, GAme Theory: An Analysis of Conflict (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1991), D. Fudenberg, J. Tirole, Game theory (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1991).
* (2) D.A. Meyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1052 (1999).
* (3) L.Goldenberg, L.Vaidman, S.Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3356 (1999).
* (4) J. Eisert, M. Wilkens, and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3077 (1999).
* (5) S.J. van Enk and R. Pike, Phys. Rev. A. 66, 024306 (2002).
* (6) R.M. Gingrich and C. Adami, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 270402 (2002).
* (7) E. Wigner, Ann. Math. 149, 40 (1939).
* (8) P.M. Alsing and G.J. Milburn, Quantum Inf. Comput. 2, 487 (2002).
* (9) D.Ahn, H.J. Lee, Y.H. Moon, S.W. Hwang, Phys. Rev. A. 67, 012103 (2003).
* (10) A. Peres, P.F. Scudo, D.R. Terno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 230402 (2002).
* (11) L.H. Ryder, Quantum field theory (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1996).
* (12) M. Czachor, Phys. Rev. A. 55, 72 (1997).
* (13) S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields I (Cambrige University Press, New York, 1995).
* (14) H. You, A.M. Wang, X. Yang, et al., Phys. Lett. A. 333 (2004) 389-394.
* (15) F.R. Halpern, Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1968).
* (16) A. Peres, D.R. Terno, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76 (2004) 93.
* (17) J. Du et al., Phys. Lett. A. 289 (2001) 9-15.
* (18) J. Du et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 137902 (2002).
* (19) S. Hill and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997).
* (20) S.J. van Enk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 789 (2000).
* (21) A. Iqbal and A.H. Toor, Phys. Rev. A. 65, 022306 (2002)
* (22) S.C. Benjamin and P.M. Hayden, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 069801 (2001)
* (23) J.Eisert, M.Wilkens, M.Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 069802 (2001)
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-23T05:34:30 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.967175 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Jian-Chuan Tan and An Min Wang",
"submitter": "Jian-Chuan Tan",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3951"
} |
0805.3964 | # DimReduction - Interactive Graphic Environment for Dimensionality Reduction
###### Abstract
Feature selection is a pattern recognition approach to choose important
variables according to some criteria to distinguish or explain certain
phenomena. There are many genomic and proteomic applications which rely on
feature selection to answer questions such as: selecting signature genes which
are informative about some biological state, e.g. normal tissues and several
types of cancer; or defining a network of prediction or inference among
elements such as genes, proteins, external stimuli and other elements of
interest. In these applications, a recurrent problem is the lack of samples to
perform an adequate estimate of the joint probabilities between element
states. A myriad of feature selection algorithms and criterion functions are
proposed, although it is difficult to point the best solution in general. The
intent of this work is to provide an open-source multiplataform graphical
environment to apply, test and compare many feature selection approaches
suitable to be used in bioinformatics problems.
Fabrício Martins Lopes(1,2), David Correa Martins-Jr(1) and Roberto M. Cesar-
Jr(1)
(1)Instituto de Matemática e Estatística da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.
(2)Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Brazil.
## 1 Introduction
The pattern recognition methods allow the classification of objects or
patterns in a number of classes [1]. Specifically in statistical pattern
recognition, given a set $Y=\\{y_{1},...,y_{c}\\}$ of classes and an unknown
pattern $\mathbf{X}=\\{X_{1},X_{2},...,X_{n}\\}$, a pattern recognition system
associates $\mathbf{x}$ to a class $y_{i}$ based on defined measures in a
feature space. In many applications, especially in bioinformatics, the feature
space dimension tends to be very large, making difficult the classification
task. In order to overcome this inconvenient situation, the study of
dimensionality reduction problem in pattern recognition becomes imperative.
The so called “curse of dimensionality” [2] is a phenomenon in which the
number of training samples required to a satisfactory classifier performance
is given by an exponential function of the feature space. This is the main
motivation by which performing of dimensionality reduction is important in
problems with large number of features and small number of training samples.
Many bioinformatics applications are perfectly inserted in this context. Data
sets containing mRNA transcription expressions from microarray or SAGE, for
example, possess thousands of genes (features) and only some dozens of samples
that may be cell states or types of tissues. If time is a factor involved, the
samples are called dynamical states, otherwise they are called steady states.
There are basically two dimensionality reduction approaches: feature
extraction and feature selection [1, 3, 4]. The feature extraction methods
create new features from transformations or combinations of the original
feature set. On the other hand, feature selection algorithms just search for
the optimal feature subset according to some criterion function. The software
proposed in this paper is initially focused on feature selection methods.
A feature selection method is composed by two main parts: a search algorithm
and a criterion function. As far as the search algorithms, there are two main
categories: the optimal and sub-optimal algorithms. The optimal algorithms
(including exhaustive and branch-and-bound searches) return the best feature
subspace, but their computational costs are very high to be applied in
general. The sub-optimal algorithms do not guarantee that the solution is
optimal, but some of them present a reasonable cost-benefit between
computational cost and quality of the solution. Up to now, we have implemented
in the software the exhaustive search (optimal), the Sequential Forward
Selection (SFS - sub-optimal) and the Sequential Forward Floating Selection
(SFFS - sub-optimal with excellent cost-benefit) [5].
There is a large number of criterion functions proposed in the literature. The
most common functions are based on the classifier error and distances between
patterns. There are also criterion functions based on information theory. They
are closely related to the classifier error, but instead of using the error,
it is based on the conditional entropy of the class probabilities
distributions given the observed pattern.
Due to the curse of dimensionality phenomenon, error estimation is a crucial
issue. We have developed some ways to embed error estimation in the criterion
functions based on classifier error or conditional entropy. The main idea is
based on penalization of non-oberved or rarely observed instances. A good
advantage in doing this is that the right dimension of the feature subset
solution is also estimated (the dimension parameter is not required). After
the feature selection, it is possible to apply classical error estimation
techniques like resubstitution, leave-one-out, cross validation or bootstrap.
The software is implemented in Java, so it can be executed in many operational
systems. It is open source and intended to be continuously developed in a
world-wide collaboration. The software is available at
http://dimreduction.incubadora.fapesp.br/.
Following this introduction, Section 2 and 3 will describe the feature
selection algorithms and criterion functions implemented so far. Section 4
discusses the implemented software. Section 5 will shows some preliminary
results obtained on gene regulation networks and classification of breast
cancer cells. This paper is finalized with some conclusions in Section 6.
## 2 Implemented feature selection algorithms
The first and simpler feature selection algorithm implemented in this work is
the exhaustive search. This algorithm searches the whole search space, and as
a result, the selected features are optimal. However in bioinformatics
context, normally the computational cost makes this approach inadequate. Then,
it is clear the existence of a trade-off between optimality and computational
cost.
An alternative way is to adopt sub-optimal search methods. In this work we
have implemented two sub-optimal approaches with unique solution, which are
known as top down and bottom up. In the first one, the selection subset starts
empty and features are inserted by optimizing a criterion function until a
stop condition is satisfied, which is often based on the subset size or a
threshold. In the second algorithm, the subset starts full and features are
removed, trying to optimize the criterion function until a stop condition is
reached. Methods that implement these approaches are known as SFS (Sequential
Forward Search) and SBS (Sequential Backward Search), respectively.
Considering the context of this work, our choice was to implement the SFS
approach.
However, these suboptimal search methods present an undesirable drawback known
as nesting effect. This effect happens because the discarded features in the
top-down approach are not inserted anymore, or the inserted features in the
bottom-up approach are never discarded.
In order to circumvent this problem, the Sequential Forward Floating Selection
(SFFS) [5] was also implemented. The SFFS algorithm tries to avoid the nesting
effect allowing to insert and exclude features on subset in a floating way,
i.e. without defining the number of insertions or exclusions.
The SFFS may be formalized as in [5]. Let $\mathbf{X_{k}}=\\{x_{i}:1\leq i\leq
k,x_{i}\in\mathbf{X}\\}$ be the subset with $k$ features of the complete set
$\mathbf{X}=\\{x_{i}:1\leq i\leq n\\}$ with $n$ features available. Let
$E(\mathbf{X_{k}})$ the criterion function value for the subset
$\mathbf{X_{k}}$. The algorithm initializes with $k=0$, therefore the subset
$\mathbf{X_{k}}$ is empty.
First Step (insert): using the SFS method, select the feature $x_{k+1}$ of the
set $\mathbf{X}-\mathbf{X_{k}}$ to form the set $\mathbf{X_{k+1}}$, such that
$x_{k+1}$ be the most relevant feature of the subset $\mathbf{X_{k}}$. The new
subset is $\mathbf{X_{k+1}}=\mathbf{X_{k}}\cup x_{k+1}$.
Second Step (conditional exclusion): Find the least relevant feature in the
set $\mathbf{X_{k+1}}$. If $x_{k+1}$ is the least relevant feature in the
subset $\mathbf{X_{k+1}}$, then $k\leftarrow k+1$,
$\mathbf{X_{k}}\leftarrow\mathbf{X_{k+1}}$ and back to the first step. If
$x_{r},1\leq r\leq k$ is the least relevant feature in the subset
$\mathbf{X_{k+1}}$, then exclude $x_{r}$ from $\mathbf{X_{k+1}}$ to form a new
subset $\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{k}}=\mathbf{X_{k+1}}-x_{r}$ and $k\leftarrow k-1$.
If $k=2$, then $\mathbf{X_{k}}=\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{k}}$, and return to the
first step, else execute the third step.
Third Step (continuation of conditional exclusion): Find the least relevant
feature $x_{s}$ in the set $\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{k}}$. If
$E(\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{k}}-x_{s})\leq E(\mathbf{X_{k-1}})$, then
$\mathbf{X_{k}}\rightarrow\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{k}}$ and return to first step.
If $E(\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{k}}-x_{s})>E(\mathbf{X_{k-1}})$ then exclude $x_{s}$
from $\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{k}}$ to form a new reduced subset
$\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{k-1}}=\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{k}}-x_{s}$ and $k\rightarrow
k-1$. If $k=2$, then $\mathbf{X_{k}}=\mathbf{X^{\prime}_{k}}$ and return to
first step, else repeat the third step.
The SFFS algorithm starts by setting $k=0$ e $\mathbf{X_{k}}=0$, and the SFS
method is used until the subset size $k=2$.Then the SBS is performed in order
to exclude bad features. SFFS proceeds by alternating between SFS and SBS
until a stop criteria is reached. The best result set for each cardinality is
stored in a list. The best set among them is selected as algorithm result, and
tie occurs, the set with lower cardinality is selected.
## 3 Implemented criterion functions
We implemented criterion functions based on classifier information (mean
conditional entropy) and classifier error (Coefficient of Determination [6]),
introducing some penalization on poorly or non-observed patterns.
### 3.1 Mean conditional entropy
The information theory was originated by Shannon [7] and can be employed on
feature selection problems [3]. The Shannon’s entropy $H$ is a measure of
randomness of a variable $Y$ given by:
$H(Y)=-\sum_{y\in Y}P(y)logP(y)\textrm{,}$ (1)
where $P$ is the probability distribution function. By convention $0\cdot
log0=0$.
The conditional entropy is a fundamental concept related to the mutual
information. It is given by the following equation:
$H(Y|\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x})=-\sum_{y\in
Y}P(y|\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x})logP(y|\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x})$ (2)
where $\mathbf{X}$ is a feature vector and $P(Y|\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x})$ is the
conditional probability of $Y$ given the observation of an instance
$\mathbf{x}\in\mathbf{X}$. And finally, the mean conditional entropy of $Y$
given all the possible instances $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbf{X}$ is given by:
$H(Y|\mathbf{X})=\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbf{X}}P(\mathbf{x})H(Y|\mathbf{x})$
(3)
Lower values of $H$ yield better feature subspaces (the lower $H$, the larger
is the information gained about $Y$ by observing $\mathbf{X}$).
### 3.2 Coefficient of Determination
The Coefficient of Determinstion (CoD) [6], like the conditional entropy, is a
non-linear criterion useful for feature selection problems [8]. It is given
by:
$CoD_{Y}(\mathbf{X})=\frac{1-\max_{y\in
Y}P(y)-(1-\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbf{X}}P(\mathbf{x})\max_{y\in
Y}P(y|\mathbf{x}))}{1-\max_{y\in Y}P(y)}$ (4)
where $1-\max_{y\in Y}P(y)$ is the error of predicting $Y$ in the absence of
other observations (let us denote it by $\varepsilon_{Y}$) and
$1-\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbf{X}}\max_{y\in Y}P(\mathbf{x},y)$ is the error of
predicting $Y$ based on the observation of $\mathbf{X}$ (let us denote it by
$\varepsilon_{Y}(\mathbf{X})$). Larger values of $CoD$ yield better feature
subspaces ($CoD=0$ means that the feature subspace does not improve the priori
error and $CoD=1$ means that the error was fully eliminated).
### 3.3 Penalization of non-observed instances
A way to embed the error estimation caused by using feature vectors with large
dimensions and insufficient number of samples is to involve non-observed
instances in the criterion value calculus [9]. A positive probability mass is
attributed to the non-observed instances and their contribution is the same as
observing only the $Y$ values with no other observations.
In the case of mean conditional entropy, the non-observed instances get the
entropy equal to $H(Y)$ and, for the $CoD$, they get the prior error
$\varepsilon_{Y}$ value. The probability mass for the non-observed instances
is parametrized by $\alpha$. This parameter is added to the relative frequency
(number of occurrences) of all possible instances. So, the mean conditional
entropy with this type of penalization becomes:
$H(Y|\mathbf{X})=\frac{1}{\alpha
M+s}\left[\alpha(M-N)H(Y)+\sum_{i=1}^{N}(f_{i}+\alpha)H(Y|\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x_{i}})\right]$
(5)
where $M$ is the number of possible instances of the feature vector
$\mathbf{X}$, $N$ is the number of observed instances (so, the number of non-
observed instances is given by $M-N$), $f_{i}$ is the relative frequence
(number of observations) of the instance $\mathbf{x_{i}}$ and $s$ is the
number of samples.
And $CoD$ becomes:
$CoD_{Y}(\mathbf{X})=\frac{\varepsilon_{Y}-\left[\frac{\alpha(M-N)\varepsilon_{Y}}{\alpha
M+s}+1-\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{(f_{i}+\alpha)}{\alpha M+s}\max_{y\in
Y}P(y|\mathbf{x_{i}})\right]}{\varepsilon_{Y}}$ (6)
### 3.4 Penalization of rarely observed instances
In this penalization, the non-observed instances are not taken into account.
This penalization consists in changing the conditional probability
distribution of the instances that have just a unique observation [10]. It
makes sense because if an instance $\mathbf{x}$ has only 1 observation, the
value of $Y$ is fully determined ($H(Y|\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x})=0$ and
$CoD_{Y}(\mathbf{X})=1$), but the confidence about the real distribution of
$P(Y|\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x})$ is very low. A parameter $\beta$ gives a
confidence value that $Y=y$. The main idea is to distrubute $1-\beta$ equally
over all $P(Y\neq y|\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x})$ and to attribute $\beta$ to
$P(Y=y|\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x})$. In Barrera et al [10], the $\beta$ value is
$\frac{1}{|Y|}$ where $|Y|$ is the number of classes (cardinality of $Y$),
becoming the uniform distribution (strongest penalization).
Adapting this penalization to the Equation 3, the mean conditional entropy
becomes:
$H(Y|\mathbf{x})=\frac{M-N}{s}H(F(Y))+\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbf{X}:P(\mathbf{x})>\frac{1}{s}}P(\mathbf{x})H(Y|\mathbf{x})\textrm{,}$
(7)
where $F(Y)$ is the probability distribution given by
$F(i)\>=\>\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\beta,&\textrm{if }i=1\\\
\frac{1-\beta}{c-1},&\textrm{if }i=2,3...,c\end{array}\right.\textrm{,}$
and $N$ in this case is the number of instances $\mathbf{x}$ with
$P(\mathbf{x})>\frac{1}{s}$ (more than one observation).
Since $\varepsilon_{Y}(\mathbf{x})=1-\beta$ when
$P(Y|\mathbf{x})=\frac{1}{t}$, the $CoD$ with this penalization is given by:
$CoD_{Y}(\mathbf{X})=\frac{\varepsilon_{Y}-(1-\frac{(M-N)}{s}\beta-\sum_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbf{X}:P(\mathbf{x})>\frac{1}{s}}P(\mathbf{x})max_{y\in
Y}P(y|\mathbf{x}))}{\varepsilon_{Y}}$ (8)
### 3.5 Classifier design and generalization
After the feature selection using $H$ or $CoD$, the classifier is designed
from the table of conditional probabilities where each row is a possible
instance $\mathbf{x}\in\mathbf{X}$, each column is a possible class $Y=y$ and
each cell of this table represents $P(Y|\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{x})$. This table is
used as a Bayesian classifier where, for each given instance, the chosen label
$Y=y$ is the one with maximum conditional probability for the considered
instance. In case of instances that have two or more labels of maximum
probability (including non-observed instances), it is possible to generalize
these instances according to some criterion. A commonly used criterion is the
nearest neighbors with some distance metric [1]. We implemented the nearest
neighbors using Euclidean distance. In this implementation, the nearest
neighbors are taken successively. The occurrences of each label are summed
until only one of such labels has the maximum number of occurrences and may be
chosen as the class to which the considered instance belongs. This featured
can be turned off. In this case, the label is guessed, i.e., chosen randomly
from the labels with maximum number of occurrences (including non-observed
instances).
## 4 Software description
(a) Upload the biological data
(b) Quantization process
(c) Single execution
(d) Cross-validation
Figure 1: Application panels.
(a) Scatterplot
(b) Parallel coordinates
Figure 2: Examples of scatterplot and parallel coordinates generated by the
software.
The software is implemented in Java in order to be executable in different
platforms. It is open source and intended to be continuously developed in a
world-wide collaboration. The software is available at
http://dimreduction.incubadora.fapesp.br/.
There are four main panels: the first panel allows the user to load the data
set (Figure 1-a). The second is optional for the user to define a quantization
degree to the data set. The quantized data may be visualized (Figure 1-b). It
is worth noting that some feature selection criteria like mean conditional
entropy or CoD require data quantization to discrete values. This fact
explains the quantization step available in the software. The data
quantization is based on a common rule, searching for the extreme values
(positive and negative) and dividing equally the negative and positive space
considering the number of divisions specified by the quantization degree
parameter.
The next step can be the single execution or cross-validation. The first one
is dedicated to perform single tests (Figure 1-c). It is represented by a
panel where the user is able to enter input parameters such as the feature
selection algorithm (see Section 2 for the algorithms implemented) and the
criterion function (see Section 3 for the criteria implemented). Other
implemented utilities, including the visualization results of the feature
selection, area found in the middle of the panel. There are three forms to
visualize the results: graphs (Figure 4), scatterplot (Figure 2-a) and
parallel coordinates (Figure 2-b). The graphs show the connections among
different classes, chosen in feature selection execution, as directed edges
between selected vertices. The parallel coordinates proposed by [11] allows to
visualize in adjacent axes (selected features) similar patterns of behavior in
data, visually indicating how separated are the classes, considering the
adjacent features. In the software application, the features and it and its
order to build he parallel coordinates chart are defined by the user.
The cross-validation panel (Figure 1-d) is very similar to the prior. Cross-
validation [12] consists in to divide the whole data set in two subsets:
training and test, mutually exclusive, and the user can define the size of
both sets. The training set is entered as input to the feature selection
algorithm. The classifier designed from the feature selection and the joint
probability distributions table labels the test set samples. At the end of the
cross-validation process, it is plotted a chart with the results of each
execution, and it is possible to visualize the rate of hits and its variation
along the executions.
Another available option is the generalization of non-observed instances. With
this option selected, the instances of the selected feature set not present in
the training samples are generalized by a nearest neighbors method [1] with
Euclidean distance (see Section 3.5 for more details). This method is also
applied to take a decision among classes with tied maximum conditional
probability distributions given a certain instance.
## 5 Illustrative Results
This section presents the results in two main aspects. Initially the software
was applied as feature selection in a biological classification problem to
classify breast cancer cells in two possible classes: benign and malignant.
The biological data used here was obtained from [13] which has 589 instances
and 32 features. The results shown figure 3, presents very low variations and
high accurate classification achieving 99.96% of accuracy on average.
Figure 3: Cross-validation results using 10 executions, 80% of data as
training set and 20% as test set. Figure 4: Identified network: dashed lines
represent the false positives and solid lines the positives. There are no
false negatives.
The second computational biology problem addressed was gene network recovery.
In this case we used an artificial gene network generated by the approach
presented in [14]. The parameters used were: 10 nodes, binary quantization, 20
observations (timestamps), 1 average of edges per vertex and Random graphs of
Erdös-Rényi as network architecture. In figure 4, it is presented the network
recovered. This result did not present false negatives and just few false
positives.
## 6 Conclusion
The proposed feature selection environment allows data analysis using several
algorithms, criterion functions and graphic visualization tools. Since it is
an open-source and multi-platform software, it is suitable for the user that
wants to analyze data and draw some conclusions about it, as well as for the
specialist that has as objective to compare several combinations of approaches
and parameters for each specific data set or to include more features in the
software such as a new algorithm or a new criterion function. This system can
evolve and include feature extraction methods as well, not limited only to
feature selection methods.
The environment can be used in many pattern recognition applications, although
the main concern is with Bioinformatics tasks, especially those involving
high-dimensional data (large number of genes, for example) with small number
of samples. Even users not familiar with programming are allowed to manipulate
the software in an easy way, just by clicking to select file inputs,
quantization, algorithms, criterion functions, error estimation methods and
visualization of the results. The environment is implemented as “wizard
style”, i.e., it has tabs delimiting each procedure.
This software opens a great space for future works. The next step consists in
the implementation of other classical feature selection algorithms (e.g. GSFS
and PTA [1, 15]), criterion functions (e.g. based on distances between classes
[1]), error estimation methods (e.g. Leave-one-out and Bootstrap) and then the
inclusion of classical methods of feature extraction (e.g. PCA [16]).
## Acknowledgement
This work was supported by FAPESP, CNPq and CAPES.
## References
* [1] S. Theodoridis and K. Koutroumbas. Pattern Recognition. Academic Press, USA, 1st edition, 1999.
* [2] A. K. Jain, R. P. W. Duin, and J. Mao. Statistical pattern recognition: A review. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 22(1):4–37, 2000.
* [3] R. O. Duda, P. E. Hart, and D. Stork. Pattern Classification. Wiley-Interscience, NY, 2000.
* [4] T. E. Campos. Técnicas de seleção de características com aplicações em reconhecimento de faces. Master’s thesis, IME-USP, 2001.
* [5] P. Pudil, J. Novovicova, and J. Kittler. Floating search methods in feature-selection. PRL, 15(11):1119–1125, November 1994.
* [6] E. R. Dougherty, S. Kim, and Y. Chen. Coefficient of determination in nonlinear signal processing. Signal Processing, 80:2219–2235, 2000.
* [7] C. E. Shannon. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27:379–423, 623–656, July, October 1948.
* [8] T. Hsing, L. Liu, Marcel Brun, and E. R. Dougherty. The coefficient of intrinsic dependence (feature selection using el cid). Pattern Recognition, 38(5):623–636, 2005.
* [9] D. C. Martins-Jr, R. M. Cesar-Jr, and J. Barrera. W-operator window design by minimization of mean conditional entropy. Pattern Analysis & Applications, 9:139–153, 2006.
* [10] J. Barrera, R. M. Cesar-Jr, D. C. Martins-Jr, R. Z. N. Vencio, E. F. Merino, M. M. Yamamoto, F. G. Leonardi, C. A. B. Pereira, and H. A. del Portillo. Constructing probabilistic genetic networks of Plasmodium falciparum from dynamical expression signals of the intraerythrocytic development cycle, chapter 2, pages 11–26. Springer, 2006.
* [11] A. Inselberg. The plane with parallel coordinates. The Visual Computer, 1(2):69–91, 1985.
* [12] Ron Kohavi. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In IJCAI, pages 1137–1145, 1995.
* [13] A. Asuncion and D.J. Newman. UCI machine learning repository, 2007.
* [14] F. M. Lopes, R. M. Cesar-Jr, and L. F. Costa. Agn simulation and validation model. In Proceedings of Brazilian Symposium on Bioinformatics (in press), 2008.
* [15] P. Somol, P. Pudil, J. Novovicov , and P. Pacl k. Adaptive floating search methods in feature selection. Pattern Recognition Letters, 20:1157–1163, 1999.
* [16] I. T. Jolliffe. Principal component analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-26T14:16:06 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.971694 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Fabricio Martins Lopes, David Correa Martins-Jr and Roberto M.\n Cesar-Jr",
"submitter": "Fabricio Martins Lopes",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3964"
} |
0805.4027 |
UDC 512
© 2003
T. R. Seifullin
Continuation of root functionals of a system
of polynomial equations and the reduction of polynomials
modulo its ideal
(Presented by Corresponding Member of the NAS of Ukraine A. A. Letichevsky)
The notion of a root functional of a system of polynomials or an ideal of
polynomials is a generalization of the notion of a root for a multiple root.
The operation of continuation of root functionals and the operation of
reduction of polynomials modulo the ideal are constructed on the basis of the
operation of extension of bounded root functionals when the number of
equations is equal to the number of unknowns and the number of roots is
finite.
The notion of a root functional arose at the investigation of linear relations
of polynomials with polynomial coefficients (syzygies) and is a generalization
of the notion of a root for the case including also and multiple roots [1-6].
An bounded root functional characterize roots of a system of polynomial
equations including also and in infinity. A linear functional this is an
infinitely component object, therefore there arise the problem of its finite
determination and operating by it in such a representation. An extension
operation of bounded root functionals allows to continue a functional from its
determination on the space of polynomials of the bounded degree, and also by
this operations to reduce a polynomial modulo ideal, when the number of roots
taking in account of multiplicity is finite. An extension operation is defined
for a system of polynomials, in which the number of polynomials is equal to
the number of variables.
Let ${\bf R}$ be a commutative ring with unity $1$ and zero $0$.
Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ be variables, ${\bf R}[x]$ be the ring of
polynomials in variables $x$ with coefficients in ${\bf R}$.
In the paper we will use definition and assumption, given in [6].
Let $L(x_{*})$ be a functional in ${\bf R}[x]_{*}$, $G(x)$ be a polynomial in
${\bf R}[x]$, denote by $L(x_{*})G(x)$ a functional with the following action:
$L(x_{*})G(x).F(x)=L(x_{*}).G(x)F(x)$, where $F(x)\in{\bf R}[x]$.
Definition 1. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $y\simeq x$ be variables, $f(x)=$
$(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials.
1\. For a functional $L(x_{*})$ denote by $\left[L(x_{*})\right]$ the operator
$L(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla f(x,y)&\nabla_{x}(x,y)\cr f(x)&{\bf
1}_{x}(x)\end{matrix}\right\|=L(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla
f(x,y)&\nabla_{x}(x,y)\cr f(y)&{\bf 1}_{x}(y)\end{matrix}\right\|.$
Note that since $\nabla_{x}(x,y)$ is linear over ${\bf R}$ operator, then
operator $\left[L(x_{*})\right]$ is linear over ${\bf R}$.
2\. For a functional $L(x_{*})$ and a polynomial $F(x)$ denote by
$L(x_{*})*F(x)=\left[L(x_{*})\right].F(x)$, then
$L(x_{*})*F(x)=L(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla f(x,y)&\nabla
F(x,y)\cr
f(x)&F(x)\end{matrix}\right\|=L(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla
f(x,y)&\nabla F(x,y)\cr f(y)&F(y)\end{matrix}\right\|.$
3\. For functionals $l(x_{*})$ and $L(x_{*})$ denote by
$l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})=l(x_{*}).\left[L(x_{*})\right]$, then
$l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})=l(x_{*}).L(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla
f(x,y)&\nabla_{x}(x,y)\cr f(x)&{\bf 1}_{x}(x)\end{matrix}\right\|=$
$=\ l(x_{*}).L(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla
f(x,y)&\nabla_{x}(x,y)\cr f(y)&{\bf 1}_{x}(y)\end{matrix}\right\|.$
This map $*$ we call an extension operation.
Lemma 1. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials, then for functionals
$l(x_{*})$, $L(x_{*})$ and a polynomial $F(x)\in{\bf R}[x]$ there holds
$l(x_{*})*L(x_{*}).F(x)=l(x_{*}).L(x_{*})*F(x)=l(x_{*}).\left[L(x_{*})\right].F(x).$
Proof.
$l(x_{*})*L(x_{*}).F(x)=\left(l(x_{*}).\left[L(x_{*})\right]\right).F(x)=\vskip
3.0pt plus 1.0pt minus 1.0ptl(x_{*}).\left(\left[L(x_{*})\right].F(x)\right)=$
$=l(x_{*}).L(x_{*})*F(x).$
Lemma 2. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $y\simeq x$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials, then for any functional
$l(x_{*})$ there holds
$l(x_{*})*1=l(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|.$
Proof. Set $F(x)=1$, then $\nabla F(x,y)=0$. We have
$l(x_{*})*1=l(x_{*})*F(x)=$
$=l(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla f(x,y)&\nabla F(x,y)\cr
f(x)&F(x)\end{matrix}\right\|=l(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla
f(x,y)&0\cr f(x)&F(x)\end{matrix}\right\|=$
$=l(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|\cdot
F(x)=l(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|\cdot
1=l(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|.$
Theorem 1. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials,
${\delta}_{f}=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}(\deg(f_{i})-1)$. Let $\forall
i=1,2:L_{i}(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{i}}_{x}$, where
${\delta}_{i}\geq 0$, then
$L_{1}(x_{*})*L_{2}(x_{*})=L_{2}(x_{*})*L_{1}(x_{*})\hbox{ in }{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{1}+{\delta}_{2}+1}].$
Proof. This is the reformulation of theorem 4 in [6].
Theorem 2. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials,
${\delta}_{f}=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}(\deg(f_{i})-1)$.
1\. Let $\forall i=1,2,3:L_{i}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{i}}_{x}$, where ${\delta}_{i}\geq 0$, then
$\left(L_{1}(x_{*})*L_{2}(x_{*})\right)*L_{3}(x_{*})=L_{1}(x_{*})*\left(L_{2}(x_{*})*L_{3}(x_{*})\right)\hbox{
in }{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{1}+{\delta}_{2}+{\delta}_{3}+2}].$
2\. Let $\forall i=1,2:L_{i}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{i}}_{x}$, where ${\delta}_{i}\geq 0$, let
$F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq d}]$, then
$\left[L_{1}(x_{*})*L_{2}(x_{*})\right].F(x)\buildrel(f(x))^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d-{\delta}_{1}-{\delta}_{2}-2)}_{x}\over{\equiv}\left[L_{1}(x_{*})\right].\left[L_{2}(x_{*})\right].F(x)$
and
$\left[L_{2}(x_{*})\right].\left[L_{1}(x_{*})\right].F(x)\buildrel(f(x))^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d-{\delta}_{1}-{\delta}_{2}-2)}_{x}\over{\equiv}\left[L_{1}(x_{*})\right].\left[L_{2}(x_{*})\right].F(x).$
Proof. This theorem is non-trivial and its proof is laborious, therefore it
will be given in the subsequent papers.
Theorem 3. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $y\simeq x$ be variables, $f(x)=$
$(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials,
${\delta}_{f}=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}(\deg(f_{i})-1)$, let $l(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))_{x}$, let $F(x)\in{\bf R}[x]$, then:
1)
$l(x_{*})*F(x)=l(y_{*})\cdot F(y).\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|$
and
$l(x_{*})*F(x)=\left[l(x_{*})\right].F(x)=\left(l(y_{*})\cdot\det\|\nabla
f(x,y)\|\right).F(y);$
2) $l(x_{*})*F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$;
3) $l(x_{*})*F(x)$ is uniquely determined, up to addend in
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}_{x}$, under non-uniqueness of $\nabla f(x,y)$, and
not depend on $\nabla F(x,y)$;
4) if $F(x)\in(f(x))_{x}$, then $l(x_{*})*F(x)=0$.
Proof 1,2.
$l(x_{*})*F(x)=l(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla f(x,y)&\nabla
F(x,y)\cr
f(y)&F(y)\end{matrix}\right\|=l(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla
f(x,y)&\nabla F(x,y)\cr 0&F(y)\end{matrix}\right\|=$
$=l(y_{*}).F(y)\cdot\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|=l(y_{*})\cdot
F(y).\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|.$
The second equality holds, since $l(y_{*})$ annuls $(f(y))_{y}$. The obtained
polynomial $\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$, since $\det\left\|\nabla
f(x,y)\right\|$ has a degree $\leq{\delta}_{f}$ in $x$.
Proof 3. From 1 of the theorem see, that $l(x_{*})*F(x)$ not depend on $\nabla
F(x,y)$. The functional $l(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+d}_{x}$
for any $d\geq 0$, then by virtue of 2 of theorem 2 in [6] the polynomial
$l(x_{*})*F(x)$ is uniquely determined up to addend belonging to
$(f(x))^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},\deg(F)-d-1)}_{x}$, independently of the choice
of $\nabla f(x,y)$. For sufficiently large $d$,
$\max({\delta}_{f},\deg(F)-d-1)=$ ${\delta}_{f}$. Hence, $l(x_{*})*F(x)$ is
uniquely determined up to addend in $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}_{x}$,
independently of the choice of $\nabla f(x,y)$.
Proof 4. By virtue of 1 of the theorem there holds
$l(x_{*})*F(x)=l(y_{*}).F(y)\cdot\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|=0.$
The last equality holds, since $F(y)\in(f(y))_{y}$, and $l(y_{*})$ annuls
$(f(y))_{y}$.
Theorem 4. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $y\simeq x$ be variables, $f(x)=$
$(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials,
${\delta}_{f}=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}(\deg(f_{i})-1)$, let $l(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))_{x}$, $L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}$,
where ${\delta}\geq 0$, then:
1) $L(x_{*})*l(x_{*})=l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})$;
2) $l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})=l(x_{*})\cdot\left(L(y_{*}).\det\|\nabla
f(x,y)\|\right)$;
3) $l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})$ is uniquely determined, independently of the choice of
$\nabla f(x,y)$, and not depend on the operator $\nabla_{x}(x,y)$;
4) $l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$;
5) $l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})$ not depend on the action of $L(x_{*})$ outside ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$.
Proof 1. Since $l(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+d}_{x}$ for any
$d\geq 0$, $L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}$, then by
virtue of theorem 1 $l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})=L(x_{*})*l(x_{*})$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+d+1}]$, and mean, and in the whole ${\bf
R}[x]$ by the arbitrariness of $d\geq 0$.
Proof 2. Let $F(x)\in{\bf R}[x]$, then
$l(x_{*})*L(x_{*}).F(x)=l(x_{*}).L(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla
f(x,y)&\nabla F(x,y)\cr f(x)&F(x)\end{matrix}\right\|=$
$\qquad=l(x_{*}).L(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla f(x,y)&\nabla
F(x,y)\cr 0&F(x)\end{matrix}\right\|=l(x_{*}).L(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla
f(x,y)\right\|\cdot F(x)=$
$\qquad=l(x_{*})\cdot\left(L(y_{*}).\det\|\nabla f(x,y)\|\right).F(x).$
From the arbitrariness of $F(x)$ we have the equality of functionals
$l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})=l(x_{*})\cdot\left(L(y_{*}).\det\|\nabla f(x,y)\|\right).$
Proof 3. From 2 see, that $l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})$ not depend on $\nabla_{x}(x,y)$.
Since $l(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+d}_{x}$ for any $d\geq 0$,
$L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}$, then by virtue of
1 of theorem 3 in [6] $l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})$ is uniquely determined in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+d+1}]$ independently of the choice of $\nabla
f(x,y)$, and mean, is uniquely determined in the whole ${\bf R}[x]$ by the
arbitrariness of $d\geq 0$.
Proof 4. From 2 see, that $l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$, since
$l(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$.
Proof 5. From 2 see, that $l(x_{*})*L(x_{*})$ not depend on the action of
$L(x_{*})$ outside ${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$, since $\det\left\|\nabla
f(x,y)\right\|$ has a degree $\leq{\delta}_{f}$ in $y$.
Definition 2. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $y\simeq x$ be variables, let
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials. A functional $E(x_{*})$ we
call a unit root functional of polynomials $f(x)$, if it annuls $(f(x))_{x}$,
and $E(x_{*})*1=E(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|=1+f(x)\cdot g(x)$. A
functional $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ we call a unit bounded root functional of
polynomials $f(x)$, if it annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$, where ${\varepsilon}\geq 0$,
and $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*1=E^{\prime}(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla
f(x,y)\right\|=1+f(x)\cdot g(x)$.
Lemma 3. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $y\simeq x$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials. Let a functional $E(x_{*})$
annuls $(f(x))_{x}$, and $E(x_{*})*1-1\in$ $(f(x))_{x}$, let
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})=E(x_{*})$ in ${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$,
where ${\varepsilon}\geq 0$. Then $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$ and
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})*1-1\in(f(x))_{x}$.
Proof. $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*1=E^{\prime}(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla
f(x,y)\right\|=E(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|=$ $E(x_{*})*1$, since
$E^{\prime}(y_{*})=E(y_{*})$ in ${\bf R}[y^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$
and $\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|$ has a degree $\leq{\delta}_{f}$ in $y$.
Hence, $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*1-1=$ $E(x_{*})*1$ $-1\in(f(x))_{x}$. Since
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ $=E(x_{*})$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$ and $E(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}\subseteq{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$, then and $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$.
Theorem 5. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $y\simeq x$ be variables, $f(x)=$
$(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials,
${\delta}_{f}=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}(\deg(f_{i})-1)$. Let a functional
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$,
where ${\varepsilon}\geq 0$, and $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*1-1\in(f(x))_{x}$, then:
1) if $F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq d}]$, then
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d-{\varepsilon}-1)}]$
and
$F(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d)}];$
2) if $l(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$, then
$l(x_{*})=E^{\prime}(x_{*})*l(x_{*})=l(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*});$
3) if $l(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$ and $L^{\prime}(x_{*})=l(x_{*})$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$, where ${\delta}\geq 0$, then
$l(x_{*})=E^{\prime}(x_{*})*L^{\prime}(x_{*})=L^{\prime}(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})\hbox{
in }{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1}];$
4) if a functional $L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$, where ${\delta}\geq 0$, then
$L(x_{*})=E^{\prime}(x_{*})*L(x_{*})=L(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})\hbox{ in }{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$
and $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*L(x_{*})=L(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1}]$.
Proof 1. Since $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$ and $F(x)\in$ ${\bf R}[x^{\leq
d}]$, then by virtue of 1 of theorem 2 in [6] $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d-{\varepsilon}-1)}]$. Then
$F(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq d}]+{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d-{\varepsilon}-1)}]=$
$={\bf R}[x^{\leq\max(d,\max({\delta}_{f},d-{\varepsilon}-1))}]={\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d)}].$
Moreover,
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)=$
$\qquad=E^{\prime}(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla f(x,y)&\nabla
F(x,y)\cr
f(x)&F(x)\end{matrix}\right\|\buildrel(f(x))_{x}\over{\equiv}E^{\prime}(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla
f(x,y)&\nabla F(x,y)\cr 0&F(x)\end{matrix}\right\|=$
$\qquad=\left(E^{\prime}(y_{*}).\det\|\nabla f(x,y)\|\right)\cdot
F(x)=\left(1+f(x)\cdot g(x)\right)\cdot
F(x)\buildrel(f(x))_{x}\over{\equiv}F(x),$
then $F(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in(f(x))_{x}$. Finally,
$F(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d)}]$.
Proof 2. Since $l(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$, $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$, then by virtue of 1 of theorem
4 there holds $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*l(x_{*})=l(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})$, and by
virtue of 2 of theorem 4
$l(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})=l(x_{*})\cdot(E^{\prime}(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla
f(x,y)\right\|)=l(x_{*})\cdot(1+f(x)\cdot g(x))=l(x_{*}).$
The last equality holds, since $l(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$, and since
$l(x_{*})\cdot 1=l(x_{*})$.
Proof 3. Since $L^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}$, and $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$, then by virtue of theorem 1
$L^{\prime}(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})=E^{\prime}(x_{*})*L^{\prime}(x_{*})$ in
${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1}]$. Since and
$L^{\prime}(x_{*})=l(x_{*})$ in ${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$, then
by virtue of 3 of theorem 3 in [6]
$l(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})=L^{\prime}(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1}]$. By virtue of 2 of the
theorem $l(x_{*})=l(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})$. Hence, there holds
$l(x_{*})=L^{\prime}(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})=E^{\prime}(x_{*})*L^{\prime}(x_{*})$
in ${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1}]$.
Proof 4. Let $F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$, then
$\max({\delta}_{f},{\delta}_{f}+{\delta})={\delta}_{f}+{\delta}$, since
${\delta}\geq 0$. By virtue of the second statement of 1 of the theorem
$F(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},{\delta}_{f}+{\delta})}]=(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}],$
and therefore is annulled by $L(x_{*})$. We have, by using of the second
equality of lemma 1,
$0=L(x_{*}).(F(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x))=L(x_{*}).F(x)-L(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*}).F(x),$
hence, from the arbitrariness of $F(x)\in{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$, $L(x_{*})=L(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ in
${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$. Since $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$, $L(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]\supseteq(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}$,
and mean, and $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}$, then by virtue of
theorem 1 $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*L(x_{*})=L(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1}]\supseteq{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$, and hence, and in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$.
Let $F(x)\in(f(x))^{\leq d}_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1}]$. Since $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$
annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$, then by virtue of the
first statement of 1 $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in$ ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},{\delta}_{f}+({\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1)-{\varepsilon}-1)}]={\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},{\delta}_{f}+{\delta})}]={\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$, and by virtue of 3 of theorem 2 in [6]
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in(f(x))^{\leq d-{\varepsilon}-1}_{x}$, hence, the
polynomial $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$. From the last it follows that there holds
the equality
$L(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*}).F(x)=L(x_{*}).E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)=0$, since
$L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$.
Hence, from the arbitrariness of a polynomial $F(x)\in(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1}]$, the functional
$L(x_{*})*E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1}]$.
Theorem 6. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $y\simeq x$ be variables, $f(x)=$
$(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials,
${\delta}_{f}=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}(\deg(f_{i})-1)$. Let $E(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))_{x}$ and $E(x_{*})*1-1\in(f(x))_{x}$, then:
1) if $F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq d}]$, then
$E(x_{*})*F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$
and
$F(x)-E(x_{*})*F(x)\in(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d)}];$
2) if $l(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$, then
$l(x_{*})=E(x_{*})*l(x_{*})=l(x_{*})*E(x_{*})=E(x_{*})\cdot\left(l(y_{*}).\det\|\nabla
f(x,y)\|\right);$
3) if $l(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$, and $L^{\prime}(x_{*})=l(x_{*})$ in
${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$, where ${\delta}\geq 0$, then
$l(x_{*})=E(x_{*})*L^{\prime}(x_{*})=L^{\prime}(x_{*})*E(x_{*});$
4) if a functional $L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$, where ${\delta}\geq 0$, then
$L(x_{*})=E(x_{*})*L(x_{*})=L(x_{*})*E(x_{*})\hbox{ in }{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}];$
note that $E(x_{*})*L(x_{*})=L(x_{*})*E(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$;
5) if $l(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$, then it is uniquely determined its the
action on ${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$.
Proof. For any ${\varepsilon}\geq 0$ the functional $E(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$.
Proof 1. From 1 of theorem 5 it follows that
$F(x)-E(x_{*})*F(x)\in(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d)}]$
and $\forall{\varepsilon}\geq 0:$ $E(x_{*})*F(x)\in{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d-{\varepsilon}-1)}]$, hence,
$E(x_{*})*F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$.
Proof 2. From 2 of theorem 5 it follows that
$l(x_{*})=E(x_{*})*l(x_{*})=l(x_{*})*E(x_{*}),$
and since $E(x_{*})$ and $l(x_{*})$ annul $(f(x))_{x}$, then from 2 of theorem
4 it follows that
$l(x_{*})*E(x_{*})=E(x_{*})\cdot\left(l(y_{*}).\det\|\nabla f(x,y)\|\right).$
Proof 3 and 5. From 3 of theorem 5 it follows that
$l(x_{*})=E(x_{*})*L^{\prime}(x_{*})=L^{\prime}(x_{*})*E(x_{*})\hbox{ in }{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1}].$
From the arbitrariness of ${\varepsilon}\geq 0$ we obtain that
$l(x_{*})=E(x_{*})*L^{\prime}(x_{*})=L^{\prime}(x_{*})*E(x_{*})\hbox{ in }{\bf
R}[x].$
Since the equality holds for any $L^{\prime}(x)$ such that
$L^{\prime}(x_{*})=l(x_{*})$ in ${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]$, then
$l(x_{*})$ is uniquely determined its the action in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$.
Proof 4. The first statement it follows from the first statement of 4 of
theorem 5. The second statement it follows from 1 and 4 of theorem 4, since
$L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}$ and $E(x_{*})$
annuls $(f(x))_{x}$.
Theorem 7. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $y\simeq x$ be variables, $f(x)=$
$(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials,
${\delta}_{f}=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}(\deg(f_{i})-1)$. Let $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$
annuls $(f(x))_{x}$, or annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$,
where ${\varepsilon}\geq 0$, and $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*1-1\in(f(x))_{x}$. Then:
1) ${\bf R}[x]/(f(x))_{x}$ coincide with the set of all elements of the form
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)/(f(x))_{x}$, where $F(x)\in{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$. Moreover, $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$.
2) $(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq d^{\prime}}]$, where
$d^{\prime}\geq{\delta}_{f}$, coincide with the set of all elements of the
form $F(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)$, where $F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq
d^{\prime}}]$.
Proof. If the functional $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$, then for any
${\varepsilon}\geq 0$ it annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$.
Therefore the statement it suffices to prove for the case, when the functional
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$ for
${\varepsilon}\geq 0$.
Consider the sequence of polynomials $G_{0}(x)$, $\forall p\geq 0:G_{p+1}(x)=$
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})*G_{p}(x)$.
Proof 1. Let $G_{0}(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq d}]$, since $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$
annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$, by virtue of the second
statement of 1 of theorem 5 there hold
$G_{0}(x)-G_{1}(x)=G_{0}(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*G_{0}(x)\in(f(x))_{x},$
$\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots,$
$G_{p-1}(x)-G_{p}(x)=G_{p-1}(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*G_{p-1}(x)\in(f(x))_{x}.$
Hence,
$S(x)=G_{0}(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*G_{p-1}(x)=G_{0}(x)-G_{p}(x)\in(f(x))_{x}$,
then there holds $G_{0}(x)=$ $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*G_{p-1}(x)+S(x)$. And by
virtue of the first statement of 1 of theorem 5 there hold
$G_{1}(x)=E^{\prime}(x_{*})*G_{0}(x)\in{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d-({\varepsilon}+1))}],$
$\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots.\,.,$
$G_{p}(x)=E^{\prime}(x_{*})*G_{p-1}(x)\in{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d-p\cdot({\varepsilon}+1))}].$
For sufficiently large $p$ there holds
$\max({\delta}_{f},d-(p-1)\cdot({\varepsilon}+1))={\delta}_{f}$. Hence,
$F(x)=G_{p-1}(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$. We finally obtain, that any
polynomial $G_{0}(x)$ is of the form $G_{0}(x)=E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)+S(x)$,
where $S(x)\in(f(x))_{x}$, $F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$. Hence, any
polynomial in ${\bf R}[x]/(f(x))_{x}$ is of the form
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)/(f(x))_{x}$, where $F(x)\in$ ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$.
Otherwise, if $F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$, then
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)/(f(x))_{x}\in{\bf R}[x]/(f(x))_{x}$. Moreover, since
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$, then
by virtue of the first statement of 1 of theorem 5 there holds
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)\in{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},{\delta}_{f}-{\varepsilon}-1)}]=$ ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$.
Proof 2. Let $G_{0}(x)\in(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq d^{\prime}}]$, then
$G_{0}(x)\in(f(x))^{\leq d}_{x}$ for some $d$. Since $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$
annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$, by virtue of 3 of
theorem 2 in [6] there hold
$G_{1}(x)=E^{\prime}(x_{*})*G_{0}(x)\in(f(x))^{\leq d-({\varepsilon}+1)}_{x},$
$\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots\ldots.\,.\,,$
$G_{p}(x)=E^{\prime}(x_{*})*G_{p-1}(x)\in(f(x))^{\leq
d-p\cdot({\varepsilon}+1)}_{x}.$
For sufficiently large $p:d-p\cdot({\varepsilon}+1)<0$, hence, $G_{p}(x)=0$.
Set $P=p$, then
$G_{0}(x)=\sum\limits^{P-1}_{p=0}\left(G_{p}(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*G_{p}(x)\right)=\left(\sum\limits^{P-1}_{p=0}G_{p}(x)\right)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*\left(\sum\limits^{P-1}_{p=0}G_{p}(x)\right).\hphantom{cc}$
By virtue of the first statement of 1 of theorem 5 $\forall p\geq
0:G_{p}(x)\in{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d^{\prime}-p\cdot({\varepsilon}+1))}]\subseteq$
${\bf R}[x^{\leq d^{\prime}}]$, since $d^{\prime}\geq{\delta}_{f}$. Hence, any
$G_{0}(x)\in$ $(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq d^{\prime}}]$ is of the form
$F(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)$, where $F(x)=\sum\limits^{P-1}_{p=0}G_{p}(x)\in$
${\bf R}[x^{\leq d^{\prime}}]$.
Otherwise, let $F(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq d^{\prime}}]$; then by virtue of the
second statement of 1 of theorem 5 the polynomial
$F(x)-E^{\prime}(x_{*})*F(x)$ belongs to $(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq\max({\delta}_{f},d^{\prime})}]=(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq
d^{\prime}}]$, since $d^{\prime}\geq{\delta}_{f}$.
1. 1.
Seifullin, T. R. Root functionals and root polynomials of a system of
polynomials. (Russian) Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukraïni – 1995, – no. 5, 5–8.
2. 2.
Seifullin, T. R. Root functionals and root relations of a system of
polynomials. (Russian) Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukraïni – 1995, – no 6, 7–10.
3. 3.
Seifullin, T. R. Homology of the Koszul complex of a system of polynomial
equations. (Russian) Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukr. Mat. Prirodozn. Tekh. Nauki
1997, no. 9, 43–49.
4. 4.
Seifullin, T. R. Koszul complexes of systems of polynomials connected by
linear dependence. (Russian) Some problems in contemporary mathematics
(Russian), 326–349, Pr. Inst. Mat. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukr. Mat. Zastos., 25,
Natsional. Akad. Nauk Ukraïni, Inst. Mat., Kiev, 1998.
5. 5.
Seifullin, T. R. Koszul complexes of embedded systems of polynomials and
duality. (Russian) Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukr. Mat. Prirodozn. Tekh. Nauki
2000, no. 6, 26–34.
6. 6.
Seifullin, T. R. Extension of bounded root functionals of a system of
polynomial equations. Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukr. Mat. Prirodozn. Tekh. Nauki
2002, no. 7, 35–42. arxiv:0804.2420.
7. 7.
Buchberger B. Gröbner: An algorithmic method in polynomial ideal theory
//Multidimensional Systems Theory. / Ed. N. K. Bose, – Dordrecht: D. Reidel,
1985. – Chapter 6.
8. 8.
Caniglia L., Galligo A., Heintz J. Some new effictivity bounds in
computational geometry. // Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Appied Algebra and
Error–correcting codes. / LNCS 357, Springer–Verlag, Berlin. – 1989. – pp.
131–152.
9. 9.
Brownawell D. Bounds for the degrees in the Nullstellensatz. // Ann. Math. 2nd
series. – 1987. – No 126. – pp. 577–591.
10. 10.
Canny J. Generalized characteristic polynomials. // J.Symbolic Computation. –
1990. – No 9. – pp. 241–250.
V. M. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics of the NAS of Ukraine, Kiev Received
26.06.2002
E-mail: timur_sf@mail.ru
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-27T18:51:23 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.976872 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Timur R. Seifullin",
"submitter": "Timur R. Seifullin",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4027"
} |
0805.4273 | # On pluricanonical systems of algebraic varieties of general type
Meng Chen Institute of Mathematics, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, China
mchen@fudan.edu.cn
###### Abstract.
We extend Kollár’s technique to look for an explicit function $h(n)$ with
$\varphi_{m}$ birational onto its image for all integers $m\geq h(n)$ and for
all $n$-dimensional nonsingular projective varieties of general type.
Supported by National Outstanding Young Scientist Foundation (#10625103) and
NNSFC Key project (#10731030)
## 1\. Introduction
One of the fundamental problems in birational geometry is to find a constant
$r_{n}>0$ such that the $r_{n}$-canonical map is an Iitaka fibration for any
$n$-dimensional projective variety with positive Kodaira dimension. It is
well-known that one may take $r_{2}=5$ (see Bombieri [2]) for surfaces of
general type. The existence of $r_{n}$ for varieties of general type was
proved by Hacon-M${}^{\text{c}}$kernan [10], Takayama [19] and Tsuji [20] and,
recently, $r_{3}\leq 73$ was proved by Chen-Chen [6, Theorem 1.1]. Some other
relevant results with regard to the existence of $r_{n}$ have been already
proved by Chen-Hacon [3], Pacienza [15] and Viehweg-Zhang [23]. The following
problem, however, is still open:
###### Problem 1.1.
To find an explicit constant $\mu_{n}$ ($n\geq 4$) such that the m-canonical
map $\varphi_{m}$ is birational onto its image for all $m\geq\mu_{n}$ and for
all $n$-dimensional projective varieties of general type.
Let $V$ be a $n$-dimensional nonsingular projective variety of general type.
Denote by $K_{V}$ a canonical divisor on $V$. A reasonable strategy for
studying Problem 1.1 is composed of two steps:
* [a
] To find a positive integer $m_{0}$ such that $h^{0}(V,m_{0}K_{V})\geq 2$;
* [b
] To find an explicit function $g(m_{0},n)$ such that the $m$-canonical map
$\varphi_{m}$ is birational for all $m\geq g(m_{0},n)$.
This strategy works well in dimension 3 (see, for instance, [5, 6]). In fact,
since Reid [17] has found the Riemann-Roch formula for minimal 3-folds, we [5,
Theorem 1.1] managed to prove $h^{0}(V,m_{0}K_{V})\geq 2$ by utilizing that
formula. On the other hand, Kollár [14] and myself [8] have an effective
formula in dimension 3 for Step (b). Generally, for Step [a], since the
classification to 4-dimensional terminal singularities is still incomplete,
there is no known Riemann-Roch formula for $\chi(mK)$ on minimal varieties.
Thus to compute $P_{m}:=h^{0}(V,m_{0}K_{V})$ is still expected. Though Kollár
[14] has essentially solved Step [b], what we are more concerned here is the
stable birationality, to be worked out by an improved and generalized
technique, of linear systems $|mK+\lceil{Q}\rceil|$ where $Q$ is any nef
${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor. Hence this paper can be regarded as a remark or
complementary to Kollár’s method. We will build up some new results about
induced fibrations from pluricanonical systems.
Assume $P_{m_{0}}(V):=h^{0}(V,{\mathcal{O}}_{V}(m_{0}K_{V}))\geq 2$ for some
positive integer $m_{0}$. Set $\varphi_{m_{0}}:=\Phi_{|m_{0}K_{V}|}$, the
$m_{0}$-canonical map of $V$. We define the $m_{0}$-canonical dimension
$\iota:=\dim\overline{\varphi_{m_{0}}(V)}$. Clearly $1\leq\iota\leq n$. In
order to formulate our statements, we introduce the following:
###### Definition 1.2.
Define $\lambda(V)$ to be the smallest positive integer such that
$P_{\lambda(V)}(V)\geq 2$ for a given $n$-dimensional projective variety $V$
of general type. Define $\lambda_{n}:=\text{sup}\\{\lambda(V)|\dim(V)=n\\}$.
###### Remark 1.3.
According to Hacon-M${}^{\text{c}}$kernan [10], Takayama [19] and Tsuji [20],
one knows $\lambda_{n}<+\infty$. Therefore an assumption like $P_{m_{0}}\geq
2$ is reasonable and natural.
The main result of this paper is the following which, at least, induces new
results for the case $n=4$:
###### Theorem 1.4.
Let $V$ be a $n$-dimensional ($n\geq 3$) nonsingular projective variety of
general type. Let $Q$ be a nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $V$. Assume
$P_{m_{0}}\geq 2$ for some positive integer $m_{0}$. Then the linear system
$|mK_{V}+\lceil{Q}\rceil|$ defines a birational map onto its image for all
integers $m\geq\varepsilon(\iota)$ where $\varepsilon(\iota)$ is a function as
follows:
* (1)
when $\iota\geq n-2$,
$\varepsilon(\iota)=\text{min}\\{4m_{0}+4,57\\}\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}+m_{0}(n-2)+2$;
* (2)
when $\iota=n-3$, $\varepsilon(\iota)=75(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}+m_{0}(n-3)+2$;
* (3)
when $\iota\leq n-4$,
$\varepsilon(\iota)=(2m_{0}+1)^{\iota-1}w_{n-\iota+1}+m_{0}(\iota-1)+2$ where
$w_{n-\iota+1}$ can be obtained by the number sequence
$\\{w_{t}\\}_{t=4}^{n-\iota+1}$ with
$w_{i}=\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}+w_{i-1}(2\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}+1)$,
$w_{4}=151\widetilde{\lambda}_{4}+75$, $\widetilde{\lambda}_{n-\iota+1}=m_{0}$
and, for all other $i$, $\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}=\lambda_{i}$.
By taking $Q=0$, $\varphi_{m}$ is birational for all integers
$m\geq\varepsilon(\iota)$.
In particular we have the following:
###### Corollary 1.5.
Let $V$ be a nonsingular projective n-dimensional ($n\geq 4$) variety of
general type. Then $\varphi_{m}$ is birational for all integers $m\geq
w_{n}+2$ where $w_{n}$ is obtained by the number sequence
$\\{w_{t}\\}_{t=4}^{n}$ with $w_{i}=\lambda_{i}+w_{i-1}(2\lambda_{i}+1)$ and
$w_{4}=151\lambda_{4}+75$.
###### Corollary 1.6.
(= Corollary 4.3) Let $V$ be a nonsingular projective 4-fold of general type
with $P_{m_{0}}\geq 2$ for some integer $m_{0}>0$. Let $Q$ be any nef
${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $V$. Then $\Phi_{|mK_{V}+\lceil{Q}\rceil|}$ (in
particular, $\varphi_{m}$) is birational for all $m\geq 151m_{0}+77.$
Theorem 1.4 also implies the following:
###### Corollary 1.7.
An explicit constant $\mu_{n}$ mentioned in Problem 1.1 can be found by means
of Theorem 1.4 if and only if explicit constants $\rho_{k}$ for all $k\leq n$
can be found such that the pluri-genus $P_{\rho_{k}}\geq 2$ for all
$k$-dimensional projective varieties of general type.
From this point of view, a Riemann-Roch formula for $\chi({\mathcal{O}}(mK))$
is of key importance just like what Reid has done in [17, last section] for
threefolds.
This paper is organized as follows. First we fix the notation for the map
$\varphi_{m_{0}}$. Then we systematically study the property, of the induced
fibration $f\colon X^{\prime}\longrightarrow B$, which generalizes known
inequalities in 3-dimensional case. In Section 3, we will improve known
results on surfaces and 3-folds. Theorems in Section 4 are original. We will
prove the main theorem by induction in the last section.
We always use the symbol $\equiv$ to denote numerical equivalence while $\sim$
means linear equivalence.
## 2\. Properties of canonically induced fibrations
In this paper, $V$ is always a $n$-dimensional nonsingular projective variety
of general type. Let $m_{0}$ be a positive integer. Assume that
$\Lambda\subset|m_{0}K_{V}|$ is a sub-linear system such that
$\Phi_{\Lambda}(V)=1$ where $\Phi_{\Lambda}$ is the rational map defined by
$\Lambda$. We call $\Lambda$ a pencil contained in $|m_{0}K_{V}|$. Note that
such a pencil always exists. For instance, a 2-dimensional sub-space of
$H^{0}(V,m_{0}K_{V})$ corresponds to a pencil. We will study properties of the
rational map $\Phi_{\Lambda}$ in this section.
###### 2.1.
Existence of minimal models. By recent works of Birkar-Cascini-
Hacon-M${}^{\text{c}}$kernan [1], Hacon-M${}^{\text{c}}$kernan[12] and Siu
[18], $V$ has a minimal model. Again by [12], any fibration $f\colon
Y\longrightarrow B$, from a nonsingular variety $Y$ of general type to a
smooth curve $B$, has a relative minimal model. According to the established
Minimal Model Program (MMP), one may always assume that a minimal model has at
worst ${\mathbb{Q}}$-factorial terminal singularities.
From this point of view, it suffices to study $\varphi_{m}$ on minimal models.
(${\ddagger}$) Throughout $X$ always denotes a minimal model of $V$.
Because $\Phi_{\Lambda}$ can be defined on a Zariski open subset of $X$, we
may also regard $\Lambda$ as a pencil on the minimal model $X$.
###### 2.2.
Set up for $\Phi_{\Lambda}$. Denote by $\mu\colon V\dashrightarrow X$ the
birational contraction map. Because $P_{m_{0}}(X)=P_{m_{0}}(V)\geq 2$, we may
fix an effective Weil divisor $K_{m_{0}}\sim m_{0}K_{X}$ on $X$ and a divisor
$\widetilde{K}_{m_{0}}\sim m_{0}K_{V}$ on $V$. Take successive blow-ups
$\pi\colon X^{\prime}\rightarrow X$ along nonsingular centers, such that the
following conditions are satisfied:
* (i)
$X^{\prime}$ is smooth;
* (ii)
there is a birational morphism $\pi_{V}\colon X^{\prime}\rightarrow V$ such
that $\mu\circ\pi_{V}=\pi$;
* (iii)
the movable part $M_{0}$ of $\pi^{*}_{V}(\Lambda)$ is base point free and so
that $g:=\Phi_{\Lambda}\circ\pi_{V}$ is a non-constant morphism;
* (iv)
$\pi^{*}(K_{m_{0}})\cup\pi^{*}_{V}(\widetilde{K}_{m_{0}})$ has simple normal
crossing supports;
* (v)
for certain purpose $\pi$ even satisfies a couple of extra conditions by
further modifying $X^{\prime}$. (This condition will be specified in explicit
whenever we need it.)
We have a morphism $g\colon X^{\prime}\longrightarrow
W^{\prime}\subseteq{\mathbb{P}}^{N}$. Let
$X^{\prime}\overset{f}{\longrightarrow}B\overset{s}{\longrightarrow}W^{\prime}$
be the Stein factorization of $g$. We have the following commutative diagram:
$V$$X^{\prime}$$W^{\prime}$$B$-----------$f$$s$$\pi_{V}$$\varphi_{\Lambda}$$g$
Denote by $r(X)$ the Cartier index of $X$. We can write
$r(X)K_{X^{\prime}}=\pi^{*}(r(X)K_{X})+E_{\pi}$ where $E_{\pi}$ is a sum of
exceptional divisors. Recall that
$\pi^{*}(K_{X}):=K_{X^{\prime}}-\frac{1}{r(X)}E_{\pi}.$
Clearly, whenever we take the round-up of $m\pi^{*}(K_{X})$ for $m>0$, we
always have $\lceil{m\pi^{*}(K_{X})}\rceil\leq mK_{X^{\prime}}.$
Denote by $M_{k,X^{\prime}}$ the movable part of $|kK_{X^{\prime}}|$ for any
positive integer $k>0$. We may write
$m_{0}K_{X^{\prime}}=_{\mathbb{Q}}\pi^{*}(m_{0}K_{X})+E_{\pi,m_{0}}=M_{m_{0},X^{\prime}}+Z_{m_{0}},$
where $Z_{m_{0}}$ is the fixed part of $|m_{0}K_{X^{\prime}}|$ and
$E_{\pi,m_{0}}$ an effective ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor which is a
${\mathbb{Q}}$-sum of distinct exceptional divisors with regard to $\pi$.
Since $M_{0}\leq M_{m_{0},X^{\prime}}\leq\pi^{*}(m_{0}K_{X})$, we can write
$\pi^{*}(m_{0}K_{X})=M_{0}+E_{\Lambda}^{\prime}$ where $E_{\Lambda}^{\prime}$
is an effective $\mathbb{Q}$-divisor. By our assumption ($\Lambda$ is a
pencil), $B$ is a nonsingular complete curve. By Bertini’s theorem, a general
fiber $F$ of the fibration $f\colon X^{\prime}\longrightarrow B$ is a
$(n-1)$-dimensional nonsingular projective variety of general type.
Once a fibration $f\colon X^{\prime}\longrightarrow B$ is obtained, we may
take the relative minimal model $f_{0}\colon X_{0}\longrightarrow B$ of $f$.
Then we can remodify $\pi$ and $\pi_{V}$ again such that a new birational
model $X^{\prime\prime}$ dominates $X^{\prime}$ and $X_{0}$. Namely assume
$\pi^{\prime}\colon X^{\prime\prime}\longrightarrow X^{\prime}$ and
$\pi^{\prime\prime}\colon X^{\prime\prime}\longrightarrow X_{0}$ are the
birational morphisms, set $f^{\prime\prime}:=f\circ\pi^{\prime}$, then
$f^{\prime\prime}=f_{0}\circ\pi^{\prime\prime}$.
Therefore we can make the following:
###### 2.3.
Assumption on $X^{\prime}$. To avoid too complicated notations, we may assume
from the beginning that $X^{\prime}=X^{\prime\prime}$ by further birational
modifications, i.e. there is a contraction morphism
$\theta:X^{\prime}\longrightarrow X_{0}$ such that $f=f_{0}\circ\theta$ and
that $f_{0}$ is a relative minimal model of $f$.
With this assumption, we pick up a general fiber $F_{0}$ of $f_{0}$ and set
$\sigma:=\theta|_{F}$, then $\sigma\colon F\longrightarrow F_{0}$ is a
birational morphism onto the minimal model.
Set $b:=g(B)$. We will study the geometry of $f$ according to the value of
$b$. In fact there are two cases:
* (i)
$b>0$, $M_{0}\sim\underset{i=1}{\overset{p}{\sum}}F_{i}\equiv pF$ where the
$F_{i}$’s are different smooth fibers of $f$ for all $i$ and $p\geq 2$;
* (ii)
$b=0$, $M_{0}\sim pF\leq m_{0}\pi^{*}(K_{X})$ with $p\geq 1$.
###### 2.4.
Reduction to problems on $X^{\prime}$. As we have seen, there is a birational
morphism $\pi_{V}\colon X^{\prime}\longrightarrow V$. Let $m$ be a positive
integer and $Q$ a nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $V$. Since
${\pi_{V}}_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_{X^{\prime}}(mK_{X^{\prime}}+\pi_{V}^{*}(\lceil{Q}\rceil))\cong{\mathcal{O}}_{V}(mK_{V}+\lceil{Q}\rceil)$
and $mK_{X^{\prime}}+\pi_{V}^{*}(\lceil{Q}\rceil)\geq
mK_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{Q^{\prime}}\rceil$ where $Q^{\prime}:=\pi_{V}^{*}(Q)$
is nef on $X^{\prime}$, the birationality of
$\Phi_{|mK_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{Q^{\prime}}\rceil|}$ implies that of
$\Phi_{|mK_{V}+\lceil{Q}\rceil|}$. Furthermore the fact $mK_{X^{\prime}}\geq
m\pi^{*}(K_{X})$ allows us to consider a smaller linear system on $X^{\prime}$
like:
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{(m-1)\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q^{\prime}}\rceil|.$
The 3-dimensional version of the next lemma has appeared as [9, Lemma 3.4].
###### Lemma 2.5.
Let $f_{Y}\colon Y\dashrightarrow B_{0}$ be a rational map onto a smooth curve
$B_{0}$ where $Y$ is a normal projective minimal variety (i.e. $K_{Y}$ nef)
with at worst terminal singularities. Let $\pi_{Y}\colon Y^{\prime}\rightarrow
Y$ be any birational modification from a nonsingular projective model
$Y^{\prime}$ such that $g_{Y}:=f_{Y}\circ\pi_{Y}\colon
Y^{\prime}\longrightarrow B_{0}$ is a proper morphism. Denote by $F_{b}$ any
irreducible component in a general fiber of $g_{Y}$. Assume $g(B_{0})>0$. Then
${\mathcal{O}}_{F_{b}}(\pi_{Y}^{*}(K_{Y})|_{F_{b}})\cong{\mathcal{O}}_{F_{b}}({\sigma^{\prime}}^{*}(K_{F_{b,0}}))$
where $F_{b,0}$ is a minimal model of $F_{b}$ and there is a contradiction
morphism $\sigma^{\prime}\colon F_{b}\longrightarrow F_{b,0}$.
###### Proof.
One has a morphism $g_{Y}\colon Y^{\prime}\longrightarrow B_{0}$. By theorems
of Shokurov [16] and Hacon-M${}^{\text{c}}$kernan [11], each fiber of
$\pi_{Y}\colon Y^{\prime}\longrightarrow Y$ is rationally chain connected.
Therefore, $g_{Y}(\pi_{Y}^{-1}(y))$ is a point for all $y\in Y$. Considering
the image $G\subset(Y\times B_{0})$ of $Y^{\prime}$ via the morphism
$(\pi_{Y}\times g_{y})\circ\triangle_{Y^{\prime}}$ where
$\triangle_{Y^{\prime}}$ is the diagonal map $Y^{\prime}\longrightarrow
Y^{\prime}\times Y^{\prime}$, one knows that $G$ is a projective variety. Let
$g_{1}\colon G\longrightarrow Y$ and $g_{2}\colon G\longrightarrow B_{0}$ be
two projection maps. Since $g_{1}$ is a projective morphism and even a
bijective map, $g_{1}$ must be both a finite morphism of degree 1 and a
birational morphism. Since $Y$ is normal, $g_{1}$ must be an isomorphism. So
$g_{Y}$ factors as $f_{1}\circ\pi_{Y}$ where $f_{1}:=g_{2}\circ
g_{1}^{-1}\colon Y\rightarrow B_{0}$ is a well-defined morphism. Let
$Y\overset{f_{0}}{\longrightarrow}B^{\prime}\overset{s^{\prime}}{\longrightarrow}B_{0}$
be the Stein factorization of $f_{1}$. Set $f^{\prime}:=f_{0}\circ\pi_{Y}$.
Then $F$ is a general fiber of $f^{\prime}$. Denote by $F_{b,0}$ a general
fiber of $f_{0}$. Clearly $K_{F_{b,0}}\sim{K_{Y}}|_{F_{b,0}}$ is nef and so
$F_{b,0}$ is minimal. So it is clear that
$\pi_{Y}^{*}(K_{Y})|_{F_{b}}\sim\sigma^{\prime*}(K_{F_{b,0}})$ where we set
$\sigma^{\prime}:={\pi_{Y}}|_{F_{b}}\colon F_{b}\longrightarrow F_{b,0}$. ∎
The above lemma clearly applies to our situation with $b>0$.
Now we begin to study the case $b=0$. According to our definition, $M_{m,F}$
denotes the movable part of $|mK_{F}|$ for any $m>0$.
Since $B\cong{\mathbb{P}}^{1}$, one has ${\mathcal{O}}_{B}(1)\hookrightarrow
f_{*}\omega_{X^{\prime}}^{\otimes m_{0}}$. Then there is the inclusion:
$f_{*}\omega_{X^{\prime}/B}^{\otimes m}\hookrightarrow
f_{*}\omega_{X^{\prime}}^{\otimes m(2m_{0}+1)}$
for all integers $m>0$. Because $f_{*}\omega_{X^{\prime}/B}^{\otimes m}$ is
semi-positive (see Viehweg [22]) and is thus a direct sum of line bundles of
non-negative degree, so it is generated by global sections. Therefore any
local section of $f_{*}\omega_{X^{\prime}/B}^{\otimes m}$ can be extended to a
global one of $f_{*}\omega_{X^{\prime}}^{\otimes m(2m_{0}+1)}$. This already
means
$m(2m_{0}+1)\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}\geq M_{m(2m_{0}+1),X^{\prime}}|_{F}\geq
M_{m,F}.$
Whenever $m$ is divisible by the Cartier index of $F_{0}$, the Base Point Free
Theorem says that $M_{m,F}\sim m\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$. Thus we get
$None$
$\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}\geq\frac{1}{m(2m_{0}+1)}M_{m(2m_{0}+1),X^{\prime}}|_{F}\geq\frac{1}{2m_{0}+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}}).$
###### Lemma 2.6.
Keep the same notation as in 2.2. Assume $b=0$ and that a general fiber of $f$
has a Gorenstein minimal model. Then there exists a sequence of positive
rational numbers $\\{\beta_{t}\\}$, with $\beta_{t}<\frac{p}{m_{0}+p}$ and
$\beta_{t}\underset{t\mapsto+\infty}{\mapsto}\frac{p}{m_{0}+p}$, such that
$\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}-\beta_{t}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$
is ${\mathbb{Q}}$-linearly equivalent to an effective ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor
for all integers $t>0$.
###### Proof.
When $n=\dim(V)=3$, this is nothing but Theorem [9, Lemma 3.3]. Here we
generalize it for any $n$. One has
$\mathcal{O}_{B}(p)\hookrightarrow{f}_{*}\omega_{X^{\prime}}^{m_{0}}$ and
therefore
${f}_{*}\omega_{X^{\prime}/B}^{t_{0}p}\hookrightarrow{f}_{*}\omega_{X^{\prime}}^{t_{0}p+2t_{0}m_{0}}$
for any positive integer $t_{0}$.
Note that ${f}_{*}\omega_{X^{\prime}/B}^{t_{0}p}$ is generated by global
sections since it is semi-positive according to Viehweg [22]. So any local
section can be extended to a global one. On the other hand, whenever $t_{0}$
is bigger, $|t_{0}p\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})|$ is free by Base Point Free Theorem
and is exactly the movable part of $|t_{0}pK_{F}|$ by the ordinary projection
formula. Clearly one has the following relation:
$a_{0}\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}\geq M_{t_{0}p+2t_{0}m_{0},X^{\prime}}|_{F}\geq
b_{0}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$
where $a_{0}:=t_{0}p+2t_{0}m_{0}$ and $b_{0}:=t_{0}p$. This means that there
is an effective $\mathbb{Q}$-divisor $E_{F}^{\prime}$ on $F$ such that
$a_{0}\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}=_{{\mathbb{Q}}}b_{0}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+E_{F}^{\prime}.$
Thus
$\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}=_{{\mathbb{Q}}}\frac{p}{p+2m_{0}}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+E_{F}$
with $E_{F}=\frac{1}{a_{0}}E_{F}^{\prime}$.
Let us consider the case $p\geq 2$ first.
Assume we have defined $a_{l}$ and $b_{l}$ such that the following is
satisfied with $l=t:$
$a_{l}\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}\geq b_{l}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}}).$
We will define $a_{t+1}$ and $b_{t+1}$ inductively such that the above
inequality is satisfied with $l=t+1$. One may assume from the beginning
(modulo necessary blow-ups) that the fractional part of the support of
$a_{t}\pi^{*}(K_{X})$ is of simple normal crossing. Then the Kawamata-Viehweg
vanishing theorem gives the surjective map
$H^{0}(K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{a_{t}\pi^{*}(K_{X})}\rceil+F)\longrightarrow
H^{0}(F,K_{F}+\lceil{a_{t}\pi^{*}(K_{X})}\rceil|_{F}).$
One has the relation
$\displaystyle|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{a_{t}\pi^{*}(K_{X})}\rceil+F||_{F}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle|K_{F}+\lceil{a_{t}\pi^{*}(K_{X})}\rceil|_{F}|$
$\displaystyle\supset$ $\displaystyle|K_{F}+b_{t}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})|$
$\displaystyle\supset$ $\displaystyle|(b_{t}+1)\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})|.$
Denote by $M_{a_{t}+1,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}$ the movable part of
$|(a_{t}+1)K_{X^{\prime}}+F|$. Applying [7, Lemma 2.7], one has
$M_{a_{t}+1,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}|_{F}\geq(b_{t}+1)\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}}).$ Re-
modifying our original $\pi$ such that $|M_{a_{t}+1,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}|$ is
base point free. In particular, $M_{a_{t}+1,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}$ is nef.
Since $X$ is of general type $|mK_{X}|$ gives a birational map whenever $m$ is
big enough. Thus we see that $M_{a_{t}+1,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}$ is big if we
fix a very big $t_{0}$ in advance.
Now the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem again gives
$\displaystyle|K_{X^{\prime}}+M_{a_{t}+1,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}+F||_{F}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle|K_{F}+M_{a_{t}+1,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}|_{F}|$
$\displaystyle\supset$ $\displaystyle|K_{F}+(b_{t}+1)\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})|$
$\displaystyle\supset$ $\displaystyle|(b_{t}+2)\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})|.$
Repeat the above procedure and denote by $M_{a_{t}+u,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}$ the
movable part of $|K_{X^{\prime}}+M_{a_{t}+u-1,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}+F|$ for
integers $u\geq 2$. For the same reason, we may assume
$|M_{a_{t}+u,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}|$ is base point free and is thus nef and
big. Inductively, for any $u>0$, one has:
$M_{a_{t}+u,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}|_{F}\geq(b_{t}+u)\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}}).$
Applying the vanishing theorem once more, one has
$\displaystyle|K_{X^{\prime}}+M_{a_{t}+u,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}+F||_{F}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle|K_{F}+M_{a_{t}+u,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}|_{F}|$
$\displaystyle\supset$ $\displaystyle|K_{F}+(b_{t}+u)\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})|$
$\displaystyle\supset$ $\displaystyle|(b_{t}+u+1)\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})|.$
Take $u=p-1$. Noting that
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+M_{a_{t}+p-1,X^{\prime}}^{\prime}+F|\subset|(a_{t}+p+m_{0})K_{X^{\prime}}|$
and applying [7, Lemma 2.7] again, one has
$a_{t+1}\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}\geq M_{a_{t}+p+m_{0},X^{\prime}}|_{F}\geq
M^{\prime}_{a_{t}+p,X^{\prime}}|_{F}\geq b_{t+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$
where $a_{t+1}:=a_{t}+p+m_{0}$ and $b_{t+1}=b_{t}+p$. Set
$\beta_{t}=\frac{b_{t}}{a_{t}}.$ Clearly
$\lim_{t\mapsto+\infty}\beta_{t}=\frac{p}{m_{0}+p}$.
The case $p=1$ can be considered similarly with a simpler induction. We leave
it as an exercise. ∎
###### Lemma 2.7.
Let $\widetilde{\Lambda}\subset|L|$ be a pencil on $V$ where $L$ is a divisor
on $V$. Let $R$ be a nef and big ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $V$. Assume there
is a birational modification
$\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}:V^{\prime}\longrightarrow V$ such that:
* (1)
the fractional part of $\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)$ has simple normal
crossing supports and the movable part of
$\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(\widetilde{\Lambda})$ is base point free;
* (2)
$|K_{V^{\prime}}+\lceil{\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)}\rceil|\neq\emptyset.$
Then $|K_{V}+\lceil{R}\rceil+L|$ distinguishes different irreducible elements
in the movable part of $\widetilde{\Lambda}$.
###### Proof.
Noting that
${\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}}_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_{V^{\prime}}(K_{V^{\prime}}+\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(\lceil{R}\rceil)+\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(L)|)\cong{\mathcal{O}}_{V}(K_{V}+\lceil{R}\rceil+L)$
and that
$\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(\lceil{R}\rceil)\geq\lceil{\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)}\rceil$,
we only need to study the smaller linear system
$|K_{V^{\prime}}+\lceil{\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)}\rceil)+M_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}|$
where $|M_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}|$ is the movable part of
$\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(\widetilde{\Lambda})$. By our assumption,
$|M_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}|$ is composed with a pencil and
$f_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}:V^{\prime}\longrightarrow B_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}$ is
an induced fibration of $\Phi_{|M_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}|}$, where
$B_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}$ is a smooth curve.
If $g(B_{\widetilde{\Lambda}})=0$, then
$|K_{V^{\prime}}+\lceil{\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)}\rceil+M_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}|$
distinguishes different general fibers of $f_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}$ because
$|K_{V^{\prime}}+\lceil{\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)}\rceil|\neq\emptyset.$
If $g(B_{\widetilde{\Lambda}})>0$, we pick up two general fibers
$F_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{\prime}$ and
$F_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{\prime\prime}$. Then
$M_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}-F_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{\prime}-F_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{\prime\prime}$
is nef and the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem [13, 21] gives
$H^{1}(V^{\prime},K_{V^{\prime}}+\lceil{\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)}\rceil+M_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}-F_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{\prime}-F_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{\prime\prime})=0.$
Thus follows the following surjective map:
$\displaystyle
H^{0}(V^{\prime},K_{V^{\prime}}+\lceil{\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)}\rceil+M_{\widetilde{\Lambda}})$
$\displaystyle\longrightarrow$ $\displaystyle
H^{0}(F_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{\prime},(K_{V^{\prime}}+\lceil{\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)}\rceil)|_{F_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{\prime}})\oplus
H^{0}(F_{{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{\prime\prime}},(K_{V^{\prime}}+\lceil{\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)}\rceil)|_{F_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{\prime\prime}}).$
Again the assumption
$|K_{V^{\prime}}+\lceil{\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)}\rceil|\neq\emptyset$
implies that
$|K_{V^{\prime}}+\lceil{\pi_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}^{*}(R)}\rceil+M_{\widetilde{\Lambda}}|$
(and thus $|K_{V}+\lceil{R}\rceil+L|$) distinguishes different irreducible
elements in the movable part of $\widetilde{\Lambda}$. We are done. ∎
The following lemma is tacitly used in our context.
###### Lemma 2.8.
Let $\bar{Q}$ be any ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on a nonsingular projective
variety $Z$. Let $\widetilde{\pi}:\widetilde{Z}\longrightarrow Z$ be any
birational modification. Assume that
$|K_{\widetilde{Z}}+\lceil{\widetilde{\pi}^{*}(\bar{Q})}\rceil|$ gives a
birational map. Then $|K_{Z}+\lceil{\bar{Q}}\rceil|$ gives a birational map.
###### Proof.
This is clear due to the fact:
$\widetilde{\pi}_{*}{\mathcal{O}}_{\widetilde{Z}}(K_{\widetilde{Z}}+\widetilde{\pi}^{*}(\lceil{\bar{Q}}\rceil))\cong{\mathcal{O}}_{Z}(K_{Z}+\lceil{\bar{Q}}\rceil)$
and
$\widetilde{\pi}^{*}(\lceil{\bar{Q}}\rceil)\geq\lceil{\widetilde{\pi}^{*}(\bar{Q})}\rceil$.
∎
## 3\. ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisors on surfaces and threefolds
We leave the proof for the next two results on surfaces as an exercise which
is really a standard ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor argument.
###### Lemma 3.1.
Let $S$ be a nonsingular projective surface of general type. Denote by
$\sigma:S\longrightarrow S_{0}$ the birational contraction onto the minimal
model $S_{0}$. For any nef and big ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor $Q_{2}$ on $S$, one
has
$h^{0}(S,K_{S}+m\sigma^{*}(K_{S_{0}})+\lceil{Q_{2}}\rceil)>1$
under one of the following situations:
(1) $m\geq 2$;
(2) $m=1$ and $p_{g}(S)>0$.
###### Theorem 3.2.
Keep the same notation as in Lemma 3.1. Then the rational map
$\Phi_{|K_{S}+m\sigma^{*}(K_{S_{0}})+\lceil{Q_{2}}\rceil|}$ is birational in
either of the following cases:
(1) $m\geq 4$;
(2) $m\geq 3$ and $p_{g}(S)>0$.
###### Proposition 3.3.
Assume $\dim(V)=3$ and $P_{m_{0}}(V)\geq 2$ for some positive integer $m_{0}$.
Keep the same notation as in 2.2. Let $Q_{3}$ be a nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor
on $V$ and $Q^{\prime}_{3}$ a nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $X^{\prime}$. Then
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q^{\prime}_{3}}\rceil+F$ is
effective for all rational numbers $q_{3}>2m_{0}+2$. Consequently
$mK_{V}+\lceil{Q_{3}}\rceil$ is effective for all integers $m\geq 3m_{0}+4$.
###### Proof.
The last statement is a direct application of the first one due to 2.4. We
prove the first statement.
> ($\pounds$) Take further necessary modifications to $X^{\prime}$ such that
> the supports of the fractional parts of $Q_{3}^{\prime}$ and
> $\pi_{V}^{*}(Q_{3})$ are of simple normal crossing. For simplicity we still
> use $X^{\prime}$ to denote the final birational model dominating $V$.
We have a fibration $f:X^{\prime}\longrightarrow B$ induced from $|m_{0}K|$ as
in 2.2. We consider the linear system
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil+F|\subset|(\lceil{q_{3}}\rceil+m_{0}+1)K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil|.$
Because $q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}$ is nef and big and the fractional
part of $Q_{3}^{\prime}$ is of simple normal crossing by our assumption, the
vanishing theorem says
$H^{1}(X,K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil)=0.$
Thus one has the surjective map:
$H^{0}(X,K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil+F)\longrightarrow
H^{0}(F,K_{F}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil|_{F}).$
Note that in our case a general fiber of $f$ is a surface of general type
which has a Gorenstein minimal model. Thus the conditions in both Lemma 2.5
and Lemma 2.6 are satisfied. If $b>0$, Lemma 2.5 says that
$\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}\sim\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$ where $\sigma:F\longrightarrow
F_{0}$ is the contraction map. If $g(B)=0$, Lemma 2.6 says that one can find a
very big number $s$ such that
$\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}\geq\beta_{s}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$
and $\beta_{s}$ is sufficiently near $\frac{p}{m_{0}+p}\geq\frac{1}{m_{0}+1}$
and $\beta_{s}<\frac{p}{m_{0}+p}$.
Let us put $\alpha_{s}:=\frac{p}{m_{0}+p}-\beta_{s}$. Then $\alpha_{s}\mapsto
0$ whenever $s\mapsto+\infty$.
Whenever $q_{3}>2m_{0}+2$, one has
$\displaystyle q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}$ $\displaystyle\geq$ $\displaystyle
q_{3}\beta_{s}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})=q_{3}(\frac{p}{m_{0}+p}-\alpha_{s})\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(2+(\frac{q_{3}p-2m_{0}-2p}{m_{0}+p}-q_{3}\alpha_{s}))\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}}).$
When $s$ is big enough, one sees
$\frac{q_{3}p-2m_{0}-2p}{m_{0}+p}-q_{3}\alpha_{s}>0$. We may assume that
$q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}-q_{3}\beta_{s}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$ is
${\mathbb{Q}}$-linearly equivalent to an effective divisor $R_{q_{3},s}$ on
$F$. Then
$\displaystyle\widetilde{R_{q_{3},s}}$ $\displaystyle:=$ $\displaystyle
q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}-R_{q_{3},s}-2\sigma^{*}(K_{F,0})$
$\displaystyle\equiv$
$\displaystyle(\frac{q_{3}p-2m_{0}-2p}{m_{0}+p}-q_{3}\alpha_{s})\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$
is nef and big since $\frac{q_{3}p-2m_{0}-2p}{m_{0}+p}>0$. Therefore
$H^{0}(K_{F}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil|_{F})\supset
H^{0}(K_{F}+2\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+\lceil{\widetilde{R}_{q_{3},n}+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil)\neq
0$
by Lemma 3.1. And in fact
$h^{0}(K_{F}+2\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+\lceil{\widetilde{R}_{q_{3},n}+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil)>1$.
∎
###### Remark 3.4.
In the proof of Proposition 3.3, if the general fiber of $f$ is a surface with
$p_{g}>0$, then, according to Lemma 3.1,
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q^{\prime}_{3})}\rceil+F$ is
effective for all rational numbers $q_{3}>m_{0}+1$. And accordingly
$mK_{V}+\lceil{Q_{3}}\rceil$ is effective for all integers $m\geq 2m_{0}+3$.
###### Theorem 3.5.
Assume $\dim(V)=3$ and $P_{m_{0}}(V)\geq 2$ for some positive integer $m_{0}$.
Keep the same notation as in 2.2. Let $Q_{3}$ be a nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor
on $V$ and $Q_{3}^{\prime}$ a nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $X^{\prime}$. Then
* (1)
$\Phi_{|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil+M_{0}|}$
is birational for all rational numbers $q_{3}>4m_{0}+4$. In particular
$\Phi_{|mK_{V}+\lceil{Q_{3}}\rceil|}$ is birational for all integers $m\geq
5m_{0}+6$;
* (2)
if the general fiber $F$ of $f\colon X^{\prime}\longrightarrow B$ has positive
geometric genus,
$\Phi_{|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil+M_{0}|}$
is birational for all rational numbers $q_{3}>3m_{0}+3$. In particular
$\Phi_{|mK_{V}+\lceil{Q_{3}}\rceil|}$ is birational for all integers $m\geq
4m_{0}+5$.
###### Proof.
According to Proposition 3.3 and Remark 3.4,
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil$
is always effective under each situation since $m_{0}\pi^{*}(K_{X})\geq
M_{0}$. Therefore Lemma 2.7 says that
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil+M_{0}|$ can
distinguish different generic irreducible elements of $|M_{0}|$. Thus it
suffices to prove the birationality of
$\Phi_{|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil+M_{0}|}|_{F}$
for a general fiber $F$ of $f$. The proofs for statements (1) and (2) are
similar. We only consider (1) while omitting the proof for (2).
Of course, the first step in utilizing the vanishing theorem is to make the
support of the fractional part of $\\{Q_{3}^{\prime}\\}$ to be simple normal
crossing. This can be done by re-modifying $X^{\prime}$. For simplicity we may
assume, from now on, that our $X^{\prime}$ has the property stated in
$(\pounds)$ (see the proof of Proposition 3.3).
The Kawatama-Viehweg vanishing theorem implies, noticing $F|_{F}\sim 0$, that
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil+M_{0}||_{F}=|K_{F}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil|_{F}|.$
We study a smaller system
$|K_{F}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}+{Q_{3}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil$. We have
already $\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}\geq\beta_{s}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$ and
$0<\alpha_{s}:=\frac{p}{m_{0}+p}-\beta_{s}$, $\alpha_{s}\mapsto 0$ whenever
$s\mapsto+\infty$. When $q_{3}>4m_{0}+4$,
$\displaystyle q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}$ $\displaystyle\geq$ $\displaystyle
q_{3}\beta_{s}\sigma^{*}(K_{F})$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
4\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+t_{s}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$
where $t_{s}:=\frac{q_{3}p-4m_{0}-4p}{m_{0}+p}-q_{3}\alpha_{s}>0$ whenever $s$
is big enough. Therefore, by Theorem 3.2 and Lemma 2.8,
$|K_{S}+\lceil{4\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+t_{s}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{3}^{\prime}}}\rceil|_{F}|$
gives a birational map. Being a bigger linear system,
$|K_{F}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil|_{F}|$
also gives a birational map. We are done. ∎
###### 3.6.
Threefolds $V$ with $\chi({\mathcal{O}}_{V})>1$. Keep the same notation as in
2.2. As seen in [6, Lemma 2.32], if $\chi({\mathcal{O}}_{V})>1$ and $q(V)=0$,
then a general fiber $F$ of $f:X^{\prime}\longrightarrow B$ has the geometric
genus $p_{g}(F)>0$.
###### Lemma 3.7.
Assume $\dim(V)=3$. Then
$\lambda(V)\leq\begin{cases}18&\text{if}\ \chi({\mathcal{O}}_{V})>1\
\text{and}\ q(V)=0;\\\ 10&otherwise.\end{cases}$
###### Proof.
The first statement $\lambda(V)\leq 18$ is due to [6, Theorem 4.8].
When $q(V)>0$, $\lambda(V)\leq 3$ by Chen-Hacon [4].
When $\chi({\mathcal{O}}_{V})=1$, $\lambda(V)\leq 10$ by [6, Corollary 3.13].
Finally when $\chi({\mathcal{O}}_{V})<0$, $\lambda(V)\leq 3$ is a direct
consequence of Reid’s plurigenus formula by Reid [17] and by Chen-Zuo [9,
Lemma 4.1]. ∎
From now on, we classify a 3-fold $V$ into two types:
* (I)
$\chi({\mathcal{O}}_{V})>1$ and $q(V)=0$;
* (II)
either $\chi({\mathcal{O}}_{V})\leq 1$ or $q(V)>0$.
## 4\. Point separation on 4-folds
###### Proposition 4.1.
Assume $n=\dim(V)=4$ and $P_{m_{0}}(V)\geq 2$ for some positive integer
$m_{0}$. Keep the same notation as in 2.2. Let $Q_{4}$ be a nef
${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $V$ and $Q_{4}^{\prime}$ a nef
${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $X^{\prime}$. Then
* (1)
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil+F$ is an
effective divisor for all rational numbers $q_{4}>74m_{0}+37$;
* (2)
$mK_{V}+\lceil{Q}\rceil$ is effective for all integers $m\geq 75m_{0}+39.$
###### Proof.
(2) is a direct result from (1) according to 2.4. We only prove (1). Similar
to assumption ($\pounds$) in the proof of Proposition 3.3, we may assume that
$X^{\prime}$ is good enough.
Because $q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}$ is nef and big, and its
fractional part has normal crossing supports by assumption, the Kawamata-
Viehweg vanishing theorem gives the surjective map:
$H^{0}(X^{\prime},K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil+F)\longrightarrow
H^{0}(F,K_{F}+\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil|_{F}).$
By Lemma 2.5 and inequality (1), one has
$\displaystyle\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil|_{F}$
$\displaystyle\geq$
$\displaystyle\lceil{(q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime})|_{F}}\rceil$
$\displaystyle\geq$
$\displaystyle\lceil{\frac{q_{4}}{2m_{0}+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{4}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil.$
If $F$ is of type (I), then, by Remark 3.4, 3.6 and Lemma 3.7, we need to set
$\frac{q_{4}}{2m_{0}+1}>37\geq(\lambda(F)+1)+\lambda(F)$, i.e.
$q_{4}>74m_{0}+37$, so that
$K_{F}+\lceil{\frac{q_{4}}{2m_{0}+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{4}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil$
is an effective divisor on $F$.
If $F$ is of type (II), then by Proposition 3.3 and Lemma 3.7 we need
$\frac{q_{4}}{2m_{0}+1}>32\geq(2\lambda(F)+2)+\lambda(F)$ so that
$K_{F}+\lceil{\frac{q_{4}}{2m_{0}+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{4}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil$
is effective.
In a word, when $q_{4}>74m_{0}+37$,
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil+F$ is
effective. ∎
###### Theorem 4.2.
Assume $n=\dim(V)=4$ and $P_{m_{0}}\geq 2$ for some positive integer $m_{0}$.
Keep the same notation as in 2.2. Let $Q_{4}$ be a nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor
on $V$ and $Q_{4}^{\prime}$ a nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $X^{\prime}$. Then
* (1)
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil+M_{0}|$
gives a birational map for all rational numbers $q_{4}>150m_{0}+75$;
* (2)
$\Phi_{|mK_{V}+\lceil{Q}\rceil|}$ is birational for all integers $m\geq
151m_{0}+77.$
###### Proof.
Similar to assumption $(\pounds)$, we may assume that $X^{\prime}$ is good
enough (after a necessary modification). Also (2) is a direct result of (1).
We only prove (1).
By Proposition 4.1, we see that
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil\geq 0$. Lemma
2.7 tells us that we only need to verify the birationality of
$\Phi_{|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil+M_{0}|}|_{F}$
for a general fiber $F$ of $f$. The vanishing theorem gives
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil+M_{0}||_{F}=|K_{F}+\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil|_{F}|$
noticing ${M_{0}}|_{F}\sim 0$. Lemma 2.5 and inequality (1) imply
$\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil|_{F}\geq\lceil{\frac{q_{4}}{2m_{0}+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{4}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil.$
Noting that $F$ is a threefold of general type, we still use a similar
argument to that in the proof of Proposition 4.1.
If $F$ is of type (I), then, by Theorem 3.5(2), 3.6, Lemma 3.7 and Lemma 2.8,
$|K_{F}+\lceil{\frac{q_{4}}{2m_{0}+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{4}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil|$
gives a birational map when
$\frac{q_{4}}{2m_{0}+1}>75\geq(3\lambda(F)+3)+\lambda(F),$
i.e. $q_{4}>150m_{0}+75$.
If $F$ is of type (II), by Theorem 3.5(1) and Lemma 3.7,
$\Phi_{|K_{F}+\lceil{\frac{q_{4}}{2m_{0}+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{4}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil|}$
is birational when $\frac{q_{4}}{2m_{0}+1}>54\geq(4\lambda(F)+4)+\lambda(F)$,
i.e. $q_{4}>108m_{0}+54$.
To make a conclusion,
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{4}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{4}^{\prime}}\rceil+M_{0}|$
gives a birational map for all rational numbers $q_{4}>150m_{0}+75$. ∎
A direct result of Theorem 4.2 is the following:
###### Corollary 4.3.
Assume $\dim(V)=4$ and $P_{m_{0}}\geq 2$ for some positive integer $m_{0}$.
Then $\varphi_{m}$ is birational onto its image for all integers $m\geq
151m_{0}+77$.
## 5\. Proof of the main theorem
We organize the proof according to the value of $\iota$.
First we consider the case $\iota\geq n-2$.
###### Proposition 5.1.
Assume $n=\dim(V)\geq 3$, $P_{m_{0}}(V)\geq 2$ for some positive integer
$m_{0}$ and $\iota\geq n-2$. Keep the same notation as in 2.2. Let $Q_{n}$ be
any nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $V$ and $Q_{n}^{\prime}$ any nef
${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $X^{\prime}$. Then
* (1)
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-3)M_{0}+F$
is effective for all rational numbers
$q_{n}>\text{min}\\{2m_{0}+2,22\\}\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}$;
* (2)
$mK_{V}+\lceil{Q_{n}}\rceil$ is effective for all integers
$m\geq\text{min}\\{2m_{0}+2,22\\}\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}+m_{0}(n-2)+2$.
###### Proof.
Noting that (2) is a direct application of (1), we only prove (1). We are
going to do an induction on $n$.
When $n=3$, Proposition 3.3 says that the statement is true when
$q_{3}>2m_{0}+2=(2m_{0}+2)\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}+m_{0}(n-3)$. On the other
hand, we may replace $m_{0}$ with $\lambda(V)$. In fact, Lemma 3.7 gives
$\lambda(V)\leq 18$ for type (I) and $\lambda(V)\leq 10$ for type (II). Thus,
by Proposition 3.3 and Remark 3.4,
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{3}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{3}^{\prime}}\rceil+F$ is
effective whenever $q_{3}>22$. Therefore statement (1) is true for
$q_{3}>\text{min}\\{2m_{0}+2,22\\}\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}+m_{0}(n-3)$.
Assume that statement (1) is correct for varieties of dimension $\leq n-1$.
Starting with a good model $X^{\prime}$ satisfying 2.3, we can do the
induction. Noticing that $F$ is of dimension $n-1$, we hope to reduce the
problem onto $F$. Since $\iota\geq n-2$, we have
$\dim\varphi_{m_{0}}(F)\geq\dim\Phi_{|M_{0}|}(F)\geq n-3=\dim(F)-2$ by the
simple additivity property. Because ${M_{0}}|_{F}\leq
m_{0}{K_{X^{\prime}}}|_{F}\sim m_{0}K_{F}$, we know
$\Phi_{|m_{0}K_{F}|}(F)\geq\Phi_{|{M_{0}}|_{F}|}(F)\geq\dim(F)-2$. Because
$q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}$ is nef and big and has simple normal
crossing fractional parts, the vanishing theorem gives the surjective map:
$\displaystyle
H^{0}(X^{\prime},K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-3)M_{0}+F)$
$\displaystyle\rightarrow$ $\displaystyle
H^{0}(F,K_{F}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil|_{F}+(n-3){M_{0}}|_{F})$
$\displaystyle\supset$ $\displaystyle
H^{0}(F,K_{F}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil+(n-3){M_{0}}|_{F})$
$\displaystyle\supset$ $\displaystyle
H^{0}(F,K_{F}+\lceil{q_{n}^{\prime}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil+(n-4){M_{0}}|_{F}+{M_{0}}|_{F})\
\ \ \ (4)$
where
$q_{n}^{\prime}\geq\frac{q_{n}}{2m_{0}+1}>\text{min}\\{2m_{0}+2,22\\}\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{(n-1)-3}$
by Lemma 2.5 and inequality (1). Because ${M_{0}}|_{F}\leq m_{0}K_{F}$ and by
taking those pencil $\Lambda_{F}\subset|M_{0}||_{F}$, the induction and Lemma
2.8 tell us that
$K_{F}+\lceil{q_{n}^{\prime}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil+((n-1)-3){M_{0}}|_{F}+{M_{0}}|_{F}$
is effective whenever
$q_{n}^{\prime}>\text{min}\\{2m_{0}+2,22\\}\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{(n-1)-3}$. We are
done. ∎
###### Theorem 5.2.
Assume $n=\dim(V)\geq 3$, $P_{m_{0}}(V)\geq 2$ for some positive integer
$m_{0}$ and $\iota\geq n-2$. Keep the same notation as in 2.2. Let $Q_{n}$ be
any nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $V$ and $Q_{n}^{\prime}$ any nef
${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $X^{\prime}$. Then
* (1)
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-2)M_{0}|$
gives a birational map for all rational numbers
$q_{n}>\text{min}\\{4m_{0}+4,57\\}\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3};$
* (2)
$|mK_{V}+\lceil{Q_{n}}\rceil|$ gives a birational map for all integers
$m\geq\text{min}\\{4m_{0}+4,57\\}\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}+m_{0}(n-2)+2.$
###### Proof.
Again since (2) is a direct application of (1), we only prove (1). We are
going to do an induction on $n$.
Under the assumption $q_{n}>\text{min}\\{4m_{0}+4,57\\}\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}$,
since $m_{0}\pi^{*}(K_{X})\geq M_{0}$, we see
$\displaystyle
K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-3)M_{0}$
$\displaystyle\geq$ $\displaystyle
K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{\widetilde{q}_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-3)M_{0}+F\geq
0$
by Proposition 5.1 since
$\widetilde{q}_{n}:=q_{n}-m_{0}>\text{min}\\{2m_{0}+2,22\\}\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}$.
According to Lemma 2.7,
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-2)M_{0}|$
can distinguish different fibers of $f$. We are left to show the birationality
of the rational map given by
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-2)M_{0}||_{F}$
for a general fiber $F$ of $f$.
When $n=3$ and $q_{3}>4m_{0}+4=(4m_{0}+4)\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}$, the statement
is nothing but Theorem 3.5(1). On the other hand, we may replace $m_{0}$ with
$\lambda(V)$. In fact, Lemma 3.7 gives $\lambda(V)\leq 18$ for type (I) and
$\lambda(V)\leq 10$ for type (II). Then, by Theorem 3.5(1) and (2),
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-2)M_{0}|$
gives a birational map for all rational numbers
$q_{3}>\text{max}\\{57,44\\}=57$. Therefore statement (1) is true whenever
$q_{3}>\text{min}\\{4m_{0}+4,57\\}$.
Assume that statement (1) is correct for varieties of dimension $\leq n-1$.
Starting with a good model $X^{\prime}$ satisfying 2.3, we can do the
induction again. Still, we see
$\Phi_{|m_{0}K_{F}|}(F)\geq\Phi_{|{M_{0}}|_{F}|}(F)\geq\dim(F)-2$. We hope to
reduce to the problem on $F$. According to the relation (4), we only need to
study
$|J_{n-1}|:=|K_{F}+\lceil{q_{n}^{\prime}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil+(n-4){M_{0}}|_{F}+{M_{0}}|_{F}|$
where
$q_{n}^{\prime}\geq\frac{q_{n}}{2m_{0}+1}>\text{min}\\{4m_{0}+4,57\\}\cdot(2m_{0}+1)^{(n-1)-3}$
by Lemma 2.5 and inequality (1). Because ${M_{0}}|_{F}\leq m_{0}K_{F}$ and by
taking those pencil $\Lambda_{F}\subset|M_{0}||_{F}$, the induction and Lemma
2.8 tell us that
$|K_{F}+\lceil{q_{n}^{\prime}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil+((n-1)-2){M_{0}}|_{F}|$
gives a birational map. Thus
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-2)M_{0}||_{F}$
gives a birational map. We are done. ∎
Next we discuss the case $\iota=n-3$.
###### Proposition 5.3.
Assume $n=\dim(V)\geq 4$, $P_{m_{0}}(V)\geq 2$ for some positive integer
$m_{0}$ and $\iota\geq n-3$. Keep the same notation as in 2.2. Let $Q_{n}$ be
any nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $V$ and $Q_{n}^{\prime}$ any nef
${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $X^{\prime}$. Then
* (1)
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-4)M_{0}+F$
is effective for all rational numbers $q_{n}>37(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}$;
* (2)
$mK_{V}+\lceil{Q_{n}}\rceil$ is effective for all integers $m\geq
37(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}+m_{0}(n-3)+2$.
###### Proof.
Statement (1) implies (2). So we only prove (1). Similar to the assumption
$(\pounds)$, we may assume that $X^{\prime}$ is good enough (modulo blow-ups)
for our purpose. We prove by an induction on $n$.
When $n=4$, (1) is exactly Proposition 4.1(1).
Assume that (1) is correct for all varieties of dimension $n-1$. Pick a
general fiber $F$ of $f$. Because ${M_{0}}|_{F}\leq
m_{0}{K_{X^{\prime}}}|_{F}\sim m_{0}K_{F}$, we know
$\Phi_{|m_{0}K_{F}|}(F)\geq\Phi_{|{M_{0}}|_{F}|}(F)\geq n-4=\dim(F)-3$. As
long as we take those pencils $\Lambda_{F}\subset|M_{0}||_{F}$ on $F$, the
induction works on $F$. Thus we restrict everything onto $F$. By the vanishing
theorem, we may get the similar relation to (4):
$\displaystyle|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-4)M_{0}+F||_{F}$
$\displaystyle\supset$
$\displaystyle|K_{F}+\lceil{q_{n}^{\prime}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil+((n-1)-4){M_{0}}|_{F}+{M_{0}}|_{F})|$
where $q_{n}^{\prime}\geq\frac{q_{n}}{2m_{0}+1}>37(2m_{0}+1)^{(n-1)-3}$ by
Lemma 2.5 and inequality (1). The later linear system is non-empty by
induction. Therefore
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-4)M_{0}+F$
is effective for all rational numbers $q_{n}>37(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}$. ∎
###### Theorem 5.4.
Assume $n=\dim(V)\geq 4$, $P_{m_{0}}(V)\geq 2$ for some positive integer
$m_{0}$ and $\iota\geq n-3$. Keep the same notation as in 2.2. Let $Q_{n}$ be
any nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $V$ and $Q_{n}^{\prime}$ any nef
${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $X^{\prime}$. Then
* (1)
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(n-4)M_{0}+F$
is effective for all rational numbers $q_{n}>75(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}$;
* (2)
$mK_{V}+\lceil{Q_{n}}\rceil$ is effective for all integers $m\geq
75(2m_{0}+1)^{n-3}+m_{0}(n-3)+2$.
###### Proof.
The proof is parallel to that of Proposition 5.3. To avoid unnecessary
redundancy, we omit the details. ∎
###### Definition 5.5.
The sequences $\\{u_{t}\\}_{t=4}^{n}$ and $\\{w_{t}\\}_{t=4}^{n}$ are defined
by the following rules:
* •
$\widetilde{\lambda}_{n}=m_{0}$ and, for all $i<n$,
$\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}=\lambda_{i}$;
* •
$u_{4}=75\widetilde{\lambda}_{4}+37$ and
$w_{4}=151\widetilde{\lambda}_{4}+75$;
* •
for all $i$,
$u_{i}=\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}+u_{i-1}(2\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}+1)$ and
$w_{i}=\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}+w_{i-1}(2\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}+1)$.
Finally we study the case $\iota\leq n-4$. We begin with the case $\iota=1$.
###### Theorem 5.6.
Assume $n=\dim(V)\geq 4$ and $P_{m_{0}}\geq 2$ for some positive integer
$m_{0}$ and $\iota\geq 1$. Keep the same notation as in 2.2. Let $Q_{n}$ be
any nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $V$ and $Q_{n}^{\prime}$ any nef
${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $X^{\prime}$. Then
* (1)
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{\widetilde{q}_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil$
is effective for all rational numbers $\widetilde{q}_{n}>u_{n}$.
* (2)
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{\widetilde{q}_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil|$
gives a birational map for all rational numbers $\widetilde{q}_{n}>w_{n}$.
* (3)
$|mK_{V}+\lceil{Q_{n}}\rceil|$ gives a birational map for all integers $m\geq
w_{n}+2.$
###### Proof.
Statement (3) is a direct result of (2). So we have to prove (1) and (2).
When $n=4$, the conditions in (1) and (2) read
$\widetilde{q}_{4}>u_{4}:=75m_{0}+37$ and
$\widetilde{q}_{4}>w_{4}:=151m_{0}+75$. Both the statements are nothing but
Proposition 4.1(1) and Theorem 4.2(1), noting that $m_{0}\pi^{*}(K_{X})\geq
M_{0}\geq F$. Besides if we take $m_{0}=\lambda(V)$, the statements are true
for $\widetilde{q}_{4}>u_{4}:=75\lambda(V)+37$ and
$\widetilde{q}_{4}>w_{4}:=151\lambda(V)+75$.
Assume that the statements are correct for $n-1$ dimensional varieties. By
definition, $m_{0}\geq\lambda(V)$ and $\lambda_{n}\geq\lambda(V)$. Because
$\widetilde{q}_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})\geq(\widetilde{q}_{n}-m_{0})\pi^{*}(K_{X})+M_{0}$,
we will study
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{(\widetilde{q}_{n}-m_{0})\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+M_{0}|$.
Now the vanishing theorem gives:
$\displaystyle|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{(\widetilde{q}_{n}-m_{0})\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+M_{0}||_{F}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle|K_{F}+\lceil{(\widetilde{q}_{n}-m_{0})\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil|_{F}|$
$\displaystyle\supset$
$\displaystyle|K_{F}+\lceil{(\widetilde{q}_{n}-m_{0})\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil$
$\displaystyle\supset$
$\displaystyle|K_{F}+\lceil{\frac{\widetilde{q}_{n}-m_{0}}{2m_{0}+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil|.$
Clearly $\dim(F)=n-1$, the induction hypothesis says
$K_{F}+\lceil{\frac{\widetilde{q}_{n}-m_{0}}{2m_{0}+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil$
is effective when $\frac{\widetilde{q}_{n}-m_{0}}{2m_{0}+1}>u_{n-1}$ and
$|K_{F}+\lceil{\frac{\widetilde{q}_{n}-m_{0}}{2m_{0}+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil|$
gives a birational map when
$\frac{\widetilde{q}_{n}-m_{0}}{2m_{0}+1}>w_{n-1}$. Both conditions can be
replaced by
$\widetilde{q}_{n}>u_{n}=\widetilde{\lambda}_{n}+u_{n-1}(2\widetilde{\lambda}_{n}+1)$
and
$\widetilde{q}_{n}>w_{n}=\widetilde{\lambda}_{n}+w_{n-1}(2\widetilde{\lambda}_{n}+1)$,
where $\widetilde{\lambda}_{n}=m_{0}$. Note however it is enough to take
$\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}=\lambda_{i}$ for all $i<n$. We are done. ∎
###### Theorem 5.7.
Assume $n=\dim(V)\geq 5$ and $P_{m_{0}}\geq 2$ for some positive integer
$m_{0}$ and $\iota\leq n-4$. Keep the same notation as in 2.2. Let $Q_{n}$ be
any nef ${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $V$ and $Q_{n}^{\prime}$ any nef
${\mathbb{Q}}$-divisor on $X^{\prime}$. Then
* (1)
$K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(\iota-1)M_{0}$
is effective for all rational numbers
$q_{n}>(2m_{0}+1)^{\iota-1}u_{n-\iota+1}$.
* (2)
$|K_{X^{\prime}}+\lceil{q_{n}\pi^{*}(K_{X})+Q_{n}^{\prime}}\rceil+(\iota-1)M_{0}|$
gives a birational map for all rational numbers
$q_{n}>(2m_{0}+1)^{\iota-1}w_{n-\iota+1}$.
* (3)
$|mK_{V}+\lceil{Q_{n}}\rceil|$ gives a birational map for all integers
$m\geq(2m_{0}+1)^{\iota-1}w_{n-\iota+1}+m_{0}(\iota-1)+2.$
###### Proof.
Statement (3) is direct from (2). So we only need to prove (1) and (2).
When $n=5$, one necessarily has $\iota=1$ and the statements are nothing but
those in Theorem 5.6.
First We consider statement (1). We may restrict the problem to $F$ by the
vanishing theorem. Then, since $M_{0}|_{F}\leq m_{0}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})\leq
m_{0}K_{F}$, we may study the linear system
$None$
$|K_{F}+\lceil{\frac{q_{n}}{2m_{0}+1}\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{F}}\rceil+(\iota-2){M_{0}}|_{F}|.$
Note that $\dim\Phi_{|m_{0}K_{F}|}(F)\geq\Phi_{|M_{0}|}(F)\geq\iota-1$. Then
we can do an induction and repeat this program for finite times. Finally we
are reduced to study the non-emptyness of the linear system on $W$ of
dimension $n-\iota+1$:
$None$
$|K_{W}+\lceil{\frac{q_{n}}{(2m_{0}+1)^{\iota-1}}\tau^{*}(K_{W_{0}})+{Q_{n}^{\prime}}|_{W}}\rceil|$
where $\tau\colon W\rightarrow W_{0}$ is a contraction morphism to the minimal
model. Furthermore $\dim\Phi_{|m_{0}K_{W}|}(W)\geq\dim\Phi_{|M_{0}|}(W)\geq
1$. Now Theorem 5.6(1) says that
$\frac{q_{n}}{(2m_{0}+1)^{\iota-1}}>u_{n-\iota+1}$ is enough to secure the
non-emptyness of the linear system (6), where $u_{n-\iota+1}$ is obtained by
the sequence $\\{u_{t}\\}_{t=4}^{n-\iota+1}$ with
$u_{i}=\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}+u_{i-1}(2\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}+1)$,
$u_{4}=75\widetilde{\lambda}_{4}+37$, $\widetilde{\lambda}_{n-\iota+1}=m_{0}$
and, for all other $i$, $\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}=\lambda_{i}$. Therefore
statement (1) is correct.
Statement (1) and Lemma 2.7 allow us to reduce the problem onto lower
dimensional varieties. Thus what we are left to do is similar to that for
statement (1). So after one step restriction, we get the linear system (5) on
$F$. After successive restrictions and inductions, we may obtain the linear
system (6) on $W$ of dimension $n-\iota+1$. Now we may apply Theorem 5.6(2) to
get the condition $\frac{q_{n}}{(2m_{0}+1)^{\iota-1}}>w_{n-\iota+1}$ where
$w_{n-\iota+1}$ is obtained by the sequence $\\{w_{t}\\}_{t=4}^{n-\iota+1}$
with $w_{i}=\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}+w_{i-1}(2\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}+1)$,
$w_{4}=151\widetilde{\lambda}_{4}+75$, $\widetilde{\lambda}_{n-\iota+1}=m_{0}$
and, for all other $i$, $\widetilde{\lambda}_{i}=\lambda_{i}$. We are done. ∎
Finally we propose the following:
###### Problem 5.8.
As we have seen, inequality (1) in Section 2 is the key step to get optimal
birationality. Can one find a better constant $\gamma>\frac{1}{2m_{0}+1}$ such
that $\pi^{*}(K_{X})|_{F}\geq\gamma\sigma^{*}(K_{F_{0}})$? When $\dim(V)=3$,
$\gamma=\frac{p}{m_{0}+p}$ is nearly optimal by virtue of our previous work.
###### 5.9.
Acknowledgment. This note grew out of discussions with Jun Li to whom I feel
considerably indebted. I would like to thank both Jun Li and the Mathematics
Research Center of Stanford University for the support of my visit in the
Spring of 2007\. Thanks are also due to Jungkai A. Chen, Christopher D. Hacon,
Yujiro Kawamata, Eckart Viehweg, De-Qi Zhang and Kang Zuo for their generous
helps and stimulating discussions. Finally I am grateful to the referee for
several technical suggestions.
## References
* [1] C. Birkar, P. Cascini, C. D. Hacon, J. McKernan, Existence of minimal models for varieties of log general type, arXiv: math/0610203
* [2] E. Bombieri, Canonical models of surfaces of general type. Inst. Hautes Etudes Sci. Publ. Math. 42 (1973), 171-219.
* [3] J. A. Chen, C. D. Hacon, Pluricanonical maps of varieties of maximal Albanese dimension. Math. Ann. 320 (2001), 367-380
* [4] J. A. Chen, C. D. Hacon, Pluricanonical systems on irregular 3-folds of general type. Math. Z. 255(2007), no. 2, 343-355
* [5] J. A. Chen, M. Chen, Explicit birational geometry of 3-folds of general type, I, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (to appear). arXiv: 0810.5041
* [6] J. A. Chen, M. Chen, Explicit birational geometry of 3-folds of general type, II, arXiv: 0810.5044
* [7] M. Chen, Canonical stability in terms of singularity index for algebraic threefolds, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 131 (2001), 241-264.
* [8] M. Chen, On the ${\bf Q}$-divisor method and its application. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 191 (2004), 143–156.
* [9] M. Chen, K. Zuo, Complex projective 3-folds with non-negative canonical Enler-Poincare characteristic, Comm. Anal. Geom. 16 (2008), 159-182.
* [10] C. D. Hacon, J. M${}^{\text{\rm c}}$Kernan, Boundedness of pluricanonical maps of varieties of general type, Invent. Math. 166 (2006), no. 1, 1-25
* [11] C. D. Hacon, J. McKernan, Shokurov’s rational connectedness conjecture, Duke Math. J. 138 (2007), no. 1, 119-136
* [12] C. D. Hacon, J. M${}^{\text{c}}$kernan, Existence of minimal models for varieties of log general type, II, preprint.
* [13] Y. Kawamata, A generalization of Kodaira-Ramanujam’s vanishing theorem, Math. Ann. 261 (1982), 43-46.
* [14] J. Kollár, Higher direct images of dualizing sheaves I, Ann. Math. 123 (1986), 11-42.
* [15] G. Pacienza, On the uniformity of the Iitaka fibration. preprint. arXiv: 0709.0310.
* [16] V. V. Shokurov, On rational connectedness, Math. Notes 68 (2000), 652-660.
* [17] M. Reid, Young person’s guide to canonical singularities, Proc. Symposia in pure Math. 46(1987), 345-414.
* [18] Y. T. Siu, A general non-vanishing theorem and an analytic proof of the finite generation of the canonical ring, arXiv:math/0610740
* [19] S. Takayama, Pluricanonical systems on algebraic varieties of general type, Invent. Math. 165 (2006), no. 3, 551-587.
* [20] H. Tsuji, Pluricanonical systems of projective varieties of general type. I. Osaka J. Math. 43 (2006), no. 4, 967–995
* [21] E. Viehweg, Vanishing theorems, J. reine angew. Math. 335 (1982), 1-8.
* [22] E. Viehweg, Weak positivity and the additivity of the Kodaira dimension for certain fibre spaces. Proc. Algebraic Varieties and Analytic Varieties, Tokyo 1981. Adv. Studies in Math. 1, Kinokunya-North-Holland Publ. 1983, 329-353
* [23] E. Viehweg, D.-Q. Zhang, Effective Iitaka fibrations, J. Algebraic Geom. 18 (2009), 711-730. arXiv:0707.4287
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-28T07:43:32 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.985564 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Meng Chen (Shanghai)",
"submitter": "Meng Chen",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4273"
} |
0805.4277 | # Spin chain model for correlated quantum channels
Davide Rossini1, Vittorio Giovannetti2 and Simone Montangero2 1 International
School for Advanced Studies SISSA/ISAS, via Beirut 2-4, I-34014 Trieste, Italy
2 NEST-CNR-INFM & Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7 , I-56126
Pisa, Italy 222URL: www.qti.sns.it
(September 2, 2024)
###### Abstract
We analyze the quality of the quantum information transmission along a
correlated quantum channel by studying the average fidelity between input and
output states and the average output purity, giving bounds for the entropy of
the channel. Noise correlations in the channel are modeled by the coupling of
each channel use with an element of a one dimensional interacting quantum spin
chain. Criticality of the environment chain is seen to emerge in the changes
of the fidelity and of the purity.
## 1 Introduction
The common scenario in quantum communication protocols is constituted by two
distant parties, Alice and Bob, who want to exchange information through a
quantum communication link. Due to unavoidable noise in the channel, this
cannot be perfectly accomplished, and some strategies aimed to reduce
communication errors have to be employed. These are based on complex
encoding/decoding operations and on suitably tailoring the physical system
that acts as a channel. In this context the effect of noise on the quantum
communication is typically quantified by the so called capacities of the
channel, that is the optimal rates at which (quantum or classical) information
can be reliably transmitted in the limit of infinite channel uses [1]. The
vast majority of the results obtained so far focused on the case of memoryless
quantum channels, where the noise acts independently for each channel use.
However, in real physical situations, correlations in the noise acting between
successive uses can be established. When this happens the communication line
is said to be a memory channel, or more precisely, a correlated channel. The
analysis of these setups is much more demanding than the memoryless case, and,
at present, only a restricted class of them has been solved [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
9, 7].
Recently, a physical model for representing correlated channels has been
proposed in Refs. [4, 10], which, in the context of Bosonic channels and qubit
channels respectively, has established a direct connection between these
systems and many-body physics. The setup discussed in these proposals is
depicted in Fig. 1. Here Alice sends her messages to Bob by encoding them into
a $n$-long sequence of information carriers $S$ (the red dots of the figure),
which model subsequent channel uses associated with $n$ independent Bosonic
modes [4] or $n$ independent spins [10]. The correlated noise of the channel
is then described by assuming that each carrier interacts independently with a
corresponding element of a $n$-party environment $E$ (sketched with the
connected black dots of the figure), which, in Refs. [4] and [10], represents
a multi-mode Gaussian state and a many-body spin state, respectively. Thus
given an input state $\rho_{S}$ of the $n$ carriers, the corresponding output
state associated with the channel is
${\cal E}_{n}(\rho_{S})=\mbox{Tr}_{E}[{\cal
U}\,(\rho_{S}\otimes\sigma_{E})\,{\cal U}^{\dagger}]\;,$ (1)
where $\sigma_{E}$ is the joint input state of $E$ and the partial trace is
performed over the environment. In this equation ${\cal U}$ represents the
unitary coupling between $S$ and $E$, which is expressed as
$\displaystyle{\cal U}=\bigotimes_{\ell=1}^{n}U^{(\ell)}\;,$ (2)
with $U^{(\ell)}$ being the interaction between the $\ell$-th carrier and its
environmental counterpart (in Ref. [4] these were beam-splitter couplings,
while in Ref. [10] they were phase-gate couplings). Within this framework,
memoryless channels ${\cal E}_{n}={\cal E}^{\otimes n}$ are obtained for
factorizable environmental input states, while correlated noise models
correspond to correlated environmental states $\sigma_{E}$. Interestingly
enough, in Ref. [10] it was shown that it is possible to relate the quantum
capacity [11] of some specific channels (1) to the properties of the many-body
environment $E$.
Figure 1: Model for memory channels: The red dots represent the channel uses
(ordered, for instance, starting from the left to the right). The channel
noise is modeled as a collection of local interactions between the channel
uses and the many-body environment $E$ (black dots).
In this paper we discuss a variation of the model (1), which allows us to
adapt some of the techniques used in Ref. [12] for characterizing the
decoherence effects induced by spin quantum baths, in order to analyze the
efficiency of a class of correlated qubits channels. To do so we consider a
unitary coupling ${\cal U}$ that does not factorize as in Eq. (2). Instead we
assume $E$ to be a spin chain characterized by a free Hamiltonian
$\mathcal{H}_{E}$, whose elements interact with the carriers $S$ through the
local Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{\rm int}$. With this choice we write
$\displaystyle{\cal U}=\exp[-i\,(\mathcal{H}_{E}+\mathcal{H}_{\rm
int})\,t]\;,$ (3)
with the interaction time $t$ being a free parameter of the model. In
particular, as a chain Hamiltonian, we consider a spin-$1/2$ $XY$ model in a
transverse field, which can exhibit, in some parameters region, ground state
critical properties that greatly enhance spin correlations [13]. Therefore the
distance of the chain from criticality is non trivially related to memory
effects in the channel. In the second part of the paper, we generalize the
previous scheme by introducing a given number of $m$ extra spins between any
two consecutive qubits, as shown in Fig. 2. In this case, we can use the
number $m$ to modulate the memory effects.
Figure 2: Generalized model of spin chain memory channels. As an example, in
this figure we set $m=2$.
## 2 The Model
As the environment $E$ of the system in Fig. 1 we consider an interacting one-
dimensional quantum spin-$1/2$ chain described by an $XY$ exchange Hamiltonian
in a transverse magnetic field:
$\mathcal{H}_{E}=-\frac{J}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left[(1+\gamma)\sigma_{j}^{x}\sigma_{j+1}^{x}+(1-\gamma)\sigma_{j}^{y}\sigma_{j+1}^{y}+2\lambda\sigma_{j}^{z}\right]\;,$
(4)
where $\sigma^{\alpha}_{j}$ (with $\alpha=x,y,z$) are the Pauli matrices of
the $j$-th spin, $J$ is the coupling strength between neighboring spins, and
$\lambda$ is the external field strength 111 Hereafter we always use open
boundary conditions, therefore we assume
$\sigma^{\alpha}_{n}\sigma^{\alpha}_{1}=0$.. The model in Eq. (4) for
$0<\gamma\leq 1$ belongs to the Ising universality class, and has a critical
point at $\lambda_{c}=1$; for $\gamma=0$ it reduces to the $XX$ universality
class, that is critical for $|\lambda|\leq 1$ [13].
Following Ref. [12], we then assume that each carrier qubit is coupled to one
environmental spin element through the coupling Hamiltonian
$\mathcal{H}_{\rm int}(j)=-\varepsilon|e\rangle_{j}\langle
e|\otimes\sigma^{z}_{j}\;,$ (5)
where $\left|g\right\rangle_{j}$ and $\left|e\right\rangle_{j}$ respectively
represent the ground and the excited state of the $j$-th qubit. Hence the
total Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}\equiv\mathcal{H}_{E}+\mathcal{H}_{\rm int}$ is
given by
$\mathcal{H}=-\frac{J}{2}\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left[(1+\gamma)\sigma_{j}^{x}\sigma_{j+1}^{x}+(1-\gamma)\sigma_{j}^{y}\sigma_{j+1}^{y}+2\lambda\sigma_{j}^{z}\right]-\varepsilon\sum_{j=1}^{n}|e\rangle_{j}\langle
e|\sigma_{j}^{z}.$ (6)
Finally, as in Refs. [10, 12], we suppose that at time $t=0$ the environment
chain is prepared in the ground state $\left|\varphi\right\rangle_{E}$ of
${\cal H}_{E}$. We then consider a generic input state
$\left|\psi\right\rangle_{S}$ of the $n$ qubit carriers of the system (i.e.,
the input state of the red dots in Fig. 1), and write it in the computational
basis:
$\left|\psi\right\rangle_{S}=\sum_{x}\alpha_{x}\left|x\right\rangle_{S}\,,$
(7)
where $\alpha_{x}$ are complex probability amplitudes and the sum runs over
$N=2^{n}$ possible choices of $x$, each of them being a binary string of $n$
elements in which the $j$-th element is represented as $g$ or $e$, according
to the state (ground or excited, respectively) of the corresponding $j$-th
qubit.
For each vector $\left|x\right\rangle_{S}$ we define ${\cal S}_{x}$ as the set
of the corresponding excited qubits (for instance, given $n=5$ and
$\left|x\right\rangle_{S}=\left|egeeg\right\rangle_{S}$, then ${\cal S}_{x}$
contains the $1^{\rm st}$, $3^{\rm rd}$ and $4^{\rm th}$ qubits). After a time
$t$, the global state of the qubits and the chain will then evolve into
$\left|\psi\right\rangle_{S}\otimes\left|\varphi\right\rangle_{E}\quad\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\cal
U}}{{\longrightarrow}}\quad\sum_{x}\alpha_{x}\left|x\right\rangle_{S}\otimes{\cal
U}_{x}\left|\varphi\right\rangle_{E}\;,$ (8)
where ${\cal U}$ is the global evolution operator of Eq. (3), while ${\cal
U}_{x}\equiv\exp[-i\,\mathcal{H}_{E}^{x}\,t]$ is associated to the following
chain Hamiltonian:
$\mathcal{H}_{E}^{x}\equiv\mathcal{H}_{E}-\varepsilon\sum_{j\in{\cal
S}_{x}}\sigma_{j}^{z}\,.$ (9)
According to Eq. (1), the channel output state is then described by the
density matrix
${\cal
E}_{n}(|\psi\rangle_{S}\langle\psi|)=\rho_{S}^{\prime}=\sum_{x,y}L_{xy}\;\alpha_{x}\alpha_{y}^{*}\;|x\rangle_{S}\langle
y|\;,$ (10)
where
$L_{xy}\equiv{{}_{E}\langle}\varphi|\,{\cal U}_{y}^{\dagger}\,{\cal
U}_{x}\left|\varphi\right\rangle_{E}\;,$ (11)
can be seen as a generalized Loschmidt echo, denoting the scalar product of
the input environment state $\left|\varphi\right\rangle_{E}$ evolved with
${\cal U}_{x}$ and ${\cal U}_{y}$, respectively [14]. These quantities can be
evaluated by first mapping the Hamiltonian (9) into a free-fermion model via a
Jordan Wigner transformation [15]
$c_{k}=\exp\Bigg{(}i\pi\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\sigma_{j}^{+}\sigma_{j}^{-}\Bigg{)}\,\sigma_{k}^{-}\;,$
(12)
where $\sigma^{\pm}=(\sigma^{x}\pm i\sigma^{y})/2$, and then by diagonalizing
it with a Bogoliubov rotation of the Jordan Wigner fermions
$\\{c^{\dagger}_{k},c_{k}\\}_{k=1,\ldots,n}$. This allows one to find an
explicit expression of the Loschmidt echo in terms of the determinant of a
$2n\times 2n$ matrix (see Ref. [12] for details):
$L_{xy}={{}_{E}\langle}\varphi|e^{i\mathcal{H}_{E}^{x}t}e^{-i\mathcal{H}_{E}^{y}t}|\varphi\rangle_{E}={\rm
det}(\mathbb{I}-\rho_{0}+\rho_{0}e^{iH_{x}t}e^{-iH_{y}t})\,,$ (13)
where $\mathcal{H}_{k}=\sum_{ij}[H_{k}]_{ij}\Psi^{\dagger}_{i}\Psi_{j}$,
${\bf\Psi^{\dagger}}=\left(c_{1}^{\dagger}\ldots c_{N}^{\dagger}\,c_{1}\ldots
c_{N}\right)$, and
$[\rho_{0}]_{ij}={{}_{E}\langle}\varphi|\Psi_{i}^{\dagger}\Psi_{j}|\varphi\rangle_{E}$
are the two-point correlation functions of the chain.
## 3 The channel
The echoes (11) provide a complete characterization of the correlated channel
${\cal E}_{n}$. In particular, since $L_{xx}=1$ for all $x$, Eq. (10) shows
that the channel ${\cal E}_{n}$ is unital, i.e. it maps the completely mixed
state $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{x}|x\rangle_{S}\langle x|$ into itself. Furthermore,
the $N\times N$ matrix of elements $L_{xy}/N$ coincides with the Choi-
Jamiolkowski state [16] of the map. The latter is defined as the output
density matrix obtained when sending through the channel ${\cal E}_{n}$ half
of the canonical maximally entangled state
$|+\rangle_{SA}\equiv\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{x}|x\rangle_{S}\otimes|x\rangle_{A}$
of the $N$-level system $S$, i.e.
$\displaystyle J({\cal E}_{n})\equiv({\cal E}_{n}\otimes{\cal
I}_{A})(|+\rangle_{SA}\langle+|)=\sum_{x,y}\frac{L_{xy}}{N}\;|xx\rangle_{SA}\langle
yy|\;,$ (14)
with $A$ being a $N$-dimensional ancillary system and ${\cal I}_{A}$ being the
identity map. Similarly to the case analyzed in Ref. [10], this is a maximally
correlated state [17] whose 1-way distillable entanglement is known to
coincides with the “hashing bound” [17, 18, 19]:
$\displaystyle D_{1}(J({\cal E}_{n}))=H(J_{S}({\cal E}_{n}))-H(J({\cal
E}_{n}))=\log_{2}N-H(J({\cal E}_{n}))\;,$ (15)
where $J_{S}({\cal E}_{n})\equiv\mbox{Tr}_{A}[J({\cal E}_{n})]$ is the reduced
density matrix of $J({\cal E}_{n})$ associated with the system $S$, while
$H(\cdot)=\mbox{Tr}[(\cdot)\log_{2}(\cdot)]$ is the von Neumann entropy. At
least for the subclass of forgetful channels [8], the regularized version of
Eq. (15) can then be used [18, 10] to bound the quantum capacity [1, 11] of
${\cal E}_{n}$. This is 222The inequality (16) is a consequence of the fact
that the quantum capacity $Q$ of a channel does not increase if we provide the
communicating parties with a 1-way (from the sender to the receiver) classical
side communication line [18, 20]. It is derived by constructing an explicit
quantum communication protocol in which i) Alice sends through the channel
half of the maximally entangled state $|+\rangle_{SA}$ to Bob, ii) the
resulting state $J({\cal E}_{n})$ is then 1-way distilled obtaining
$D_{1}(J({\cal E}_{n}))$ Bell pairs which, finally, iii) are employed to
teleport Alice messages to Bob. It is worth noticing that for the channel
analyzed in Ref. [10] the right hand side of Eq. (15) was also an upper bound
for $Q$.
$\displaystyle Q({\cal
E}_{n})\geqslant\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{D_{1}(J_{S}({\cal
E}_{n}))}{n}=1-\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{H(J({\cal E}_{n}))}{n}\;.$ (16)
The quantity $H(J({\cal E}_{n}))$ corresponds to the entropy of the channel
${\cal E}_{n}$ of Ref. [21], which can be used as an estimator of the channel
noise. In our case it has also a simple interpretation in terms of the
properties of the many-body system $E$: it measures the entropy of the ground
state $|\varphi\rangle_{E}$ after it has evolved through a random application
of the perturbed unitaries ${\cal U}_{x}$ 333 This is a trivial consequence of
the fact that $J({\cal E}_{n})$ is the reduced density matrix of the pure
state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\sum_{x}|xx\rangle_{SA}\otimes{\cal
U}_{x}|\varphi\rangle_{E}$ tracing out the environment, and of the fact that
the von Neumann entropies of the reduced density matrices of a pure bipartite
system coincide., i.e.
$\displaystyle H(J({\cal
E}_{n}))=H(\sigma_{E}^{\prime})\;,\qquad\mbox{with}\qquad\sigma_{E}^{\prime}\equiv\frac{1}{N}\sum_{x}{\cal
U}_{x}\;|\varphi\rangle_{E}\langle\varphi|\;{\cal U}^{\dagger}_{x}\;.$ (17)
Unfortunately, for large $n$ the computation of the von Neumann entropy of the
state $J({\cal E}_{n})$ is impractical both analytically and numerically,
since it requires to evaluate an exponential number of $L_{xy}$ elements.
Interestingly enough, however, we can simplify our analysis by considering the
fidelity between $J({\cal E}_{n})$ and its input counterpart $|+\rangle_{SA}$
(see Eq. (14)). As discussed in the following section, this is a relevant
information theoretical quantity, since it is directly related to the average
fidelity between input and output state of the channel ${\cal E}_{n}$ and
provides us an upper bound for $H(J({\cal E}_{n}))$. Similarly we can compute
the purity of $J({\cal E}_{n})$ which, on one hand, gives a lower bound for
$H(J({\cal E}_{n}))$, while, on the other hand, it is directly related to the
average channel output purity of the map ${\cal E}_{n}$.
Figure 3: Averaged channel fidelity as a function of the interaction time, for
different values of the transverse field $\lambda$: from right to left
$\lambda=0.25,\,0.5,\,0.75,\,0.9,\,1,\,1.1,\,1.5,\,2$. Here we simulated a
channel of $n=50$ qubits coupled to an Ising chain, and set an interaction
strength $\varepsilon=0.05$; the fidelity has been evaluated by sampling over
$N_{av}=5\times 10^{4}$ randomly chosen initial conditions. In the inset we
plot the averaged fidelity at a fixed interaction time $Jt^{*}=5$, as a
function of $\lambda$.
## 4 Average transmission fidelity
According to Eq. (14), the fidelity between the Choi-Jamiolkowski state
$J({\cal E}_{n})$ and its input counterpart coincides with the average value
of the Loschmidt echoes $L_{xy}$, i.e.
$\displaystyle{\cal F}\equiv{}_{SA}\langle+|J({\cal
E}_{n})|+\rangle_{SA}=\frac{1}{N^{2}}\sum_{x,y}L_{xy}\;.$ (18)
Even without computing all the $L_{xy}$, this quantity can be numerically
evaluated by performing a sampling over $N_{av}$ randomly chosen couples
($x,y$) of initial conditions, and averaging over them 444 We numerically
checked the convergence of ${\cal F}$ with $N_{av}$. We first considered a
situation with a few number of qubits ($n\leq 10$), such to compare sampled
averages, ${\cal F}_{av}$, with exact averages over all possible events,
${\cal F}_{ex}={\cal F}$. We found that, already at $N_{av}=10^{4}$, absolute
differences $|{\cal F}_{av}-{\cal F}_{ex}|$ are always less than $2\times
10^{-2}$, while at $N_{av}=5\times 10^{4}$ the error is less than $5\times
10^{-3}$, independently of the values of the interaction time $t$, the
transverse field $\lambda$ and the system size $n$. In a second time, we
simulated systems with definitely larger sizes ($n\approx 50$) and simply
check the convergence of ${\cal F}_{av}$ with $N_{av}$. Differences between
fidelities with $N_{av}=10^{4}$ and $N_{av}=5\times 10^{4}$ are of the same
order as the deviation of the curve with $N_{av}=10^{4}$ from the exact one
for small sizes. Therefore we can reliably affirm that fidelity results with
$N_{av}=5\times 10^{4}$ are exact, up to an absolute error of order $5\times
10^{-3}$. :
${\cal F}\approx{\cal F}_{av}\equiv\frac{1}{N_{av}}\sum_{(x,y)=1}^{N_{av}}{\rm
Re}[L_{xy}]\,,$ (19)
(where we used the fact that $L_{yx}=L_{xy}^{*}$). The quantity ${\cal F}$
provides an upper bound for $H(J({\cal E}_{n}))$ through the quantum Fano
inequality [22], i.e.
$\displaystyle H(J({\cal E}_{n}))\leqslant H_{2}({\cal F})+(1-{\cal
F})\log_{2}(4^{n}-1)\leqslant H_{2}({\cal F})+2n(1-{\cal F})\;,$ (20)
where $H_{2}(\cdot)=-(\cdot)\log_{2}(\cdot)-[1-(\cdot)]\log_{2}[1-(\cdot)]$ is
the binary entropy function555Equation (20) can be easily derived by noticing
that $H(J({\cal E}_{n}))$ and ${\cal F}$ coincide, respectively, with the
exchange entropy and entanglement fidelity of the channel ${\cal E}_{n}$
associated with the maximally mixed state $\mathbb{I}_{S}/2^{n}$ of $S$..
Furthermore ${\cal F}$ is directly related to the average transmission
fidelity $\langle F\rangle$ of the map ${\cal E}_{n}$. For a given pure input
state (7), the transmission fidelity is
$F(\psi)\equiv{{}_{S}\langle\psi}|{\cal
E}_{n}(|\psi\rangle_{S}\langle\psi|)\left|\psi\right\rangle_{S}=\sum_{x,y}L_{xy}|\alpha_{x}|^{2}|\alpha_{y}|^{2}\;.$
(21)
Taking the average with respect to all possible inputs, we get
$\langle F\rangle=\sum_{x,y}L_{xy}\,p_{xy}\,,$ (22)
where $p_{xy}=\langle|\alpha_{x}|^{2}|\alpha_{y}|^{2}\rangle$ with
$\langle...\rangle$ being the average with respect to the uniform Haar
measure.
Figure 4: Fidelity for a channel coupled to an Ising chain with $\lambda=1$
and different qubit numbers $n$: from right to left
$n=4,\,6,\,8,\,10,\,16,\,30,\,50$; the interaction strength is kept fixed at
$\varepsilon=0.05$; data are averaged over $N_{av}=5\times 10^{4}$
configurations. Inset: ${\mathcal{F}}_{av}$ at a fixed time $t^{*}$, as a
function of $n$.
The probability distribution $p_{xy}$ can be computed by using simple
geometrical arguments [23]. As shown in A, this yields
$p_{xy}=\frac{1+2\,\delta_{x,y}}{N(N+2)}$ and hence:
$\langle F\rangle=\left(\frac{2}{N(N+2)}\sum_{x>y}{\rm
Re}[L_{xy}]\right)+\frac{3}{N+2}\,,$ (23)
where we used the fact that $L_{xx}=1$ and $L_{xy}=L_{yx}^{*}$. Therefore,
from Eq. (18) we get
$\displaystyle\langle F\rangle=\frac{N}{N+2}\;{\cal F}+\frac{2}{N+2}\;.$ (24)
The fidelities ${\cal F}$ and $\langle F\rangle$ are not directly related to
the channel quantum capacity, nonetheless, as in Eq. (20), they can be used to
derive bounds for $Q$ 666In particular from Eq. (20) and Eq. (16) one gets
$Q\geqslant 1-2\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}{\cal F}$.. More generally, values
near to unity of the fidelity between the output channel states and their
corresponding input states, are indicative of a fairly noiseless communication
line. On the contrary, values of the transmission fidelities close to zero,
while indicating output states nearly orthogonal to their input counterparts,
do not necessarily imply null or low capacities, since such huge discrepancies
between inputs and outputs could still be corrected by a proper encoding and
decoding strategy (e.g. consider the case of a channel which simply rotate the
system states).
Figure 5: Short-time Gaussian decay rate $\alpha$ as a function of the
transverse field $\lambda$. We rescaled $\alpha$ with the system size
according to the scaling of Fig. 4. In the inset we plot the first derivative
of the same curves in the main panel, with respect to $\lambda$.
Equation (13) allows us to numerically compute the averaged transmission
fidelity (19): numerical results in this and in the next sections are given
for the case $\gamma=1$, i.e. we study the correlated quantum channel defined
by the Ising model. The behavior of the averaged channel fidelity
${\mathcal{F}}_{av}$, defined in Eq. (19) and related to the memory channel
scheme of Fig. 1, with respect to the interaction time $t$ (the free model
parameter) is shown in Fig. 3: the plots are given for $n=50$ qubits, each of
them coupled to one spin of an Ising chain with a coupling strength
$\varepsilon=0.05$. Different curves stand for different values of the
transverse magnetic field $\lambda$: as it can be clearly seen, the fidelity
${\mathcal{F}}_{av}$ decays as a Gaussian in time, irrespective of the field
strength $\lambda$ 777 For times longer than those in the scales of Figs. 3
and 4, revivals of the fidelity are present. See B for details. . The
signature of criticality in the environment chain can be identified by
studying the function ${\mathcal{F}}_{av}(\lambda,t)$ for fixed interaction
time $t^{*}$: the inset of Fig. 3 displays a non analytic behavior for the
derivative of ${\mathcal{F}}_{av}(\lambda,t^{*})$ with respect to $\lambda$ at
the critical point $\lambda_{c}=1$. This non analyticity will be clearer in
the following, where the size scaling will be considered. In Fig. 4 we study
the behavior of ${\mathcal{F}}_{av}$ with the number $n$ of qubits, at a fixed
value of transverse magnetic field $\lambda=1$. As it is shown in the inset,
at a given interaction time $t^{*}$, the fidelity
${\mathcal{F}}_{av}(\lambda_{c},t^{*})$ decays exponentially with $n$ (the
same behavior is found when $\lambda\neq 1$). This dependence of the decay
rate implies that the average fidelity ${\mathcal{F}}_{av}$ can be fitted by:
${\mathcal{F}}_{av}\sim e^{-\alpha t^{2}}\qquad\textrm{ with
}\quad\alpha\propto n\,;$ (25)
in other words, the Gaussian decay rate is extensive. Indeed, since the
fidelity is a global quantity that describes the evolution of the state of the
whole $n$-body system, it should start decaying as a Gaussian (at least at
small times) [24], with a reasonably extensive decay ratio. This prediction is
confirmed by the results of Fig. 5, where we report the decay rate as a
function of the transverse magnetic field for different system sizes $n$. In
proximity of the critical point, the decay rate undergoes a sudden change,
which becomes more evident when increasing the system size. The signature of
criticality at $\lambda_{c}=1$ and the finite size effects can be better
analyzed by looking at the derivative of the decay rate with respect to the
transverse field: The inset of Fig. 5 clearly show that
$\partial_{\lambda}\alpha$ exhibits a non analytic behavior at the critical
point $\lambda_{c}$, at the thermodynamical limit. Notice also that, due to
finite size effects, the maximum of $\partial_{\lambda}\alpha$ does not
coincide exactly with the critical point, that can be rigorously defined only
at the thermodynamical limit, but occurs at a slightly smaller value of
$\lambda$. However, we checked that a finite size scaling gives the right
prediction of the critical point located at $\lambda=1$.
## 5 Average output purity
Another quantity that can be evaluated with relatively little numerical effort
is the purity of the Choi-Jamiolkowski state $J({\cal E}_{n})$, i.e.
$\displaystyle{\cal P}_{2}\equiv\mbox{Tr}[J({\cal
E}_{n})^{2}]=\frac{1}{N^{2}}\sum_{xy}|L_{xy}|^{2}\;.$ (26)
As in the case of ${\cal F}$, this can be computed by approximating the
summation with a random sampling, i.e.
${\cal P}_{2}\approx{\cal
P}_{av}\equiv\frac{1}{N_{av}}\sum_{(x,y)=1}^{N_{av}}|L_{xy}|^{2}\,.$ (27)
The quantity (26) provides us two important pieces of information. First of
all, it yields a useful bound on the channel entropy $H(J({\cal E}_{n}))$.
This follows from the inequality [25]
$\displaystyle H(J({\cal E}_{n}))\geqslant H_{2}(J({\cal
E}_{n}))=-\log_{2}{\cal P}_{2}\;,$ (28)
with $H_{2}(\cdot)\equiv-\log_{2}\mbox{Tr}[(\cdot)^{2}]$ being the Rényi
entropy of order 2. Furthermore ${\cal P}_{2}$ is directly related to the
average output purity $\langle P_{2}\rangle$ of the channel ${\cal E}_{n}$.
This is obtained by averaging over all possible inputs $|\psi\rangle_{S}$ the
purity of the output state ${\cal E}_{n}(|\psi\rangle_{S}\langle\psi|)$, i.e.
$\langle P_{2}\rangle\equiv\langle{\rm Tr}\left[({\cal
E}_{n}(|\psi\rangle_{S}\langle\psi|))^{2}\right]\rangle=\sum_{x,y}|L_{xy}|^{2}\,\langle|\alpha_{x}|^{2}|\alpha_{y}|^{2}\rangle=\sum_{x,y}|L_{xy}|^{2}\,p_{xy}\,,$
(29)
where we used Eq. (10) and where $p_{xy}$ are the probabilities defined in Eq.
(32). According to Eq. (26) this yields,
$\langle P_{2}\rangle=\frac{N}{N+2}{\cal P}_{2}+\frac{2}{N+2}\;.$ (30)
Figure 6: Averaged purity of the channel output state as a function of the
interaction time, for various transverse field strengths: from left to right
$\lambda=0.25$ (black circles), 0.5 (red squares), 0.75 (green diamonds), 0.9
(brown triangles up), 1 (blue triangles down), 1.1 (magenta triangles left),
1.5 (orange triangles right), 2 (violet crosses). Here we simulated a channel
of $n=30$ qubits coupled to an Ising chain, set an interaction strength
$\varepsilon=0.05$, and averaged over $N_{av}=5\times 10^{4}$ random initial
conditions. In the inset we plot the short-time Gaussian decay rate $\beta$ as
a function of $\lambda$.
The average purity is a rather fair indicator of the noise induced by the
coupling to the environment: if the carrier qubits get strongly entangled with
the environment, $P_{2}$ is greatly reduced from the unit value (for large $n$
it will tend to zero); on the other hand, a channel which simply unitarily
rotates the carrier states has a unit purity. However, we should stress that
also the purity may intrinsically fail as a transmission quality quantifier:
there are strongly noisy channels with very high output purity (consider, for
example, the channel which maps each input state into the same pure output
state).
Then, we study the average channel purity ${\mathcal{P}}_{av}$ as a function
of the model free parameter, the interaction time $t$. The results are
reported in Fig. 6 for a chain of $n=30$ qubits and different values of the
transverse field $\lambda$. We notice qualitatively different behaviors
depending on the values of the transverse field $\lambda$: If
$\lambda<\lambda_{c}$ the averaged purity oscillates in time and
asymptotically tends to an average constant value; as far as the critical
point is approached, ${\mathcal{P}}_{av}$ drops to smaller values (revivals
are again due to finite system size effects), reflecting the fact that at
criticality correlations between the qubits and the environment are stronger.
Crossing the critical point, in the $z$-ordered phase ($\lambda>\lambda_{c}$)
the purity is generally higher and asymptotically takes values very close to
the unit value. This can be easily understood in the limit $\lambda\to\infty$:
in this case the spins in the chain are “freezed” along the field direction
and they cannot couple with anything else, resulting in a watchdog-like effect
[24]. Independently of the transverse field value, the average purity
${\mathcal{P}}_{av}$ decays as a Gaussian ${\mathcal{P}}_{av}\sim e^{-\beta
t^{2}}$ in the short time limit. As for the averaged fidelity
${\mathcal{F}}_{av}$, we have then analyzed the decay rate $\beta$ as a
function of $\lambda$: as before, $\beta$ exhibits a signature of criticality
via a divergence, at the thermodynamical limit, in its first derivative with
respect to $\lambda$ (see the inset of Fig. 6).
Figure 7: Upper panel: average channel fidelity for the generalized model in
Fig. 2, with $n=12$ qubits, $\varepsilon=0.05$ (averages have been performed
over $N_{av}=10^{4}$ initial states). The various curves are for different
numbers $m$ of spins between two consecutive qubits, and different values of
transverse magnetic fields $\lambda=0.25,\,1,\,2$. Lower panel: absolute
differences in the fidelities between configurations at various $m$, as a
function of $\lambda$ and at a fixed interaction time $Jt^{*}=10$. Figure 8:
Gaussian decay rate of the averaged fidelity for model in Fig. 2, as a
function of the transverse field $\lambda$. The various curves stand for
different numbers of spins $m$ between two consecutive qubits (here $n=12$,
$\varepsilon=0.05$, $N_{av}=10^{4}$). In the inset we show the first
derivative with respect to $\lambda$ of the curves in the main panel.
## 6 Generalized model
We finally concentrate on the generalized model depicted in Fig. 2, where a
certain number $m$ of environment spins are present between two consecutive
spins coupled to the qubits. The richness of the model, that is characterized
by a large number of parameters, and by a global size which grows both with
$n$ and $m$, requires a huge numerical effort in order to simulate it,
therefore we decided to analyze only the average channel fidelity
${\mathcal{F}}_{av}$. In the upper panel of Fig. 7 we show
${\mathcal{F}}_{av}$ as a function of the interaction time $t$ for different
values of $m$ and three values of the transverse field $\lambda=0.25,\,1,\,2$;
we fix a number of qubits $n=12$ and an interaction strength
$\varepsilon=0.05$. Hereafter we will concentrate on this case as a typical
result, as we performed some checks with larger numbers of channel uses
($n=30,\,50$ and $m=0,\,1,\,2$), and found qualitatively analogous results. We
immediately observe that differences for various $m$ are tiny, even if the
fidelity generally tends to increase when increasing $m$; the sensibility with
$m$ suddenly enhances at criticality ($\lambda_{c}=1$), where correlations in
the environment decay much slower than in the other cases. On the other hand,
when $\lambda$ is far from $\lambda_{c}$, differences between fidelities upon
a variation of $m$ are greatly suppressed, and the generalized model mostly
behaves as the model in Fig. 1. Again, this reflects the fact that, out of
criticality, each qubit is mostly influenced only by the spin that is coupled
to, as the spin does not exchange correlations with the other environmental
spins. The resulting channel properties are then defined only by the local
properties of the chain. On the contrary, at criticality, the spins are
correlated and then the resulting channel properties are influenced by the
distance of the spins coupled with the qubits. In the lower panel of Fig. 7 we
explicitly plot the differences in the fidelities for various $m$ as a
function of $\lambda$, and for a fixed interaction time; a peak in proximity
of $\lambda_{c}$ is clearly visible. We point out that, as already noted at
the end of Sec. 4 concerning the size scaling of the fidelity, the maximum in
the differences does not occur exactly at the critical point.
The sensitivity to criticality is again demonstrated by the averaged fidelity
Gaussian decay rate $\alpha$ as a function of $\lambda$, as shown in Fig. 8
for different values of $m$: the first derivative in the inset has a maximum
in correspondence of a value that approaches the critical point $\lambda_{c}$
at the thermodynamical limit. Indeed, increasing $m$ is equivalent to
approaching the thermodynamical limit of the chain, thus resulting in an
increase of the quantum phase transition effects. A double check of this comes
from the cyan triangles-down curve of Fig. 8: in this case we take $m=4$, but
we break one of the links between two intermediate spins. The environment is
then formed by disconnected chains, each of them made up by $5$ spins,
therefore the system cannot undergo a phase transition in the limit
$n\to\infty$: the signature of criticality has completely disappeared.
## 7 Conclusions
In conclusion we have introduced and characterized a class of correlated
quantum channels, and we have given bounds for its entropy by means of the
averaged channel fidelity ${\mathcal{F}}_{av}$ and purity
${\mathcal{P}}_{av}$. Even though in general these bounds might not be strict,
we give a characterization of the channel in terms of quantities that have a
clear meaning from the point of view of the many body model we have
introduced.
In the case of an environment defined by a quantum Ising chain, we have shown
that the averaged channel purity and the fidelity depend on the environment
parameters and are strongly influenced by spin correlations inside it, in
particular by the fact whether the environment is critical or not. We expect
that some different environment models, such as, for example, the $XY$ spin
chain, will behave qualitatively similarly of what found in this work, as it
belongs to the same universality class. This might not be the case for other
models, like the Heisenberg chain, which will be object of further study in
the near future.
## Acknowledgments
We thank R. Fazio for discussions and support, F. Caruso for comments, and D.
Burgarth for pointing out Ref. [21]. This work have been supported by the
“Quantum Information Program” of Centro De Giorgi of Scuola Normale Superiore.
## Appendix A
The probability $p_{xy}$ of Eq. (22) can be computed as follows: we first
define $r_{x}\equiv|\alpha_{x}|$ and convert the string $x$ into a decimal
number from $1$ to $N=2^{n}$ by trivially identifying $g\equiv 0$ and $e\equiv
1$. The average over a uniform distribution of all pure input states on the
Bloch hypersphere for $n$ qubits is
$p_{xy}=C_{N}\int_{0}^{1}{\rm d}r_{1}\cdots\int_{0}^{1}{\rm
d}r_{N}\>r_{x}^{2}\,r_{y}^{2}\,\delta(1-{\bf r}^{2})\,,$ (31)
where ${\bf r}^{2}=r_{1}^{2}+\cdots+r_{N}^{2}$, and
$C_{N}^{-1}\equiv\int_{0}^{1}{\rm d}r_{1}\cdots\int_{0}^{1}{\rm
d}r_{N}\,\delta(1-{\bf r}^{2})$ is a normalization constant. Changing the
limits of integration due to the delta function and using the property of the
Gamma function $\Gamma(z)=\int_{0}^{+\infty}y^{z-1}e^{-y}{\rm d}y$, it is easy
to show that $C_{N}=2^{N}\pi^{-N/2}\Gamma(N/2)$ and
$p_{xy}=\frac{1+2\,\delta_{x,y}}{N(N+2)}\,.$ (32)
## Appendix B
For times longer than those in the scales of Figs. 3 and 4, time revivals of
the fidelity are present, i.e. the fidelity increases back towards the unit
value periodically, due to the finite system size. For finite values of the
transverse field revivals are not perfect, that is ${\mathcal{F}}_{av}(t)\neq
1$ for $t>0$. Anyway, as far as $\lambda$ increases, the revivals are stronger
and happen with period $t^{R}$ which does not depends on the system size $n$.
This can be understood in the limit $\lambda\to+\infty$, where the ground
state of the environment $\left|\varphi\right\rangle_{E}$ is a fully
$z$-polarized state, thus being an eigenstate of the chain Hamiltonian
$\mathcal{H}^{x}_{E}$ in Eq. (9): the generalized Loschmidt echo of Eq. (11)
is then given by $L_{xy}=e^{-i\varepsilon\mathcal{N}_{x-y}t}$, where
$\mathcal{N}_{x-y}$ is the number of excited qubits in the sequence $x$ minus
the one in the sequence $y$. It is easy to see that there are
$2^{n}\times{n\choose k}$ different possibilities to choose two sequences
$x,y$ such that the corresponding states differ in the state of $k$ qubits,
then $\mathcal{N}_{x-y}=\pm j$ with $j=0,2,\ldots,k$ (if $k$ is even) or
$j=1,3,\ldots,k$ (if $k$ is odd). Therefore, when averaging over input states,
each term contributes with $p_{xy}\,e^{\pm i\,\varepsilon jt}$. Noting that
$({\cal U}_{y}^{\dagger}\,{\cal U}_{x})^{\dagger}={\cal
U}_{x}^{\dagger}\,{\cal U}_{y}$, we have
$\langle F\rangle=2^{n}p_{xx}+p_{xy}\left(c_{0}+c_{1}\cos(\varepsilon
t)+c_{2}\cos(2\varepsilon t)+\ldots+c_{n}\cos(n\varepsilon t)\right)\;,$ (33)
It follows a perfect revival for the fidelity at times $t^{R}$ such that
$\varepsilon t^{R}=2\pi\;[{\rm mod}\;2\pi].$
## References
## References
* [1] Bennett C H and Shor P W 1998 IEEE Trans. Inf. Th. 44 2724
* [2] Macchiavello C and Palma G M 2002 Phys. Rev. A 65 050301(R);
Macchiavello C, Palma G M, and Virmani S 2004 Phys. Rev. A 69 010303(R)
* [3] Bowen G and Mancini S 2004 Phys. Rev. A 69 012306
* [4] Giovannetti V and Mancini S 2005 Phys. Rev. A 71 062304
* [5] Giovannetti V 2005 J. Phys. A 38 10989
* [6] Daems D 2007 Phys. Rev. A 76 021310
* [7] Caruso F, Giovannetti V, Macchiavello C, Ruskai M B 2008 Phys. Rev. A 77 052323
* [8] Kretschmann D and Werner R F 2005 Phys. Rev. A 72 062323
* [9] D’Arrigo A, Benenti G, and Falci G 2007 New J. Phys. 9 310
* [10] Plenio M B and Virmani S 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 120504;
2008 New J. Phys. 10 043032
* [11] Lloyd S 1997 Phys. Rev. A 55 1613;
Barnum H, Nielsen M A, and Schumacher B 1998 Phys. Rev. A 57 4153;
Devetak I 2005 IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 51 44
* [12] Rossini D, Calarco T, Giovannetti V, Montangero S and Fazio R 2007 Phys. Rev. A 75 032333; 2007 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 8033
* [13] Sachdev S 2000 Quantum Phase Transitions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
* [14] Gorin T, Prosen T, Seligman T H and Žnidarič M 2006 Phys. Rep. 435 33
* [15] Lieb E, Schultz T and Mattis D 1961 Ann. Phys. 16 407;
Pfeuty P 1970 Ann. Phys. 57 79
* [16] Bengstsson I and Życzkowski K 2006 Geometry of Quantum States (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge)
* [17] Rains E M 1999 Phys. Rev A 60 179;
2001 IEEE Trans. Inf. Th. 47 2921
* [18] Bennett CH, DiVincenzo D P, Smolin J A, and Wootter W K 1999 Phys. Rev. A 54 3824
* [19] Devetak I and Winter A 2005 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 461 207\.
* [20] Giovannetti V 2005 Phys. Rev. A 71 062332
* [21] Roga W, Fannes M, and Życzkowski K 2008 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 41 035305
* [22] Nielsen M A and Chuang I L 2000 Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge)
* [23] Lubkin E 1978 J. Math. Phys. 19 1028;
Page D N 1993 Phys. Rev. Lett. 71 1291
* [24] Peres A 1995 Quantum Theory: concepts and Methods (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht)
* [25] Rényi A 1961 On measures of entropy and information Proc. 4th Berkeley Sympos. Math. Statist. and Prob. Vol. I 547 (Univ. California Press, Berkeley)
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-28T16:35:06 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.992083 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Davide Rossini, Vittorio Giovannetti, Simone Montangero",
"submitter": "Simone Montangero",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4277"
} |
0805.4368 | # Group Theoretical Analysis of the Wave Function of the $[{\bf 70},1^{-}]$
Nonstrange Baryons in the $1/N_{c}$ Expansion
N. Matagne Fl. Stancu
###### Abstract
Using standard group theoretical techniques we construct the exact wave
function of the $[{\bf 70},1^{-}]$ multiplet in the orbital, spin and flavor
space. This symmetric wave function is compared to that customarily used in
the $1/N_{c}$ expansion, which is asymmetric. The comparison is made by
analyzing the matrix elements of various operators entering the mass formula.
These matrix elements are calculated by the help of isoscalar factors of the
permutation group, specially derived for this purpose as a function of
$N_{c}$. We also compare two distinct methods used in the study of the $[{\bf
70},1^{-}]$ multiplet. In the first method the generators are divided into two
parts, one part acting on a subsystem of $N_{c}-1$ quarks called core and
another on the separated quark. In the second method the system is treated as
a whole. We show that the latter is simpler and allows to clearly reveal the
physically important operators in the mass formula.
###### Keywords:
Baryon Spectroscopy, $1/N_{c}$ Expansion, Group Theory
###### :
12.39.–x, 11.15.Pg, 11.30.Hv
## 1 Introduction
For fifteen years the $1/N_{c}$ expansion of QCD, where $N_{c}$ is the number
of colors tHo74 ; Wit79 has revealed itself to be an interesting and powerful
approach for studying baryon spectroscopy. The method is based on an exact
contracted SU${}_{c}(2N_{f})$ symmetry appearing in the large $N_{c}$ limit,
$N_{f}$ being the number of flavors Gervais:1983wq ; DM93 . For large $N_{c}$
this algebra becomes the SU($2N_{f}$) of the constituent quark model. Much
work has been devoted to the ground state baryons where the operator reduction
rules simplifies the expansion DJM94 ; DJM95 . Usually higher order
corrections of order $1/N^{2}_{c}$ are neglected.
For excited states the problem is more complicated. To include orbital
excitations, by analogy to the quark model, one can classify the large $N_{c}$
baryons according to an extended symmetry given by the direct product
SU$(2N_{f})\times$O(3). The group O(3) implies the introduction of a spin-
orbit and a tensor interaction. It is a phenomenological fact that these
contributions are small so that the breaking of this symmetry is also small.
An open problem is to investigate the validity of the $1/N_{c}$ expansion in
this extended symmetry.
In the language of the quark model the excited states can be grouped into
excitation bands $N$. In the $1/N_{c}$ expansion, the baryon masses have been
calculated for the lowest multiplets of all excited bands from $N=1$ to $4$.
In these bands the multiplets belong either to the symmetric $[{\bf 56}]$ or
to the mixed symmetric $[{\bf 70}]$ representation of SU(6). The symmetry of
the wave function of excited baryons belonging to $[{\bf 56}]$ representation
allows a similar treatment as that of the ground state. The spin-flavor part
being symmetric, the introduction of a symmetric orbital part does not modify
the procedure. In the $[{\bf 70}]$ representation (mainly the $[{\bf
70},1^{-}]$), the situation turned out to be more complicated. There is a
standard scheme CCGL where the wave function is written as a product of a
written on spa6.log. [stancu@ins symmetric ground state core composed of
$N_{c}-1$ quarks and an excited quark. In this approach, based on a Hartree
picture, the $s^{N_{c}-1}p$ orbital part is not properly symmetrized and the
excited quark is always the last quark. The flavor-spin part is also
asymmetric and corresponds to a single term of the exact wave function.
Recently, a new scheme, which avoids the separation into a core and an excited
quark has been suggested MS1 . In that case the system is treated as a whole
and the orbital-flavor-spin wave function is symmetric under any permutation
of $N_{c}$ quarks. Some convincing quantitative arguments in favor of this
procedure can be found in Ref. MS2 The exact $[{\bf 70},1^{-}]$ wave function
was written as a product of a core and a separated quark. Its orbital and the
spin-flavor parts are mixed symmetric such as to recover the exact symmetric
orbital-spin-flavor wave function. The procedure is described in Sec. 4.1.
Using group theoretical arguments here we examine the relation between the
exact and the customarily used asymmetric wave function. We argue that the
description of the system is unsatisfactory when the spin operator $S^{2}$ and
the isospin $T^{2}$ operators are separated into independent parts in terms of
operators acting separately on the core and on the excited quark. Much better
results are obtained when we directly consider the operators $S^{2}$ and
$T^{2}$ acting on the whole system. In addition we examine the role of an
operator constructed from the product of $S$, $T$ and $G$ generators of SU(4).
## 2 SU(4) generators as tensor operators
The SU(4) generators $S_{i}$, $T_{a}$ and $G_{ia}$, globally denoted by
$E_{ia}$ HP , are components of an irreducible tensor operator which
transforms according to the adjoint representation $[211]$ of dimension $\bf
15$ of SU(4). We recall that the SU(4) algebra is
$\displaystyle[S_{i},T_{a}]=0,~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}[S_{i},G_{ja}]=i\varepsilon_{ijk}G_{ka},$
$\displaystyle~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}[T_{a},G_{ib}]=i\varepsilon_{abc}G_{ic},$
$\displaystyle[S_{i},S_{j}]=i\varepsilon_{ijk}S_{k},~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}[T_{a},T_{b}]=i\varepsilon_{abc}T_{c},$
$\displaystyle[G_{ia},G_{jb}]=\frac{i}{4}\delta_{ij}\varepsilon_{abc}T_{c}+\frac{i}{4}\delta_{ab}\varepsilon_{ijk}S_{k}.$
(1)
As one can see, the tensor operators $E_{ia}$ are of three types: $E_{i}$ ($i$
= 1,2,3) which form the subalgebra of SU(2)-spin, $E_{a}$ ($a$ = 1,2,3) which
form the subalgebra of SU(2)-isospin and $E_{ia}$ which act both in the spin
and the isospin spaces. They are related to $S_{i}$, $T_{a}$ and $G_{ia}$
$(i=1,2,3;\ a=1,2,3)$ by
$E_{i}=\frac{S_{i}}{\sqrt{2}};~{}~{}~{}E_{a}=\frac{T_{a}}{\sqrt{2}};~{}~{}~{}E_{ia}=\sqrt{2}G_{ia}.$
(2)
The matrix elements of every $E_{ia}$ between states belonging to the
representation $[N_{c}-1,1]$ are given by
$\displaystyle\langle[N_{c}-1,1]I^{\prime}I^{\prime}_{3}S^{\prime}S^{\prime}_{3}|E_{ia}|[N_{c}-1,1]II_{3}SS_{3}\rangle=\sqrt{C^{[N_{c}-1,1]}(\mathrm{SU(4)})}$
(9) $\displaystyle\times\left(\begin{array}[]{cc|c}S&S^{i}&S^{\prime}\\\
S_{3}&S^{i}_{3}&S^{\prime}_{3}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc|c}I&I^{a}&I^{\prime}\\\
I_{3}&I^{a}_{3}&I^{\prime}_{3}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc||c}[N_{c}-1,1]&[211]&[N_{c}-1,1]\\\
SI&S^{i}I^{a}&S^{\prime}I^{\prime}\end{array}\right)_{\rho=1},$
where $C^{[N_{c}-1,1]}(\mathrm{SU(4)})=N_{c}(3N_{c}+4)/8$ is the eigenvalue of
the SU(4) Casimir operator for the representation $[N_{c}-1,1]$. The three
factors in the second line are respectively an SU(2)-spin Clebsch-Gordan
coefficient (CG), an SU(2)-isospin CG and an SU(4) isoscalar factor. The
necessary iscocalar factors for the derivation of the matrix elements of
$E_{ia}$ have been calculated by Hecht and Pang HP . Here, the phases and
notations have been adapted to our problem.
## 3 The mass operator
The mass operator $M$ is defined as a linear combination of independent
operators $O_{i}$
$M=\sum_{i}c_{i}O_{i},$ (10)
where the coefficients $c_{i}$ are reduced matrix elements that encode the QCD
dynamics and are determined from a fit to the existing data. Here we are
concerned with nonstrange baryons only. The building blocks of the operators
$O_{i}$ are the SU(2$N_{f}$) generators $S_{i}$, $T_{a}$ and $G_{ia}$ and the
SO(3) generators $\ell_{i}$. Their general form is
$O_{i}=\frac{1}{N^{n-1}_{c}}O^{(k)}_{\ell}\cdot O^{(k)}_{SF},$ (11)
where $O^{(k)}_{\ell}$ is a $k$-rank tensor in SO(3) and $O^{(k)}_{SF}$ a
$k$-rank tensor in SU(2)-spin, but invariant in SU($N_{f}$). Thus $O_{i}$ are
rotational invariant. For the ground state one has $k=0$. The excited states
also require $k=1$ and $k=2$ terms.
The spin-flavor (SF) operators $O^{(k)}_{SF}$ are combinations of SU(2$N_{f}$)
generators, the lower index $i$ in the left hand side of (11) representing a
specific combination. Each $\it n$-body operator is multiplied by an explicit
factor of $1/{N^{n-1}_{c}}$ resulting from the power counting rules. Some
compensating $N_{c}$ factors may arise in the matrix elements when $O_{i}$
contains a coherent operator such as $G^{ia}$ or $T^{a}$.
### 3.1 The symmetric core plus excited quark procedure
So far, for the baryons belonging to the $[{\bf 70},\ell]$ multiplet the
general practice was to consider that they consist of one distinguishable
excited quark moving in the collective potential generated by $N_{c}-1$ ground
state quarks CCGL , the latter subsystem being called core. The wave function
of the core is symmetric both in the orbital (O) and flavor-spin (FS) spaces,
which makes the treatment of the core analogous to that of ground state
baryons. This description is known as the Hartree picture.
To proceed, one defines separate SU($2N_{f}$) generators that act on the
excited quark $s^{i}$, $t^{a}$ and $g^{ia}$ and $S^{i}_{c}$, $T^{a}_{c}$ and
$G^{ia}_{c}$ that act on the core. Thus one has
$S^{i}=s^{i}+S^{i}_{c},~{}~{}~{}T^{a}=t^{a}+T^{a}_{c},~{}~{}~{}G^{ia}=g^{ia}+G^{ia}_{c}.$
(12)
As a consequence, the number of linearly independent operators $O_{i}$
increases tremendously and the number of coefficients $c_{i}$, to be
determined, becomes much larger than the experimental data available. For
example, for the $[{\bf 70},1^{-}]$ multiplet with $N_{f}=2$ one has 12
linearly independent operators up to order $1/N_{c}$ included CCGL . For
example, there is one operator of order $N^{1}_{c}$: $N_{c}\ \mbox{l1}$, three
operators of order $N^{0}_{c}$: $\ell\cdot s$, $1/N_{c}\;\ell\cdot t\cdot
G_{c}$, $1/N_{c}\;\ell^{(2)}\cdot g\cdot G_{c}$ and 8 operators of order
$N^{-1}_{c}$: $1/N_{c}\;t\cdot T_{c}$, $1/N_{c}\;\ell\cdot S_{c}$,
$1/N_{c}\;\ell\cdot g\cdot T_{c}$, $1/N_{c}\;S^{2}_{c}$, $1/N_{c}\;s\cdot
S_{c}$, $1/N_{c}\;\ell^{(2)}\cdot s\cdot S_{c}$, $1/N^{2}_{c}\;\ell^{(2)}\cdot
t\cdot\\{S_{c},G_{c}\\}$ and $1/N^{2}_{c}\;\ell\cdot g\cdot\\{S_{c},G_{c}\\}$.
Then, in making the fit to the data, one faces the difficult situation of
selecting among them the physically most dominant operators. We recall that
there are only 7 nonstrange resonances belonging to this band. So one must
select 7 out of 12 operators. Consequently, in selecting the operators one
risks to make an arbitrary choice CCGL . A much simpler method can be found,
as shown below.
### 3.2 A simpler procedure
A simpler procedure is to avoid the splitting of the generators and the
decoupling of the wave function and to consider instead only the global
generators $S^{i}$, $T^{a}$ and $G^{ia}$ acting on the whole system of $N_{c}$
quarks. However, the approach is not free of difficulties as the derivation of
the matrix elements of the operators is more involved for a mixed symmetric
wave function. Presently, the study of strange baryons is not possible. In the
case of three flavors, one needs the analogue of Eq. (9) containing the
corresponding SU(6) isoscalar. These factors have not been calculated yet.
In addition to the fact that it uses an exact wave function, this approach
implies only seven independent operators up to order $\mathcal{O}(1/N_{c})$
appearing in the mass operator: the order $N_{c}$ operator $N_{c}\ \mbox{l1}$,
three operators of order 1, $\ell\cdot s$, $1/N_{c}\;\ell^{(2)}\cdot G\cdot G$
and $1/N_{c}\;\ell\cdot T\cdot G$ and three operators of order
$\mathcal{O}(1/N_{c})$, namely $1/N_{c}\;S^{2}$, $1/N_{c}\;T^{2}$ and
$1/N_{c}^{2}\;S\cdot T\cdot\ G$.
## 4 The exact wave function
The total wave function is the product of the orbital (O), the spin (S), the
flavor (F) and the color (C) parts. The color part being always antisymmetric,
in order to fulfill the Fermi statistics, the orbital-spin-flavor must be
symmetric. As the mass operator does not involve color operators, the color
being integrated out, we are concerned with the orbital-spin-flavor part only.
Here, as we are interested in the multiplet $[{\bf 70},1^{-}]$, the orbital
and the spin-flavor parts must have both the mixed symmetry $[N_{c}-1,1]$. In
terms of inner products of the permutation group $S_{N_{c}}$, the wave
function takes the form
$|[N_{c}]1\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{c}-1}}\sum_{Y}|[N_{c}-1,1]Y\rangle_{O}|[N_{c}-1,1]Y\rangle_{FS},$
(13)
where $Y$ is the corresponding Young tableau. Here we sum over the $N_{c}-1$
possible standard Young tableaux. The factor $1/\sqrt{N_{c}-1}$ represents the
CG coefficient of $S_{N_{c}}$ needed to construct a symmetric wave function
$[N_{c}]$ from its mixed symmetric parts.
### 4.1 The decoupled wave function
In order to calculate matrix elements of the operators listed in the Sec. 3.1
one must decouple the wave function as well. Using the Racah’s _factorization
lemma_ , it is possible to decouple $N_{c}$th quark from the rest. The
$S_{N_{c}}$ CG coefficients can be factorized into an isoscalar factor times a
CG coefficient of $S_{N_{c}-1}$. In the following, we need to know the
position of the $N_{c}$th quark inside a given Young tableau. In that purpose,
one introduces the integer $p$ which denotes the row where is the $N_{c}$th
quark is located inside the Young tableau.
The exact $[{\bf 70},1^{-}]$, but decoupled, wave function reads
$\displaystyle|\ell SJJ_{3};II_{3}\rangle=$ (24)
$\displaystyle\sum_{p,p^{\prime},p^{\prime\prime},\ell_{c},\ell_{q},m_{\ell},m_{q},\atop
m_{c},m_{s},m_{1},m_{2},i_{1},i_{2}}a(p,\ell_{c},\ell_{q})\left(\begin{array}[]{cc|c}\ell_{c}&\ell_{q}&\ell\\\
m_{c}&m_{q}&m_{\ell}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc|c}\ell&S&J\\\
m_{\ell}&m_{s}&J_{3}\end{array}\right)$ $\displaystyle\times
K([f^{\prime}]p^{\prime}[f^{\prime\prime}]p^{\prime\prime}|[N_{c}-1,1]p)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc|c}S_{c}&\frac{1}{2}&S\\\
m_{1}&m_{2}&m_{s}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc|c}I_{c}&\frac{1}{2}&I\\\
i_{1}&i_{2}&I_{3}\end{array}\right)$
$\displaystyle\times|\ell_{c}m_{c}\rangle|S_{c}m_{1}\rangle|I_{c}i_{1}\rangle|\ell_{q}m_{q}\rangle|1/2m_{2}\rangle|1/2i_{2}\rangle,$
where $\ell_{c}$ and $\ell_{q}$ represent the angular momenta of the core and
of the decoupled quark respectively and where $a(p,\ell_{c},\ell_{q})$ are the
one-body fractional parentage coefficients to decouple the $N_{c}$th quark
from the rest in the orbital part. These are given by MS2
$\displaystyle a(2,\ell_{c}=0,\ell_{q}=1)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\sqrt{\frac{N_{c}-1}{N_{c}}},$ (25) $\displaystyle
a(2,\ell_{c}=1,\ell_{q}=0)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\sqrt{\frac{1}{N_{c}}},$ (26) $\displaystyle
a(1,\ell_{c}=1,\ell_{q}=0)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 1.$ (27)
The isoscalar factors
$K([f^{\prime}]p^{\prime}[f^{\prime\prime}]p^{\prime\prime}|[N_{c}-1,1]p)$
used in Eq. (24) are given in Appendix A (Tables 10, 11 and 12). The columns
corresponding to $p=1$ have been derived in Ref. MS2 . If we compare Eq. (24)
with Eq. (3.4) of Ref. CCGL one can notice that in the latter only the terms
with $p=2$ have been taken into account. Furthemore, as the core was assumed
to be in the ground state, the authors had considered
$a(2,\ell_{c}=1,\ell_{q}=0)=0$ and $a(2,\ell_{c}=0,\ell_{q}=1)=1$. Thus the
wave function of Ref. CCGL breaks $S_{N_{c}}$ symmetry. As it represents only
one part from the exact wave function we shall call it approximate or
asymmetric.
Tables 1 and 2 show the matrix elements for some spin and the isospin
operators respectively calculated with the exact and with the approximate wave
function. One can notice that the analytic expressions are different.
Consequently, one expects the $c_{i}$ coefficients determined from the fit to
the data to be different if we use the exact or the approximate wave function.
Table 1: Matrix elements of the spin operators calculated with the approximate (Ref. CCGL ) and the exact, Eq. (24), wave functions, with $s$ and $S_{c}$ defined by Eq. (12). | $\langle s\cdot S_{c}\rangle$ | $\langle S^{2}_{c}\rangle$
---|---|---
| Approx. w.f. | Exact w.f. | Approx. w.f. | Exact w.f.
${}^{2}8$ | $-\frac{N_{c}+3}{4N_{c}}$ | $-\frac{3(N_{c}-1)}{4N_{c}}$ | $\frac{N_{c}+3}{2N_{c}}$ | $\frac{3(N_{c}-1)}{2N_{c}}$
${}^{4}8$ | $\frac{1}{2}$ | $-\frac{3(N_{c}-5)}{4N_{c}}$ | 2 | $\frac{3(3N_{c}-5)}{2N_{c}}$
${}^{2}10$ | $-1$ | $-\frac{3(N_{c}-1)}{4N_{c}}$ | 2 | $\frac{3(N_{c}-1)}{2N_{c}}$
Table 2: Matrix elements of the isospin operators calculated with the approximate (Ref. CCGL ) and the exact ,Eq. (24), wave functions, with $t$ and $T_{c}$ defined by Eq. (12). | $\langle t\cdot T_{c}\rangle$ | $\langle T^{2}_{c}\rangle$
---|---|---
| Approx. w.f. | Exact w.f. | Approx. w.f. | Exact w.f.
${}^{2}8$ | $-\frac{N_{c}+3}{4N_{c}}$ | $-\frac{3(N_{c}-1)}{4N_{c}}$ | $\frac{N_{c}+3}{2N_{c}}$ | $\frac{3(N_{c}-1)}{2N_{c}}$
${}^{4}8$ | $-1$ | $-\frac{3(N_{c}-1)}{4N_{c}}$ | 2 | $\frac{3(N_{c}-1)}{2N_{c}}$
${}^{2}10$ | $\frac{1}{2}$ | $-\frac{3(N_{c}-5)}{4N_{c}}$ | 2 | $\frac{3(3N_{c}-5)}{2N_{c}}$
### 4.2 The global wave function
As already mentioned above, one can write the exact $[{\bf 70},1^{-}]$ states
without decoupling them into a core and an excited quark. If there is no
decoupling, there is no need to specify $Y$, the matrix elements being
identical for all $Y$’s, due to Weyl’s duality between a linear group and a
symmetric group in a given tensor space111see Ref. book , Sec 4.5.. Then the
explicit form of a wave function of total angular momentum
$\vec{J}=\vec{\ell}+\vec{S}$ and isospin $I$ is
$\displaystyle|\ell SJJ_{3};II_{3}\rangle=$ (30)
$\displaystyle\sum_{m_{\ell},m_{s}}\left(\begin{array}[]{cc|c}\ell&S&J\\\
m_{\ell}&m_{s}&J_{3}\end{array}\right)|[N_{c}-1,1]\ell
m_{\ell}\rangle|[N_{c}-1,1]Sm_{s}II_{3}\rangle,$
each term containing an SU(2) CG coefficient, an orbital part
$|[N_{c}-1,1]\ell m_{\ell}\rangle$ an a spin-flavor part
$|[N_{c}-1,1]Sm_{s}II_{3}\rangle$.
## 5 Results
Here we present the results obtained from different fits to the experimental
data. In the fits, the seven nonstrange resonances have been taken into
account: ${}^{2}N_{1/2}(1538\pm 18)$, ${}^{4}N_{1/2}(1660\pm 20)$,
${}^{2}N_{3/2}(1523\pm 8)$, ${}^{4}N_{3/2}(1700\pm 50)$,
${}^{4}N_{5/2}(1678\pm 8)$, ${}^{2}\Delta_{1/2}(1645\pm 30)$ and
${}^{2}\Delta_{3/2}(1720\pm 50)$.
In a first stage, we describe the fits obtained when we use the exact
decoupled wave function. Afterwards, the results obtained with the global wave
function are presented.
In each case, we follow the spirit of the Hartree picture which leads to a
one-body spin-orbit operator $\ell\cdot s$. Its matrix elements are naturally
of order $N_{c}^{0}$.
### 5.1 With the decoupled wave function
Tables 3–6 show the four different fits considered. Each time, the results
obtained with the exact decoupled wave function are compared to the ones
obtained with the approximate wave function.
In Table 3, we decouple the spin and the isospin operators. The operator
$1/N_{c}\;T_{c}\cdot T_{c}$ is not present because its matrix elements are
identical to of those $1/N_{c}\;S_{c}\cdot S_{c}$ for the approximate wave
function (see Tables 1 and 2). This is apparently a practical advantage in the
decoupling scheme but it has considerable physical disadvantages. One can
notice that even if the $\chi^{2}_{\mathrm{dof}}$ is satisfactory, the fit is
very bad. Indeed, the value of $c_{1}$ is under-evaluated with respect to the
commonly found value of around 500 MeV and the values of $c_{3}$ and $c_{4}$
are exceedingly large and of opposite signs, which suggest some compensation.
The fits presented in Tables 4 and 5 seem better. Here the linear combinations
$2s\cdot S_{c}+S_{c}\cdot S_{c}+3/4=S^{2}$ or $2t\cdot T_{c}+T_{c}\cdot
T_{c}+3/4=T^{2}$ have been introduced. The coefficient $c_{1}$ has recovered
its common value and the coefficients $c^{\prime}_{3}$ or $c^{\prime}_{5}$
have reasonable sizes, being about 70 MeV smaller for the exact wave function
than for the approximate one. The quark-core operators $1/N_{c}\;s\cdot S_{c}$
or $1/N_{c}\;t\cdot T_{c}$ are still problematic because the value of their
respective coefficients are too high, of order 500 MeV.
The last fit shown in Table 6 correct these problems. All the coefficients
have their natural sizes. This shows the necessity to consider the isospin-
isospin operator on the same footing as the spin-spin operator. The values
obtained with the exact wave function and the approximate one are identical in
this case because the matrix elements of the operators considered are the same
for the two wave functions. By construction, in both cases they are
eigenfunctions of the total spin and isospin operators.
Table 3: List of operators $O_{i}$ and coefficients $c_{i}$ obtained in the numerical fit to the 7 known experimental masses of the lowest negative parity resonances (see text). For the operators $O_{3}$, $O_{4}$ and $O_{5}$ we use the matrix elements from Tables 1 and 2. $O_{i}$ | $c_{i}$(MeV) with approx. w.f. | $c_{i}$(MeV) with w.f. Eq. (24)
---|---|---
$O_{1}=N_{c}\ \mbox{l1}$ | $211\pm 23$ | $299\pm 20$
$O_{2}=\ell^{i}s^{i}$ | $3\pm 15$ | $3\pm 15$
$O_{3}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}s^{i}S_{c}^{i}$ | $-1486\pm 141$ | $-1096\pm 125$
$O_{4}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}S_{c}^{i}S_{c}^{i}$ | $1182\pm 74$ | $1545\pm 122$
$O_{5}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}t^{a}T_{c}^{a}$ | $-1508\pm 149$ | $417\pm 79$
$\chi_{\mathrm{dof}}^{2}$ | $1.56$ | $1.56$
Table 4: Same as Table 3 but for $O^{\prime}_{3}$, which combines $O_{3}$ and $O_{4}$ instead of using them separately. $O_{i}$ | $c_{i}$(MeV) with approx. w.f. | $c_{i}$(MeV) with w.f. Eq. (24)
---|---|---
$O_{1}=N_{c}\ \mbox{l1}$ | $513\pm 4$ | $519\pm 5$
$O_{2}=\ell^{i}s^{i}$ | $3\pm 15$ | $3\pm 15$
$O^{\prime}_{3}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}\left(2s^{i}S_{c}^{i}+S_{c}^{i}S_{c}^{i}+\frac{3}{4}\right)$ | $219\pm 19$ | $150\pm 11$
$O_{5}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}t^{a}T_{c}^{a}$ | $417\pm 80$ | $417\pm 80$
$\chi_{\mathrm{dof}}^{2}$ | $1.04$ | $1.04$
Table 5: Same as Table 4 but combining isospin operators instead of spin operators. $O_{i}$ | $c_{i}$(MeV) with approx. w.f. | $c_{i}$(MeV) with w.f. Eq. (24)
---|---|---
$O_{1}=N_{c}\ \mbox{l1}$ | $516\pm 3$ | $522\pm 3$
$O_{2}=\ell^{i}s^{i}$ | $3\pm 15$ | $3\pm 15$
$O_{3}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}s^{i}S_{c}^{i}$ | $450\pm 33$ | $450\pm 33$
$O^{\prime}_{5}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}\left(2t^{a}T_{c}^{a}+T_{c}^{a}T_{c}^{a}+\frac{3}{4}\right)$ | $214\pm 28$ | $139\pm 27$
$\chi_{\mathrm{dof}}^{2}$ | $1.04$ | $1.04$
Table 6: Fit with global operators proportional to the SU(2)-spin and SU(2)-isospin Casimir operators acting on the whole system (see text). $O_{i}$ | $c_{i}$(MeV) with approx. w.f. | $c_{i}$(MeV) with w.f. Eq. (24)
---|---|---
$O_{1}=N_{c}\ \mbox{l1}$ | $484\pm 4$ | $484\pm 4$
$O_{2}=\ell^{i}s^{i}$ | $3\pm 15$ | $3\pm 15$
$O^{\prime}_{3}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}\left(2s^{i}S_{c}^{i}+S_{c}^{i}S_{c}^{i}+\frac{3}{4}\right)$ | $150\pm 11$ | $150\pm 11$
$O^{\prime}_{5}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}\left(2t^{a}T_{c}^{a}+T_{c}^{a}T_{c}^{a}+\frac{3}{4}\right)$ | $139\pm 27$ | $139\pm 27$
$\chi_{\mathrm{dof}}^{2}$ | $1.04$ | $1.04$
### 5.2 With the global wave function
With the simplified procedure described in Sec. 3.2 we can analyse the role of
every of the seven independent operators introduced there. Table 7 shows six
different fits to the experiment. The operators $O_{5},\ O_{6}$ and $O_{7}$
are normalized to allow their coefficients $c_{i}$ to have a natural size. As
already emphasized, the Fits 1–4 indicate that the coefficients of $O_{3}$ and
$O_{4}$ have similar values.
The partial contributions and the theoretical masses obtained from the Fits 1
and 6 are presented in Tables 8 and 9 respectively. From Table 8 one can
notice that the isospin-isospin operator in $\Delta$ masses plays a comparable
role to the spin-spin operator in $N^{*}$ resonances. This was impossible to
observe in the symmetric core + excited quark procedure where the isospin-
isospin operators were always ignored, for reasons explained above. From Table
9 one can see that the operator $O_{7}$, never included before, is dominant in
all resonances except ${}^{2}N_{J}$. This is a new finding, to be
algebraically understood.
The operators $O_{5}$ and $O_{6}$ do not seem to play an important role
because, in addition to the fact that their coefficients are small and have an
error bar comparable to their central values, their removal from the fit does
not deteriorate it too badly. This justifies the previous choice presented in
Section 5.1 where $O_{5}$ and $O_{6}$ were neglected. Of course, Fit 4 is
identical to the one shown in Table 6.
Table 7 does not include a fit with $O_{3}$, $O_{4}$ and $O_{7}$ together. In
our calculations we found that the simultaneous presence of $O_{3}$, $O_{4}$
and $O_{7}$ leads to a $\chi^{2}_{\mathrm{dof}}\approx 2$. In this case the
coefficients $c_{3}$ and $c_{4}$ become a bit higher, of the order 270 MeV and
$c_{7}$ becomes negative suggesting a possible compensation with the
contributions of $O_{3}$ and $O_{4}$. This suggests that, by construction,
$O_{7}$ contains part of the contribution of the spin-spin and isospin-isospin
interactions. As mentioned above, the role of $O_{7}$ needs more
investigation.
Table 7: List of operators and the coefficients resulting from numerical fits using the global wave function. The values of $c_{i}$ are indicated under the headings Fit n, in each case. Operator | Fit 1 (MeV) | Fit 2 (MeV) | Fit 3 (Mev) | Fit 4 (MeV) | Fit 5 (MeV) | Fit 6 (MeV)
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
$O_{1}=N_{c}\ \mbox{l1}$ | $481\pm 5$ | $482\pm 5$ | $484\pm 4$ | $484\pm 4$ | $498\pm 3$ | $495\pm 3$
$O_{2}=\ell^{i}s^{i}$ | $-31\pm 26$ | $-20\pm 23$ | $-12\pm 20$ | $3\pm 15$ | $38\pm 34$ | $-30\pm 25$
$O_{3}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}S^{i}S^{i}$ | $161\pm 16$ | $149\pm 11$ | $163\pm 16$ | $150\pm 11$ | $156\pm 16$ |
$O_{4}=\frac{1}{N_{c}}T^{a}T^{a}$ | $169\pm 36$ | $170\pm 36$ | $141\pm 27$ | $139\pm 27$ | |
$O_{5}=\frac{15}{N_{c}}\ell^{(2)ij}G^{ia}G^{ja}$ | $-29\pm 31$ | | $-34\pm 30$ | | $-34\pm 31$ | $-32\pm 29$
$O_{6}=\frac{3}{N_{c}}\ell^{i}T^{a}G^{ia}$ | $32\pm 26$ | $35\pm 26$ | | | $-67\pm 30$ | $28\pm 20$
$O_{7}=\frac{3}{N_{c}^{2}}S^{i}T^{a}G^{ia}$ | | | | | | $649\pm 61$
$\chi_{\mathrm{dof}}^{2}$ | $0.43$ | $0.68$ | $0.94$ | $1.04$ | $11.5$ | $0.24$
Table 8: The partial contribution and the total mass (MeV) predicted by the $1/N_{c}$ expansion using Fit 1 and the global wave function. The last two columns give the empirically known masses, name and status. | Part. contrib. (MeV) | Total (MeV) | Exp. (MeV) | | Name, status
---|---|---|---|---|---
| $c_{1}O_{1}$ | $c_{2}O_{2}$ | $c_{3}O_{3}$ | $c_{4}O_{4}$ | $c_{5}O_{5}$ | $c_{6}O_{6}$ | | | |
${}^{2}N_{\frac{1}{2}}$ | 1444 | 10 | 40 | 42 | 0 | -8 | $1529\pm 11$ | $1538\pm 18$ | | $S_{11}(1535)$****
${}^{4}N_{\frac{1}{2}}$ | 1444 | 26 | 201 | 42 | -31 | -20 | $1663\pm 20$ | $1660\pm 20$ | | $S_{11}(1650)$****
${}^{2}N_{\frac{3}{2}}$ | 1444 | -5 | 40 | 42 | 0 | 4 | $1525\pm 8$ | $1523\pm 8$ | | $D_{13}(1520)$****
${}^{4}N_{\frac{3}{2}}$ | 1444 | 10 | 201 | 42 | 25 | -8 | $1714\pm 45$ | $1700\pm 50$ | | $D_{13}(1700)$***
${}^{4}N_{\frac{5}{2}}$ | 1444 | -16 | 201 | 42 | -6 | 12 | $1677\pm 8$ | $1678\pm 8$ | | $D_{15}(1675)$****
${}^{2}\Delta_{\frac{1}{2}}$ | 1444 | -10 | 40 | 211 | 0 | -40 | $1645\pm 30$ | $1645\pm 30$ | | $S_{31}(1620)$****
${}^{2}\Delta_{\frac{3}{2}}$ | 1444 | 5 | 40 | 211 | 0 | 20 | $1720\pm 50$ | $1720\pm 50$ | | $D_{33}(1700)$****
Table 9: The partial contribution and the total mass (MeV) predicted by the $1/N_{c}$ expansion using Fit 6 and the global wave function. The last two columns give the empirically known masses, name and status. | Part. contrib. (MeV) | Total (MeV) | Exp. (MeV) | | Name, status
---|---|---|---|---|---
| $c_{1}O_{1}$ | $c_{2}O_{2}$ | $c_{5}O_{5}$ | $c_{6}O_{6}$ | $c_{7}O_{7}$ | | | |
${}^{2}N_{\frac{1}{2}}$ | 1486 | 10 | 0 | -7 | 41 | $1529\pm 11$ | $1538\pm 18$ | | $S_{11}(1535)$****
${}^{4}N_{\frac{1}{2}}$ | 1486 | 25 | -33 | -18 | 203 | $1663\pm 20$ | $1660\pm 20$ | | $S_{11}(1650)$****
${}^{2}N_{\frac{3}{2}}$ | 1486 | -5 | 0 | 4 | 41 | $1525\pm 7$ | $1523\pm 8$ | | $D_{13}(1520)$****
${}^{4}N_{\frac{3}{2}}$ | 1486 | 10 | 26 | -7 | 203 | $1718\pm 41$ | $1700\pm 50$ | | $D_{13}(1700)$***
${}^{4}N_{\frac{5}{2}}$ | 1486 | -15 | 7 | 11 | 203 | $1677\pm 8$ | $1678\pm 8$ | | $D_{15}(1675)$****
${}^{2}\Delta_{\frac{1}{2}}$ | 1486 | -10 | 0 | -35 | 203 | $1643\pm 29$ | $1645\pm 30$ | | $S_{31}(1620)$****
${}^{2}\Delta_{\frac{3}{2}}$ | 1486 | 5 | 0 | 18 | 203 | $1711\pm 24$ | $1720\pm 50$ | | $D_{33}(1700)$****
## 6 Conclusions
In principle, both the core + excited quark (Sec. 3.1) or the global (Sec.
3.2) procedures are legitimate as long as they are combined with adequately
constructed wave functions. The core + excited quark procedure was the first
attempt to study excited states in the $1/N_{c}$ expansion and naturally it
has been proposed to make the problem tractable at that time, by reducing it
to the knowledge of ground state matrix elements of the operators from the
mass formula. Presently it seems obsolete. We have shown that the global
procedure is much more advantageous. It involves a smaller number of
independent operators which allow to clearly identify the physically dominant
operators in the mass formula. Our conclusion is that the spin operator
$1/N_{c}\;S\cdot S$ is dominant in $N^{*}$ resonances, that the isospin
operator $1/N_{c}\;T\cdot T$ is equally important in $\Delta$ resonances and
that $1/N_{c}\;S\cdot T\cdot G$ plays about the same dominant role both in
$N^{*}$ and $\Delta$ resonances except for ${}^{2}N_{J}$, the contribution to
the mass being of the order of 200 MeV in all cases. More work should be done
algebraically in order to understand the role of $1/N_{c}\;S\cdot T\cdot G$.
Moreover, we found that all operators containing the O(3) generators bring
only small contributions to the mass, from 4 MeV to 42 MeV. This finding is
consistent with the constituent quark model assumptions about the feebleness
of the spin-orbit and the smallness of the tensor interaction.
We have shown that the separation core + quark procedure fails to emphasize
the role of the isospin operator. This is due to the inherent structure of the
asymmetric ground state core + excited quark wave function CCGL which leads
to equal matrix elements for $S^{2}_{c}$ and $T^{2}_{c}$. Then the remaining
part of the isospin interaction $1/N_{c}\;t\cdot T_{c}$ becomes exceedingly
large if included in the fit (Table 3) and it is not surprising that in all
previous studies (see Ref. MS2 for a review) it has been totally ignored.
In conclusion, the simple procedure we advocate here brings much more physical
insight into the study of the nonstrange $[{\bf 70},1^{-}]$ baryons in the
$1/N_{c}$ expansion. It is an urgent need to determine the isoscalar factors
of SU(6) for mixed symmetric representations $[N_{c}-1,1]$ in order to extend
Eq. (3) to SU(6) and apply it to strange baryons.
## Appendix A Isoscalar factors
Here we reproduce the isoscalar factors needed to construct the exact
decoupled wave function (see Eq. (24)). Detailed information can be found in
Refs. MS2 ; book ; ISOSC
Table 10: Isoscalar factors $K([f^{\prime}]p^{\prime}[f^{\prime\prime}]p^{\prime\prime}|[f]p)$ for $S=I=1/2$, corresponding to ${}^{2}8$ when $N_{c}=3$. The second column gives results for $p=1$ and the third for $p=2$. $[f^{\prime}]p^{\prime}[f^{\prime\prime}]p^{\prime\prime}$ | $[N_{c}-1,1]1$ | | $[N_{c}-1,1]2$
---|---|---|---
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]1\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]1$ | 0 | | $-\sqrt{\frac{3(N_{c}-1)}{4N_{c}}}$
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]2\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]2$ | $\sqrt{\frac{N_{c}-3}{2(N_{c}-2)}}$ | | $\sqrt{\frac{N_{c}+3}{4N_{c}}}$
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]2\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]1$ | $-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{N_{c}-1}{N_{c}-2}}$ | | 0
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]1\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]2$ | $-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{N_{c}-1}{N_{c}-2}}$ | | 0
Table 11: Isoscalar factors $K([f^{\prime}]p^{\prime}[f^{\prime\prime}]p^{\prime\prime}|[f]p)$ for $S=3/2,\ I=1/2$, corresponding to ${}^{4}8$ when $N_{c}=3$. The second column gives results for $p=1$ and the third for $p=2$. $[f^{\prime}]p^{\prime}[f^{\prime\prime}]p^{\prime\prime}$ | $[N_{c}-1,1]1$ | | $[N_{c}-1,1]2$
---|---|---|---
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+3}{2},\frac{N_{c}-3}{2}\right]1\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]1$ | $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(N_{c}-1)(N_{c}+3)}{N_{c}(N_{c}-2)}}$ | | 0
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+3}{2},\frac{N_{c}-3}{2}\right]2\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]2$ | $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{5(N_{c}-1)(N_{c}-3)}{2N_{c}(N_{c}-2)}}$ | | 0
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+3}{2},\frac{N_{c}-3}{2}\right]1\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]2$ | $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(N_{c}-3)(N_{c}+3)}{2N_{c}(N_{c}-2)}}$ | | 1
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+3}{2},\frac{N_{c}-3}{2}\right]2\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]1$ | 0 | | 0
Table 12: Isoscalar factors $K([f^{\prime}]p^{\prime}[f^{\prime\prime}]p^{\prime\prime}|[f]p)$ for $S=1/2,\ I=3/2$, corresponding to ${}^{2}10$ when $N_{c}=3$. The second column gives results for $p=1$ and the third for $p=2$. $[f^{\prime}]p^{\prime}[f^{\prime\prime}]p^{\prime\prime}$ | $[N_{c}-1,1]1$ | | $[N_{c}-1,1]2$
---|---|---|---
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]1\left[\frac{N_{c}+3}{2},\frac{N_{c}-3}{2}\right]1$ | $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(N_{c}-1)(N_{c}+3)}{N_{c}(N_{c}-2)}}$ | | 0
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]2\left[\frac{N_{c}+3}{2},\frac{N_{c}-3}{2}\right]2$ | $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{5(N_{c}-1)(N_{c}-3)}{2N_{c}(N_{c}-2)}}$ | | 0
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]2\left[\frac{N_{c}+3}{2},\frac{N_{c}-3}{2}\right]1$ | $\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(N_{c}-3)(N_{c}+3)}{2N_{c}(N_{c}-2)}}$ | | 1
$\left[\frac{N_{c}+1}{2},\frac{N_{c}-1}{2}\right]1\left[\frac{N_{c}+3}{2},\frac{N_{c}-3}{2}\right]2$ | 0 | | 0
## References
* (1) G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 72, 461 (1974).
* (2) E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 160 57 (1979).
* (3) J. L. Gervais and B. Sakita, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52 (1984) 87; Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 1795.
* (4) R. Dashen and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Lett. B 315 (1993) 425; Phys. Lett. B 315 (1993) 438.
* (5) R. Dashen, E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 4713.
* (6) R. Dashen, E. Jenkins, and A. V. Manohar, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) 3697.
* (7) C. E. Carlson, C. D. Carone, J. L. Goity and R. F. Lebed, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 114008.
* (8) N. Matagne and Fl. Stancu, arXiv:hep-ph/0610099.
* (9) N. Matagne and Fl. Stancu, Phys. Rev. D 77 (2008) 054026.
* (10) K. T. Hecht and S. C. Pang, J. Math. Phys. 10 (1969) 1571.
* (11) Fl. Stancu, Group Theory in Subnuclear Physics, Clarendon Press, Oxford, (1996) Ch. 4.
* (12) Fl. Stancu and S. Pepin, Few-Body Systems 26, 113 (2004).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-28T14:55:29 | 2024-09-04T02:48:55.998721 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "N. Matagne, Fl. Stancu",
"submitter": "Nicolas Matagne SE",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4368"
} |
0805.4394 | 1 1 08 May
# Confidentiality, Integrity and High Availability with Open Source IT green
Luciana Guimaraes
###### Abstract
This paper presents elements that form the structure of a network of data
using secure stable and mature technologies that meet the requirement of
having code free. The principle would be conflicting code open Tuesday where
he wants to keep maximum control over the data but is already evidence that
open source does not hide the famous backdoor possible in closed systems code.
Basearemos this work experience gained in a real environment and using
paravirtualization to show a situation more critical and now real in most
companies, the virtualization of servers.
###### category:
k.6.3 Management of Computing and Information Systems Software Management
###### keywords:
software selection
###### category:
J.7 Computers in Other Sustems Command and control
###### category:
I.6.4 Computing Methodology Model Validation and Analysis
###### category:
I.6.1 Simulation Theory Types of simulation
###### category:
D.4.6 Security and Protection Cryptographic controls
###### category:
D.4.8 Performance Measurements, Operational analysis, Simulation, Monitors
###### keywords:
Security, availability, cryptografia, database.
††terms: DRBD,XEN,HEARTBEAT,OPENSOURCE
Authors’ addresses: Luciana Guimarães, Docents, University of Managerial
Sciences UNA, Brazil-Minas Gerais-Belo horizonte, 30570-310
## 1 Introduction
By working in a company which provides service to the network of
municipalities my company is subject to any kind of attack, either via the
Internet, social attacks, as in our own Intranet and Extranet by political
enemies of our customers. Seeing this picture began to plan a way to keep
information secure as planned and located most critical points in the
structure, was necessary to create a map of where each risk manager should
define on a scale of zero to ten, on’ıvel criticality that the loss would have
a certain appeal, being listed as resources to Phone ˆ onia, the network of
data, the computers and printers documents into folders at’e fax equipment. In
this article we point out solutions to all these points without it being
necessary spent on purchase of software and more important with the use of
technologies already established as stable in their specialties.
## 2 METHODOLOGY
### 2.1 PLATFORM OF TESTS
We’ll laboratory tests with the following equipment;
2 units with the following characteristics, Cpu dual core 1.6GHz, 1GB RAM, 80
GB HD. They will be our primary and secondary servers.
2 units with the following characteristics, 1.6 GHz Pentium CPU, 500 MB RAM,
40 GB HD. These units faram role of our estaà à § μ is the work being with a
Windows operating system and another with Linux Debian.
1 Switch 8/100 Mb/s
### 2.2 THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE PLATFORM OF TESTS
### 2.3 POSTGRESQL
PostgreSQL is a powerful, relational database system open source. It has more
than 15 years of activity and development of this architecture has a strong
reputation for reliability, data integrity and accuracy. It runs on all major
operating systems, including Linux, UNIX (AIX, BSD, HP-UX, SGI IRIX, Mac OS X,
Solaris, Tru64), and Windows. is fully compatible ACID has the full support of
foreign keys, joins, views, triggers and stored procedures (in go ¡rivers
languages). It includes more types of data SQL92 and SQL99, including INTEGER,
NUMERIC, BOOLEAN, CHAR, VARCHAR, DATE, INTERVAL, and TIMESTAMP. It also
supports storage of binary large objects, including images, sounds or video.
It supports native programming interfaces for C / C + +, Java,. Net, Perl,
Python, Ruby, Tcl, ODBC, among others, and exceptional documentation. Why does
not the Postgresql and Mysql? Optei for using Postgresql because it totally
free and no matter the platform to be used. He has control of transactions is
more mature and more stable and easier to restore in case of panes in
hardware.
### 2.4 SAMBA
Samba is a service, used in UNIX-type operating systems, which simulates a
Windows server, enabling management to be done and file sharing in a Microsoft
network. In version 3, Samba are not files and provides printing services to
various clients Windows, but can also integrate itself with Windows Server
Domain, both as a Primary Domain Controller (PDC) or as a Domain Member. It
may also be part of an Active Directory Domain. From recognized stability in
the process of linking different platforms. In will have an environment with
Windows and Linux machines working only with a source of files / data.
### 2.5 NFS
NFS - File System Network (Network File System). Protocol used to access the
file systems on a network. It is possible to mount file systems of other
machines through this protocol. The NFS is faster and more stable than the
SAMBA but does not allow the interconnection between Windows and Linux without
the need for the purchase of a software client / server to the side windos
therefore only be used to interconnect machines with Linux.
### 2.6 OPENSSH
OpenSSH is a free version of the tools of connectivity SSH uses techniques
that users of the Internet can trust. OpenSSH encrypting all traffic
(including passwords) to effectively eliminate the eavesdropping, connection
of kidnappings and other attacks. Moreover, provides OpenSSH tunneling and
various methods of authentication, and supports all versions of SSH protocol.
In case of connection between equipment and will need to prompt or graphical
environment we using SSH, SCP for the transfer of data over the network is
encrypted.
### 2.7 HEARTBEAT
The project Linux-HA (High-Availability Linux) focuses on research and
implementation of solutions for high availability (clustering) for Linux. The
main component of this project in development is the heartbeat that works as
manager of the cluster and its resources. As the name indicates, signalling
the presence (or absence) of contact with the nodes of the cluster is made by
sending heartbeats of small packages addressed to all nodes in the cluster,
whose confirmation of receipt by each node indicates the state that node. This
product enters the model as a guardian of servers tracking any service that is
necessary. In our article we are monitoring the services of the database, ssh,
ssl, http, https.
### 2.8 DRBD
DRDB is a device designed to build blocks of clusters of high availability.
This is done by mirroring a whole block of the device via the network. It will
be responsible for the replication of each bit stored in the server’s main
winchester
### 2.9 APACHE2
The Apache HTTP Project is a collaborative effort to develop software that
aims to create the implementation of an HTTP server (Web) and solid open
source. The project is managed jointly by a group of volunteers located around
the world, using the Internet and the Web to communicate, plan and develop the
server and its documentation. This project is part of the Apache Software
Foundation. In addition, hundreds of users contribute ideas, code and
documentation for the project. As more robust the security point of view we
are using this version.
### 2.10 PHP5
PHP (a recursive acronym for ”PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor) is a programming
language for computers interpreted, free and widely used to generate dynamic
content on the web. Despite being a language of learning and easy to use for
small dynamic simple scripts, PHP is a powerful oriented language the objects.
Despite being new we are using this tool as the PHP4 is not the object
oriented and is no longer being held and that is complicating factor because
we need to be not only to this but with all packages always updated with
regard to the question less security .
### 2.11 SNORT
Snort is a free software to prevent invasions of the Network (NIPS) and
intrusion detection network (NIDS) capable of carrying out analysis of traffic
in real time over IP networks. Snort runs of protocol analysis, content
searching, and is commonly used to actively or passively block a variety of
attacks and crawls, such as buffer overflows, stealth port scans, attacks on
aplicaçõe web, tracking the SMB, and attempts to simulation of SO , Among
other characteristics. The software is used mainly for prevention of
intrusion, Snort can be combined with other software, as SnortSnarf, sguil,
OSSIM, and the Basic Analysis and Security Engine (BASE) to provide a visual
representation of intrusion. With patches for the Snort it offers support for
packet stream and virus scanning as ClamAV and with the SPADE abnormalities in
the network can be found in layers 3 and 4 through analize history.
### 2.12 IPTABLE
It will be responsible for the blocking of services, machines and packages
that are not allowed to travel on the network.
### 2.13 XEN
The Xen hypervisor that provides a powerful, efficient and safe for use
virtualization for x86 CPUs, x8664, IA64, PowerPC and other architectures, has
been used to virtualize a wide range of clients and operating systems,
including Windows, Linux, Solaris and several versions of the BSD operating
systems. It is widely regarded as an attractive alternative to proprietary
platforms and virtualization hypervisors for x86 platforms and IA64.
### 2.14 EXT3
The ext3 (which means ”third extended file system”) is part of the new
generation of management systems, the Linux file. Its biggest advantage is the
support of journaling, which is to store information on the transactions of
writing, allowing a rapid and reliable recovery in case of sudden interruption
(for example, for lack of electricity). Use of this file system improves the
recovery of the file system in case of any sudden shutdown of the computer,
through sequential recording of data in the area of metadata and access mhash
of its directory tree
## 3 RESULTS OF TESTS
### 3.1 STRATEGY OF TESTS
We set up the equipment as shown in the following sections and after that
start the testing process and cominucação using micro-specific benchmarks for
this purpose. We chose a database and an application Postgresql testarmos PHP
for the fall issue of reactivation of the equipment and checking time to
return to normal operations, the rate of transfer to upgrade the base
replicated, time of activation of mirror machine. Below enumeramos the
methodologies used for testing of tolerance is divided into two parts and
using disks or system failure in LVM, one of the machines failed the physical
hardware and one of the servers:
Part 1 - PHP processing.
Part 2 - Processing of the bank Postgresql.
failed Server 1
Server 1 is running the virtual machines vm1 and vm2
Server 2 is the virtual machines running vm3 and vm4
Server 1 is off or has defects in operation
Heartbeat in Server 2 detects failure of the Server 1
Heartbeat boots virtual machines vm1 and vm2 in Server 2
Server 1 is restored
Heartbeat in Server 1 if communicates with a Heartbeat Server 2
Heartbeat in Server 2 paralyzes the virtual machines vm1 and vm2
Heartbeat in 1 Server virtual machines vm1 boots and vm2
service returns to normal
failed Server 2
Server 2 has vm1 virtual machines and vm2
Server 1 has subsubitem Server virtual machines vm3 and vm4
Server 2 is switched off or has defects in operation
Heartbeat in Server 1 detects failure of Server 2
Heartbeat boots virtual machines vm3 and vm4 in Server 1
Server 2 is restored
Heartbeat in Server 2 would communicate with Heartbeat in Server 1
Heartbeat in Server 1 paralyzes the virtual machines vm3 and vm4
Heartbeat Server 2 boots in virtual machines vm3 and vm4
service returns to normal
These tests were failures of tolerance will be made as follows: Simulation of
the failure of the server by stopping the service of heartbeat
Simulating the failure of the server 1, enter the following command in the
server 1: /etc/init.d/heartbeat stop
Stop the server through its forced shutdown (pulling power cord from the) Stop
the server through its disengagement correct. (command ’shutdown’)
### 3.2 MOUNTING CONFIGURATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT
#### Installation of the Linux operating system Debian Etch
On devices defined as servers. We will be using this distribution by the
stable version available on the date of creation of this article. In this
installation use partitioning EXT3 for installation of data, and the division
of HD in our area of 2.7 GB to SWAP and the rest of the unit for data.
#### Instalation NFS
sudo aptitude install nfs-common nfs-server-kernel portmap
Once installed the packages edit /etc/exports and add the directories to be
accessed remotely, see the example below:
/u/usr 10.0.2.6 (rw, sync)
Above are sharing the directory /u/ usr only to the machine 10.0.2.6 allowing
this writing and reading and forcing syncronismo between the two machines.
#### Installing SAMBA
sudo aptitude install smbfs samba samba-common smbclient
Edit /etc/samba/smb.conf and observe the following parameters:
workgroup = XXXXXXXX
server string = XXXXXXXX
printcap name = /etc/printcap
load printers = no
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=8192 SO_SNDBUF=8192
dns proxy = no
netbios name = padrao
netbios aliases = padrao
map to guest = never
os level = 99
preferred master = no
domain master = no
wins support = no
dead time = 0
domain logons = no
printcap name = cups
printing = cups
log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
max log size = 50
debug level = 1
security = share
unix password sync = yes
password level = 0
null passwords = yes
encrypt passwords = true
smb passwd file = /etc/samba/smbpasswd
username map = /etc/samba/smbusers
username level = 8
add machine script = /usr/sbin/adduser -n -r -g machines -c ”Samba machine” -d
/dev/null -s /bin/false %u
passdb backend = smbpasswd
idmap uid = 16777216-33554431
idmap gid = 16777216-33554431
template shell = /bin/false
winbind use default domain = no
bind interfaces only = no
hide dot files = no
[Desenv]
comment = XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx
path = /XXXXXXXXXX
public = no
browseable = yes
guest only = no
guest ok = yes
writable = yes
preserve case = No
short preserve case = No
directory mask = 0777
valid users = luciana
create mask = 0777
available = yes
#### Installing DRDB
The advantage of DRDB8 on SRDB7 are: It allows resources to be master of both
the time and can be mounted with Permissions of reading and writing. Now we
will compile the modules from DRDB8 to be loaded into the kernel. For this we
need the packages â build-essential and kernel-headers-xen. Do intão the
prompt;
sudo aptitude install drbd8-utils drbd8-module-source drbd8-source build-
essential linux-headers-xen sudo sudo m-a-i-module drbd8-source sudo update-
modules sudo modprobe drbd
This will compile the modules for kernel / drivers / block / drbd.ko and will
be used for this kernel. A configuration padão was set up in / etc / drbd.conf
Configuration:
Edit o /etc/drbd.conf
global usage-count yes;
common syncer rate 10M;
resource r0 protocol C; handlers pri-on-incon-degr ”echo o ¿ /proc/sysrq-
trigger ; halt -f”; pri-lost-after-sb ”echo o ¿ /proc/sysrq-trigger ; halt
-f”; local-io-error ”echo o ¿ /proc/sysrq-trigger ; halt -f”; outdate-peer
”/usr/sbin/drbd-peer-outdater”;
startup
disk on-io-error detach;
net allow-two-primaries; after-sb-0pri disconnect; after-sb-1pri disconnect;
after-sb-2pri disconnect; rr-conflict disconnect;
syncer rate 10M; al-extents 257;
on node1 device /dev/drbd0; disk /dev/sda3; address 192.168.0.128:7788;
flexible-meta-disk internal;
on node2 device /dev/drbd0; disk /dev/sda3; address 192.168.0.129:7788; meta-
disk internal;
”Allow-two-primaries” option that allows you to be mounted as master ”master”
at the beginning of our network. Copy /etc/drbd.conf for o node 2 and restart
drbd with the following command. sudo / init.d / drbd restart
If you want to check the state run the command below
sudo /etc/init.d/drbd status
This should be the response if everything is OK.
drbd driver loaded OK; device status:
version: 8.0.3 (api:86/proto:86)
SVN Revision: 2881 build by root@node1, 2008-01-20 12:48:36 0: cs:Connected
st:Secondary/Secondary ds:UpToDate/UpToDate C r— ns:143004 nr:0 dw:0 dr:143004
al:0 bm:43 lo:0 pe:0 ua:0 ap:0 resync: used:0/31 hits:8916 misses:22
starving:0 dirty:0 changed:22 act_log: used:0/257 hits:0 misses:0 starving:0
dirty:0 changed:0
replace the appeal to the master with the following command in equipment
sudo drbdadm primary r0
and check the status again
sudo /etc/init.d/drbd status
drbd driver loaded OK; device status:
version: 8.0.3 (api:86/proto:86)
SVN Revision: 2881 build by root@node1, 2008-01-20 12:48:36 0: cs:Connected
st:Primary/Primary ds:UpToDate/UpToDate C r— ns:143004 nr:0 dw:0 dr:143004
al:0 bm:43 lo:0 pe:0 ua:0 ap:0 resync: used:0/31 hits:8916 misses:22
starving:0 dirty:0 changed:22 act_log: used:0/257 hits:0 misses:0 starving:0
dirty:0 changed:0
As you can see action is ”master” in both of us device. And the drbd is now
accessible on / dev/drbd0
File system
We can now create the file system in / dev/drbd0 with the following command
sudo mkfs.ocfs2 /dev/drbd0
This can be mounted simultaneously in both with the commands below:
sudo mkdir /drbd0
sudo mount.ocfs2 /dev/drbd0 /drbd0
Now we have a syncronismo between storage devices.
Init script
We have to make sure that, after restart, the system will set drbd resources
again to ”master” and mount a ”/ drbd0” before starting the Heartbeat and Xen
machines.
Edit /etc/init.d/mountdrbd.sh
drbdadm primary r0
mount.ocfs2 /dev/drbd0 /mnt
make a symbolic link to executable / etc/rc3.d/S99mountdrbd.sh
sudo chmode +x /etc/init.d/mountdrbd.sh
sudo ln -s /etc/init.d/mountdrbd.sh /etc/rc3.d/S99mountdrbd.sh
In fact, this step can also be integrated to Heartbeat, adding adequate
resources for the setting. But as time is that vai do with this script.
#### Installation Heartbeat2
Now we can install and configure the Heartbeat 2
sudo apt-get install heartbeat-2 heartbeat-2-gui
Edit /etc/ha.d/ha.cf
crm on
bcast eth0
node node1 node2
restart heartbeat2 com
sudo /etc/init.d/heartbeat restart
### 3.3 Startup
Edit the file /root/cluster/bootstrap.xml
cluster_property_set id=”bootstrap”
attributes
nvpair id=”bootstrap01” name=”transition-idle-timeout” value=”60”/
nvpair id=”bootstrap02” name=”default-resource-stickiness” value=”INFINITY”/
nvpair id=”bootstrap03” name=”default-resource-failure-stickiness”
value=”-500”/
nvpair id=”bootstrap04” name=”stonith-enabled” value=”true”/
nvpair id=”bootstrap05” name=”stonith-action” value=”reboot”/
nvpair id=”bootstrap06” name=”symmetric-cluster” value=”true”/
nvpair id=”bootstrap07” name=”no-quorum-policy” value=”stop”/
nvpair id=”bootstrap08” name=”stop-orphan-resources” value=”true”/
nvpair id=”bootstrap09” name=”stop-orphan-actions” value=”true”/
nvpair id=”bootstrap10” name=”is-managed-default” value=”true”/
/attributes
/cluster_property_set
Load the file with the following command
sudo cibadmin -C crm_config -x /root/cluster/bootstrap.xml
This will start the Cluster with the values set in xml file
Setting up the device STONITH
Using the command below the keys to create trust between the servers.
sudo ssh-keygen
– save key under /root/.ssh/*
– dont give any passphrase
scp /root/.ssh/id_rsa.pub node2:/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
Now make sure you can log on the server 2 from the server 1 without using
password.
sudo ssh -q -x -n -l root ”node2” ”ls -la”
Stonith of configuring the server 2
/root/cluster/stonith.xml
clone id=”stonithclone” globally_unique=”false”
instance_attributes id=”stonithclone”
attributes
nvpair id=”stonithclone01” name=”clone_node_max” value=”1”/
/attributes
instance_attributes
primitive id=”stonithclone” class=”stonith” type=”external/ssh”
provider=”heartbeat”
operations
op name=”monitor” interval=”5s” timeout=”20s” prereq=”nothing”
id=”stonithclone-op01”/
op name=”start” timeout=”20s” prereq=”nothing” id=”stonithclone-op02”/
/operations
instance_attributes id=”stonithclone”
attributes
nvpair id=”stonithclone01” name=”hostlist” value=”node1,node2”/
/attributes
/instance_attributes
/primitive
/clone
Load with the following command
sudo cibadmin -C -o resources -x /root/cluster/stonith.xml
#### Xen the cluster resources
Now we can add the virtual machine XEN in the cluster.
Now we can add to the Xen virtual machine cluster resource. Lets say that we
have a Xen to view the machine called vm01. The cofiguração and image files to
keep us in vm01 /drbd0/xen/vm01/ in vm01.cfg and vm01-disk0.img respectively.
Edit /root/cluster/vm01.xml
resources
primitive id=”vm01” class=”ocf” type=”Xen” provider=”heartbeat”
operations
op id=”vm01-op01” name=”monitor” interval=”10s” timeout=”60s”
prereq=”nothing”/
op id=”vm01-op02” name=”start” timeout=”60s” start_delay=”0”/
op id=”vm01-op03” name=”stop” timeout=”300s”/
/operations
instance_attributes id=”vm01”
attributes
nvpair id=”vm01-attr01” name=”xmfile” value=”/drbd0/xen/vm01/vm01.cfg”/
nvpair id=”vm01-attr02” name=”target_role” value=”started”/
/attributes
/instance_attributes
meta_attributes id=”vm01-meta01”
attributes
nvpair id=”vm01-meta-attr01” name=”allow_migrate” value=”true”/
/attributes
/meta_attributes
/primitive
/resources
Load this file with the following command.
sudo cibadmin -C -o resources -x /root/cluster/vm01.xml
#### Tracking tools
With the command ”crm _mon” you can track the inclusion of resources and in
the cluster.
sudo crm_mon Refresh in 14s…
The result of this command will be:
============
Last updated: Fri Jan 25 17:26:10 2008
Current DC: node2 (83972cf7-0b56-4299-8e42-69b3411377a7)
2 Nodes configured.
6 Resources configured.
============
Node: node2 (83972cf7-0b56-4299-8e42-69b3411377a7): online
Node: node1 (6bfd2aa7-b132-4104-913c-c34ef03a4dba): online
Clone Set: stonithclone
stonithclone:0 (stonith:external/ssh): Started node1
stonithclone:1 (stonith:external/ssh): Started node2
vm01 (heartbeat::ocf:Xen): Started node2
There is also a GUI available (graphical tool). To use it just set a password
for the user ”hacluster” with the following command and run the command ”hb
_gui”
sudo passwd hacluster
password
re type password
sudo hb_gui &
## 4 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The fact work with LVM facilitated the mirroring of machines but the total
security was not achieved because when we have to save the records in the
course mirroring lost the last record and the bank needed to make the
rollback. But the resumption of service in the event of the fall of the main
server was made in seconds not creating inconvenience to users of the network.
Although the performance was higher with the use of XEN no details in this
article because this item is not the purpose of it.
## 5 CONCLUSION
Looking up the sequence of servers religamento of the structure is made
entirely stable and secure even in tests in Part 1 where only in processing
memory was being implemented in PHP in the second machine (Server 2), after
the fall continued smoothly.
In practical terms only at the end of the business can religar the main server
(Server 1) again because of the time synchronization between the two high and
for implying in the network for several minutes.
## References
* [1] Xen system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen We start with installing Xen Hypervisor and boot with Xen-kernel. http://wiki.xen-br.org/index.php?title=Xen-ha
* [2] M. L. Massie, B. N. Chun, and D. E. Culler. Te ganglia distributed system: design, implementatiosn, and experience. Parrallel Computing, 30(7):817-840, July 2004.
* [3] Z. Pan, X. Ren, R. Eigenmann, and D. Xu. Executing mpi programs on virtual machines in a internet sharing system. In 20th International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS 2006). IEEE, 2006
* [4] D. Plunner. An ethernet address resoluion protocol. RFC 826, Nov. 1982.
* [5] Q. Snell, A¿ Mikler, and J. Gustafson. NetPIPE: A Network Protocol Indepentent Performance Evaluator. 1996.
* [6] K. Adams and O. Agesen. A comparison of software and hardware techniques for x86 virtualization. In ASPLOS-XII: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Architectural support for programming languanges and operationg systems, pages 2-13, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM Press.
* [7] M. P. Boufleur, G. P. Koslovski, and A.S. Charão. Avaliação do uso de xen em ambientes de alto desempenho. In Workshop em Sistemas Computacionais de Alto Desempenho – WSCAD 2006, pages 141-147, Ouro Preto - MG, 2006.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-28T17:59:29 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.004302 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Luciana Guimaraes",
"submitter": "Luciana Guimaraes Ms",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4394"
} |
0805.4416 | # The Dark Matter Annihilation Signal from Galactic Substructure:
Predictions for GLAST
Michael Kuhlen1, Jürg Diemand2,3, Piero Madau2 1School of Natural Sciences,
Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540
2Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of California, Santa Cruz,
CA 95064
3Hubble Fellow
###### Abstract
We present quantitative predictions for the detectability of individual
Galactic dark matter subhalos in gamma-rays from dark matter pair
annihilations in their centers. Our method is based on a hybrid approach,
employing the highest resolution numerical simulations available (including
the recently completed one billion particle Via Lactea II simulation) as well
as analytical models for the extrapolation beyond the simulations’ resolution
limit. We include a self-consistent treatment of subhalo boost factors,
motivated by our numerical results, and a realistic treatment of the expected
backgrounds that individual subhalos must outshine. We show that for
reasonable values of the dark matter particle physics parameters
($M_{\chi}\sim 50-500$ GeV and $\langle\sigma v\rangle\sim 10^{-26}-10^{-25}$
cm3 s-1) GLAST may very well discover a few, even up to several dozen, such
subhalos, at 5 $\sigma$ significance, and some at more than 20 $\sigma$. We
predict that the majority of luminous sources would be resolved with GLAST’s
expected angular resolution. For most observer locations the angular
distribution of detectable subhalos is consistent with a uniform distribution
across the sky. The brightest subhalos tend to be massive (median $V_{\rm
max}$ of 24 $\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$) and therefore likely hosts of dwarf
galaxies, but many subhalos with $V_{\rm max}$ as low as 5 $\,{\rm
km\,s^{-1}}$ are also visible. Typically detectable subhalos are $20-40$ kpc
from the observer, and only a small fraction are closer than 10 kpc. The total
number of observable subhalos has not yet converged in our simulations, and we
estimate that we may be missing up to 3/4 of all detectable subhalos.
###### Subject headings:
dark matter – Galaxy: structure – galaxies: halos – gamma rays: theory –
methods: n-body simulations
## 1\. Introduction
Revealing the nature of dark matter is fundamental to cosmology and particle
physics. In the standard cosmological paradigm of structure formation
($\Lambda$CDM), the universe is dominated by cold, collisionless dark matter
(CDM), and endowed with initial density perturbations via quantum fluctuations
during inflation. In this model galaxies form hierarchically, with low-mass
objects (“halos”) collapsing earlier and merging to form larger and larger
systems over time. Small halos collapse at high redshift when the universe is
very dense, so their central densities are correspondingly high. When these
halos merge into larger hosts, their high densities allow them to resist the
strong tidal forces that act to destroy them. It is therefore a clear, unique
prediction of $\Lambda$CDM that galaxies are embedded in massive, extended
dark matter halos teeming with self-bound substructure or “subhalos”.
If the dark matter is in the form of a relic particle once in thermal
equilibrium in the early universe, like the neutralino in SUSY, then
substructures will be lit up by pair annihilations of these particles into
standard model particles, whose subsequent decay results in gamma-ray
emissions. The signal depends on unknown conjectured particle physics
properties and poorly known astrophysical parameters. Particle physics
uncertainties include the type of particle (axion, neutralino, Kaluza-Klein
particle, etc.), its mass, and its pair annihilation cross-section. From the
astrophysical side, since the annihilation rate is proportional to density
squared, the predicted flux depends sensitively on the clumpiness of the mass
distribution.
The detection of annihilation radiation from DM clumps is surely one of the
most exciting discoveries that the upcoming Gamma-ray Large Area Space
Telescope (GLAST) could make. Currently scheduled to be launched in May of
2008, GLAST is NASA’s successor to the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, whose
EGRET instrument conducted the first all-sky gamma-ray survey and discovered
271 sources, 170 of which remain unidentified (Hartman et al., 1999). GLAST
will carry two instruments, the GLAST Burst Monitor (GBM), designed to detect
flashes from gamma-ray bursts and solar flares, and the Large Area Telescope
(LAT), the main survey instrument. The LAT consists of several layers of high-
precision silicon tracking detectors for determining the direction of an
incident gamma-ray, a cesium-iodide calorimeter to measure its total energy,
and an anticoincidence detector for cosmic ray rejection.
Table 1Simulation Parameters Name | $L_{\rm box}$ | $\epsilon$ | $z_{i}$ | $N_{\rm hires}$ | $M_{\rm hires}$ | $r_{200}$ | $M_{200}$ | $V_{\rm max}$ | $r_{\rm Vmax}$ | $N_{\rm sub}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| (Mpc) | (pc) | | | ($\,\rm M_{\odot}$) | (kpc) | ($\,\rm M_{\odot}$) | (km s-1) | (kpc) |
VL-I | 90.0 | 90.0 | 48.4 | $2.34\times 10^{8}$ | $2.1\times 10^{4}$ | 389 | $1.77\times 10^{12}$ | 181 | 69 | 9,224
VL-II | 40.0 | 40.0 | 104.3 | $1.09\times 10^{9}$ | $4.1\times 10^{3}$ | 402 | $1.93\times 10^{12}$ | 201 | 60 | 53,653
With a field of view of about 2.4 sr and a 90 minute orbital period, the LAT
will survey the entire sky daily. Its peak effective area exceeds 8000 cm2
beyond 1GeV and its angular resolution ranges from $<3.5^{\circ}$ at 100 MeV
down to $<9$ arcmin above 10 GeV. Compared to EGRET, the LAT has a 4-5 times
larger field of view, more than 5 times larger peak effective area, 5-40 times
higher angular resolution above 1 GeV, and $\sim 30$ times better point source
sensitivity. Additionally, the LAT detector is sensitive to gamma-rays out to
300 GeV, ten times higher than EGRET’s limit. Given these improvements it is
not unreasonable to hope that GLAST will discover previously unknown sources,
one of which may be annihilating DM in the centers of Galactic subhalos.
What region in the sky is mostly likely to allow for a detection of gamma-rays
from DM annihilations is a hotly contested question. The Galactic center (GC)
is likely the largest nearby DM overdensity and a number of studies have
advocated it as the best place to look for a signal (Berezinsky et al., 1994;
Bergström et al., 1998, 2001; Ullio et al., 2002; Cesarini et al., 2004). A
major drawback for this scenario, however, is the large astrophysical gamma-
ray background near the GC. Furthermore, the lack of a spectral break below
$\sim 30$ TeV in the recent H.E.S.S. (Aharonian et al., 2006) and MAGIC
(Albert et al., 2006) measurements of the very high energy gamma-ray emission
from the GC severely limits the contribution that annihilating DM particles
with masses less than $\mathcal{O}$(10 TeV) can make to this signal. Instead,
Stoehr et al. (2003) suggested to focus observations on an annulus between 25∘
and 35∘ from the Galactic center, since this would maximize the chances of
detection by reducing the background while simultaneously avoiding numerical
uncertainties in the central DM density profile. Perhaps more promising is the
possibility of detecting DM annihilation from the centers of Galactic
subhalos, either from one of the known Milky Way dwarf satellite galaxies or
from a nearby dark clump (Bergström et al., 1999; Baltz et al., 2000;
Calcáneo-Roldán & Moore, 2000; Tasitsiomi & Olinto, 2002; Stoehr et al., 2003;
Taylor & Silk, 2003; Evans et al., 2004; Aloisio et al., 2004; Koushiappas et
al., 2004; Koushiappas, 2006; Diemand et al., 2007a; Strigari et al., 2007b;
Pieri et al., 2008). Lastly, an additional source population might arise from
local DM density enhancements (mini-spikes) around black hole remnants of the
first generation of stars (Bertone et al., 2005b).
If GLAST detects photons originating in pair annihilations of DM particles in
the centers of subhalos, will it be possible to distinguish this signal from
conventional astrophysical gamma-ray sources? While a definite answer to this
question will have to await actual GLAST data, Baltz et al. (2007) have argued
that this should be possible based on four criteria: (i) a hadronic spectrum
from monochromatic quarks, (ii) lack of time variability, (iii) spatial
extent, and (iv) a lack of emission at shorter wavelengths, except for very
diffuse inverse Compton and synchrotron radiation (Baltz & Wai, 2004;
Colafrancesco et al., 2006, 2007). Gamma-ray pulsars are probably the most
problematic astrophysical sources in this regard, owing to the similarity of
their spectra to a typical DM annihilation spectrum. Fortunately they tend to
lie in the Galactic plane, often exhibit X-ray counterparts, and are point-
like.
The observability of DM annihilation radiation originating in Galactic
subhalos depends on their abundance, distribution, and internal structure,
properties which must be determined by numerical simulation, since they are
the result of structure formation in the highly non-linear regime. Previous
investigations have typically only indirectly made use of numerical
simulations, employing (semi-)analytic models that have been calibrated to
published numerical results. Often these results were derived from simulations
that do not resolve the relevant sub-galactic scales, and it is not clear that
a simple extrapolation is justified, since not all substructure properties are
scale invariant. Some past work (Calcáneo-Roldán & Moore, 2000; Stoehr et al.,
2003; Diemand et al., 2006; Athanassoula et al., 2008) has directly used
numerical simulations, but these studies either suffered from insufficient
resolution, didn’t correct for effects from the population of unresolved
subhalos, or didn’t realistically account for the gamma-ray backgrounds
against which individual subhalos must compete.
Ground based gamma-ray detectors, i.e. atmospheric Cerenkov telescopes (ACT)
like H.E.S.S., VERITAS, MAGIC, and STACEE will provide complementary
information to GLAST’s observations. However, owing to the comparatively small
field of view of ACT’s, the detection of individual subhalos with such
observations would either have to rely on serendipity to provide a detectable
subhalo in the surveyed portion of the sky, or they would have to target a
known likely source such as a nearby dark matter dominated dwarf galaxy (e.g.
Albert et al., 2008; Sánchez-Conde et al., 2007; Driscoll et al., 2007). As
advocated by Koushiappas et al. (2004), a better strategy might be to locate
sources with GLAST and then conduct follow-up observations with an ACT to
measure the gamma-ray spectrum out to higher energies.
Motivated by the imminent launch of the GLAST satellite, we present here a
comprehensive analysis of the detectability of individual DM subhalos,
taylored to GLAST expectations. Our method is based on a hybrid approach,
combining the highest resolution numerical simulations of the distribution of
Galactic DM substructure (described in § 2.1) with analytical models for the
extrapolation of the substructure hierarchy below the simulations’ resolution
limit. We include a self-consistent treatment of subhalo boost factors (§
2.2), motivated by our numerical results, and a realistic treatment of the
expected backgrounds that individual subhalos must outshine (§ 3.1). We
consider a physically motivated region of particle physics parameter space (§
3.2) and check that our results don’t violate existing EGRET constraints (§
3.3). Our analysis results in quantitative predictions for the number of
observable subhalos as a function of particle physics parameters (§ 3.4), and
we also consider the possibility of detecting microhalos below $1\,\rm
M_{\odot}$ (§ 3.5). A discussion of our results and conclusions can be found
in § 4.
Figure 1.— Allsky maps of the annihilation signal from VL-II, for an observer
8 kpc from the halo center along the host halo’s intermediate principal axis
(top two rows) and along its major axis (bottom row). The maps in the left
panel show the total annihilation signal from all DM particles within $r_{\rm
200}$, in the right panel only the signal from subhalo particles. In the top
row we show the uncorrected signal directly from the simulation, in the bottom
two rows the halo center, indicated with a small white ellipse, has been
replaced with an artificial $\rho\propto r^{-1}$ cusp, and a mass-dependent
boost factor (for $m_{0}=10^{-6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$, $\alpha=2.0$) has been
applied to the subhalos.
## 2\. Models and Methodology
The number of DM annihilation gamma-ray photons from a solid angle
$\Delta\Omega$ along a given line of sight ($\theta$, $\phi$) over an
integration time of $\tau_{\rm exp}$ is given by
$\displaystyle N_{\gamma}(\theta,\phi)$
$\displaystyle=\frac{\Delta\Omega}{4\pi}\;\tau_{\rm exp}\frac{\langle\sigma
v\rangle}{2M_{\chi}^{2}}\left[\int_{E_{\rm
th}}^{M_{\chi}}\left(\\!\frac{dN_{\gamma}}{dE}\\!\right)A_{\rm
eff}(E)dE\right]$ (1) $\displaystyle\times\int_{\rm los}\\!\rho(l)^{2}dl.$
This expression contains terms that depend a) on the properties of the
detector (the angular resolution $\Delta\Omega$, the energy dependent
effective area $A_{\rm eff}(E)$, the energy threshold $E_{\rm th}$, and the
total exposure time $\tau_{\rm exp}$), b) on the chosen particle physics model
describing the nature of the DM particle (i.e. its mass $M_{\chi}$ and
thermally averaged velocity-weighted annihilation cross section $\langle\sigma
v\rangle$, and the photon spectrum due to a single annihilation event
$dN_{\gamma}/dE$), and c) on the spatial distribution of the DM within our
halo. In this section we will focus on the astrophysical contribution, while
incorporating particle physics and detector properties for the predictions of
subhalo detectability in the following section.
Figure 2.— Sub-substructure in four of VL-II’s most massive subhalos. Shown
are projections of $\rho^{2}$ for all particles within a subhalo’s outer
radius $r_{\rm sub}$. The dashed circle indicates the subhalo’s $r_{1000}$.
The clumpy sub-substructure boosts the total annihilation luminosity of its
host subhalo.
### 2.1. Simulations
The “Via Lactea” simulations follow the formation and evolution of the dark
matter substructure of a Milky-Way-scale halo in a cosmological volume. The
first of these simulations (VL-I) consists of 234 million high resolution
particles, covering the virial volume and its immediate surroundings of a
$M_{200}=1.77\times 10^{12}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ halo. With a particle mass of
$\simeq 21,000\,\rm M_{\odot}$, this simulation resolves around 10,000
subhalos within $r_{\rm 200}=388$ kpc111Note that we define $r_{\rm 200}$ as
the radius enclosing 200 times the mean density of the universe. The global
$z=0$ properties of the host halo and the substructure population were
presented in Diemand et al. (2007a), the joint temporal evolution of host halo
and substructure properties was discussed in Diemand et al. (2007b), and an
analysis of the shapes, alignment, and spatial distribution of the subhalos
can be found in Kuhlen et al. (2007). Recently we have completed “Via Lactea
II”, the next generation of this series of simulations (Diemand et al., 2008).
At a cost of over 1 million cpu-hours on Oak Ridge National Lab’s Jaguar
supercomputer, VL-II employs just over one billion $4,100\,\rm M_{\odot}$
particles to model the formation of a $M_{200}=1.93\times 10^{12}\,\rm
M_{\odot}$ halo and its substructure. For this simulation we used for the
first time a novel adaptive time-step method (Zemp et al., 2007), which
assigns time-steps equal to 1/16 of the local dynamical time (but no shorter
than 268,000 yr). This allows us to accurately resolve the density structure
much farther into the central regions of the host halo. With VL-II we are able
to resolve more than 50,000 individual subhalos within the host halo’s $r_{\rm
200}=402$ kpc. Roughly 2,000 of these are found within 50 kpc of the center,
and 20 within the solar circle. For reference the parameters of these two
simulations are summarized in Table 1. The calculations presented in this
paper have been performed for both simulations, but the final results are
based on the higher resolution VL-II.
Given the position of a fiducial observer, located 8 kpc from the host halo
center, we bin up the sky into a grid of $2400\times 1200$ pixels, equally
spaced in longitude ($\phi$) and in the cosine of the co-latitude
($\cos\theta$). This pixel size was chosen to approximate the best angular
resolution of GLAST’s LAT detector, equal to about 9 arcmin (see Section 3).
Each pixel corresponds to a solid angle of $\Delta\Omega=(2\pi)/2400\times
2/1200=4.363\times 10^{-6}$ sr. We then calculate each particle’s angular
coordinates on the sky $(\phi_{i},\cos\theta_{i})$, and sum up the fluxes,
$F_{i}=m_{p}\rho_{i}/4\pi d_{i}^{2}$, of all particles in a given pixel. Here
$d_{i}$ is the distance from the $i^{\rm th}$ particle to the observer,
$\rho_{i}$ is its density, measured over a 32 particle SPH-kernel, and we have
approximated $\int\rho_{i}^{2}dV$ as $m_{p}\rho_{i}$, which is appropriate for
a collection of discrete simulated DM particles of mass $m_{p}$. In order to
minimize shot noise arising from particle discreteness we smooth each
particle’s contribution using a projected SPH-kernel of angular width
$h_{i}/d_{i}$, where $h_{i}$ is half the radius encompassing all 32
neighboring particles. The resulting map is presented in the top left panel of
Fig. 1 in units of GeV2 kpc cm-6 sr-1 and depends only the choice of the
observer’s location and the dark matter distribution. The flux from only those
particles belonging to subhalos is shown in the top right panel.
### 2.2. Subhalo Boost Factor
The hierarchical nature of CDM structure formation implies that substructure
should be expected not only in the host halo, but also in individual subhalos.
Indeed, in VL-II we are able to resolve some of these sub-subhalos in the most
massive of our subhalos. In Diemand et al. (2008) we show that the mean
abundance of sub-substructure is consistent with a scaled-down version of the
VL-II host halo, i.e. once the sub-subhalos’ $V_{\rm max}$’s are scaled by the
$V_{\rm max}$ of their host subhalo, the cumulative $V_{\rm max}$-function
($N(>V_{\rm max})$) agrees with the overall subhalo $V_{\rm max}$-function. A
density squared projection of four of the most massive subhalos is shown in
Fig. 2. Only particles within the subhalo’s outer radius $r_{\rm sub}$ have
been included in the projection.222$r_{\rm sub}$ is defined here as the radius
at which the total density becomes roughly constant. The subhalos’ $r_{1000}$,
the radius at which the mean enclosed density is equal to 1000 times the mean
matter density of the universe, is overplotted with a dashed line.
Even with VL-II’s impressive dynamical range of $\sim 10^{6}$ in mass,
however, we still resolve only a small fraction of the total expected DM
substructure hierarchy. In principle this hierarchy could extend all the way
down to the cut-off in the matter power spectrum, set by collisional damping
and free streaming in the early universe (Green et al., 2005; Loeb &
Zaldarriaga, 2005). For WIMP dark matter, typical kinetic decoupling
temperatures range from MeV to GeV, corresponding to cut-off masses of
$m_{0}=10^{-12}$ to $10^{-4}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ (Profumo et al., 2006), some 10
to 20 orders of magnitude below VL-II’s mass resolution. Since the
annihilation rate goes as density squared, any clumpiness will lead to an
enhancement of the total luminosity compared to a smooth mass distribution.
Figure 3.— The annihilation luminosity boost factor due to substructure below
VL-II’s resolution limit versus subhalo mass, for different subhalo mass
functions. Top panel: Dependence on the cutoff mass $m_{0}$ for slope
$\alpha=2.0$. Bottom panel: Dependence on $\alpha$ for $m_{0}=10^{-6}\,\rm
M_{\odot}$.
The unresolved portion of the substructure hierarchy will thus lead to a boost
in the true annihilation luminosity of individual subhalos, compared to the
value determined directly from the numerical simulation. The magnitude of this
boost will depend sensitively on the properties of the subhalo population, in
particular on the slope and low mass cut-off of the subhalo mass function and
on the subhalo concentration-mass relation. Our analytic boost factor model is
based on the one presented in Strigari et al. (2007a). The true luminosity of
a subhalo of mass M is given by
$L(M)=\left[1+B(M)\right]\tilde{L}(M),$ (2)
where
$\tilde{L}(M)\propto\int_{V}\rho^{2}_{\rm sub}dV=\sum_{r_{i}<r_{\rm
sub}}\rho_{i}m_{p}$ (3)
is the luminosity of the subhalo determined from all simulation particles
within the subhalo’s outer radius and $\rho_{i}$ is the density of the $i^{\rm
th}$ such particle. A subhalo’s $B(M)$ can be calculated by integrating
luminosities over its own sub-subhalo population:
$\displaystyle B(M)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{\tilde{L}(M)}\int_{m_{0}}^{m_{1}}\frac{dN}{dm}L(m)dm$
(4) $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{\tilde{L}(M)}\int_{m_{0}}^{m_{1}}\frac{dN}{dm}\left[1+B(m)\right]\tilde{L}(m)dm.$
(5)
Here $dN/dm$ is the sub-subhalo mass function, and the integration extends
from $m_{0}$, the low mass cut-off of the substructure hierarchy, to an upper
limit of $m_{1}={\rm min}\\{10^{6}\,\rm M_{\odot},0.1M\\}$, such that only
substructure below VL-II’s resolution limit of $\sim 10^{6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$
contribute. For subhalos below $10^{7}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ we cap the integration
at $0.1M$ under the assumption that efficient dynamical friction would have
lead to the tidal destruction of larger sub-subhalos. For a power law
substructure mass function $dN/dm=A/M(m/M)^{-\alpha}$, Eq. 5 becomes
$B(M)=\frac{A}{\tilde{L}(M)}\int_{\ln m_{0}}^{\ln
m_{1}}\left(\frac{m}{M}\right)^{1-\alpha}\left[1+B(m)\right]\tilde{L}(m)d\\!\ln
m.$ (6)
Motivated by our numerical simulations (Diemand et al., 2004a, 2007a) and
semi-analytic studies (Zentner & Bullock, 2003), we normalize the sub-subhalo
mass function by setting the mass fraction in subclumps with masses
$10^{-5}<m/M<10^{-2}$ equal to 10%.
For the determination of $\tilde{L}(M)$ we have assumed an NFW density
profile, in which case the total annihilation luminosity of a halo of mass $M$
and concentration $c=r_{\rm vir}/r_{s}$ is given by
$\tilde{L}(M,c)\propto\rho_{s}^{2}r_{s}^{3}\propto M\frac{c^{3}}{f(c)^{2}},$
(7)
where $f(c)=\ln(1+c)-c/(1+c)$. We use the Bullock et al. (2001) concentration-
mass relation for field halos, albeit with a somewhat smaller value of the
normalization, $K=3.75$ (as suggested by Kuhlen et al., 2005; Macciò et al.,
2007). For the cosmology used in the VL simulations and halos masses between
$10^{6}$ and $10^{10}\,\rm M_{\odot}$, the c(M) relation is approximately
$c(M)\approx 18(M/10^{8}\,\rm M_{\odot})^{-0.06}$, which corresponds to
$\tilde{L}(M)\propto M^{0.87}$, i.e. the annihilation luminosity scales almost
linearly with mass, in agreement with results from numerical simulations
(Stoehr et al., 2003; Diemand et al., 2007a). Note that in our numerical
simulations we find systematically higher subhalo concentrations closer to the
host halo center. This trend does not affect the magnitude of the boost
factor, but translates to a radial trend in subhalo luminosity (see Section
3.1).
Eq. 6 is solved numerically using the boundary condition $B(m_{0})=0$. The
resulting relation is plotted in Fig. 3, for $\alpha=2.0$ and different values
of $m_{0}$ in the top panel, and for $m_{0}=10^{-6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ and
different values of $\alpha$ in the bottom panel. Overall we find relatively
modest boost factors on the order of a few, ranging up to $\sim 10$ for the
most massive subhalos. Generally more massive halos have larger boost factors,
simply because their subhalo population covers more of the total subhalo
hierarchy. For the same reason, smaller values of $m_{0}$ lead to larger boost
factors. For $\alpha<2.0$ $B(M)$ has a weaker mass dependence and is less
sensitive to $m_{0}$, since in this case more massive halos are relatively
more important. Our results are in agreement with the analytic upper limits of
Strigari et al. (2007a) and the recent calculations of Lavalle et al. (2008).
A fit to the cumulative subhalo mass function in our simulations is consistent
with $\alpha=2$ (Diemand et al., 2007a), which implies equal mass in subhalos
per decade of subhalo mass. However, fits to the differential mass function
tend to favor slightly shallower slopes of $1.8-1.9$ (Stoehr et al., 2003;
Madau et al., 2008), possibly because they are more sensitive to the lower
mass end, where resolution effects may artificially flatten the slope. In this
work we use $\alpha=2.0$ and $m_{0}=10^{6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ as our fiducial
model, but present results for a range of different $\alpha$ and $m_{0}$.
### 2.3. Central Flux Corrections
The host halo center is another area where our simulation must be corrected to
account for the artificially low density caused by the finite numerical
resolution (Diemand et al., 2004b). Based on numerical convergence studies
(Diemand et al., 2005a) we believe that we can trust the radial density
profile of the VL-I host halo down to $r_{\rm conv}=3.4\times 10^{-3}r_{\rm
200}=1.3$ kpc (Diemand et al., 2007a), corresponding to about 10∘ from the
center. The higher mass resolution and improved time-step criterion in VL-II
results in a much smaller convergence radius of $r_{\rm conv}=380$ pc. The
flux derived directly from the simulated particles in VL-II will thus only
underestimate the true annihilation flux within the inner $\sim 2^{\circ}$
from the center. An additional uncertainty arises from the fact that our
purely collisionless DM simulation completely neglect the effect of baryons.
While this is not a problem for the signal from individual subhalos, which are
small enough that baryonic effects are likely negligible, the central region
of our host halo most likely would have been affected by gas cooling, star
formation, and stellar dynamical processes. It is not immediately obvious how
such baryonic effects would alter the central DM distribution. Adiabatic
contraction (Blumenthal et al., 1986; Gnedin et al., 2004a) would lead to a
steepening of the central DM density profile at scales of a few kpc and below.
A recent study of scaling relations in spiral galaxies, however, seems to
favor models of spiral galaxy formation without adiabatic contraction, and
suggests that clumpy gas accretion might have reduced central DM densities
(Dutton et al., 2007). Stirring by a stellar bar could also eject DM from the
central regions (Weinberg & Katz, 2007, and references therein). On much
smaller scales (central few pc), the presence of a supermassive black hole
(SMBH) would lead to the creation of an $r^{-1.5}$ mini-cusp (Gnedin &
Primack, 2004b). A SMBH binary, on the other hand, could have removed DM from
the very center (Merritt et al., 2002).
Figure 4.— The gamma-ray intensity from DM annihilations in the smooth host
halo versus the angle from the Galactic center, directly from the simulated
VL-II particles (thick solid line), and with an artificial central cusp with
central slope equal to 1.0 (dotted line) and 1.2 (dashed line). For comparison
the smooth host halo flux from the VL-I simulation is overplotted (lower thin
solid line).
Here we have attempted to correct for the artificially low central density by
excising all simulated particles within $r_{\rm conv}$ and replacing them with
an artificial cusp consisting of about 25 million 5 $\,\rm M_{\odot}$
particles, distributed in an ellipsoid matched to the shape and density of the
VL-II host halo at $r_{\rm conv}$, and extended inwards with a power law
density profile. The resulting radial flux profile (excluding subhalos) is
plotted in Fig. 4, for the uncorrected case and for central density slopes of
-1 and -1.2.
Note that a similar correction should be applied to the centers of all the
subhalos as well. This, however, is computationally very expensive, and we
omit a direct correction of the particle distribution in favor of applying an
a posteriori correction to the central pixel of each subhalo in the final
allsky map. For each subhalo we estimate the central surface brightness
according to
$\Phi_{c}=\frac{1}{\Delta\Omega}\mathcal{F}_{\rm halo}(\rho_{s},r_{s},D),$ (8)
where $\mathcal{F}_{\rm halo}$ is the flux from the central region subtended
by solid angle $\Delta\Omega$ of a subhalo with NFW scale density $\rho_{s}$
and scale radius $r_{s}$ at a distance $D$ (see Eq. A11). We estimate
$\rho_{s}$ and $r_{s}$ from the measured values of $V_{\rm max}$ and $r_{\rm
Vmax}$ according to the relations
$\displaystyle r_{s}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{r_{\rm
Vmax}}{2.163}$ (9) $\displaystyle\rho_{s}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{4.625}{4\pi G}\left(\frac{V_{\rm max}}{r_{s}}\right)^{2},$
(10)
which hold for an NFW density profile. If the central pixel of a subhalo has
$\Phi<\Phi_{c}$, we set it equal to $\Phi_{c}$. Note that we first apply the
boost factor correction to all particles of a given subhalo, and then apply
this flux correction to the central pixel. We only correct the central pixel,
so subhalos for which $r_{s}$ subtends more than one pixel (1.7% of all VL-II
subhalos) will not be fully corrected.
### 2.4. Corrected Allsky Maps
In Fig. 1 we show both unmodified and corrected DM annihilation flux allsky
maps. While the topmost row shows the signal as calculated directly from the
numerical simulation, in the center row the subhalo particle fluxes have been
boosted by $B(M)$, assuming $(\alpha,m_{0})=(2.0,10^{-6})$, the central pixel
flux correction has been applied, and the central region of the host halo has
been replaced with an artificial density cusp of slope -1. In these two rows
the observer is located at 8 kpc along the intermediate axis of the host halo
ellipsoid. In the panels on the right hand side, we show only the fluxes from
particles belonging to subhalos, i.e. within a given subhalo’s outer radius.
The addition of a substructure boost factor lifts the brightness of a number
of subhalos over the level of the diffuse host halo flux. The bottom panel
shows the corrected case for an observer placed at 8 kpc along the major axis
of the host halo. In this case the observer is deeper inside the host halo
mass distribution, and the resulting diffuse host halo flux dominates over
most of the subhalos.
## 3\. Subhalo Detectability
In order to make predictions for the number of detectable subhalos, we must
convert the simulation fluxes presented in Section 2 into actual gamma-ray
photon fluxes and compare these to the expected background signal. Following
previous work (Stoehr et al., 2003), we define for each subhalo in our allsky
map a “detection significance”
$\mathcal{S}=\frac{\sum_{i}N_{s,i}}{\sqrt{\sum_{i}N_{b,i}}},$ (11)
where $N_{s,i}$ and $N_{b,i}$ are the number of source and background gamma-
rays received on a given pixel, and the sums are over all pixels with signal-
to-noise ($N_{s,i}/N_{b,i}^{1/2}$) greater than unity covered by a subhalo.
For this purpose we must make assumptions about the observation (the
detector’s effective area and angular resolution as a function of energy, the
exposure time and energy threshold), the astrophysical backgrounds
(extragalactic and Galactic), and, most importantly, the nature of the DM
particle (its mass and annihilation cross section, the annihilation spectrum).
Here we adopt parameters appropriate for a GLAST observation with the Large
Area Telescope (LAT): an exposure time of $\tau_{\rm exp}=2$ years, the
expected energy-dependent effective area $A_{\rm eff}(E)$, and an energy
threshold of $E_{\rm th}=3.0$ GeV, above which the flux-weighted mean angular
resolution
$\langle\Delta\theta\rangle\equiv\frac{\int_{E_{\rm
th}}^{\infty}\Delta\theta(E)\;A_{\rm
eff}(E)\;(dN_{\gamma}/dE)\;d\\!E}{\int_{E_{\rm th}}^{\infty}A_{\rm
eff}(E)\;(dN_{\gamma}/dE)\;d\\!E}$ (12)
is equal to 9 arcmin. The functional form of $A_{\rm eff}(E)$ and
$\Delta\theta(E)$ was obtained from the GLAST LAT Performance
webpage333http://www-glast.slac.stanford.edu/software/IS/glast_lat_
performance.htm.
### 3.1. Backgrounds
The annihilation signal from individual extended subhalos must compete with a
number of diffuse gamma-ray backgrounds, of both astrophysical and particle
physics origin. The Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope (EGRET) aboard
the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory satellite conducted a gamma-ray allsky
survey in the 1990’s, detecting a diffuse background consisting of an
isotropic extragalactic (Sreekumar et al., 1998) as well as a Galactic
component (Hunter et al., 1997). The extragalactic component is probably
dominated by unresolved blazars (Stecker & Salamon, 1996; Giommi et al.,
2006), although star-bursting galaxies and galaxy clusters might add a
substantial contribution (Chiang & Mukherjee, 1998; Dermer, 2007). The
spectrum of this extragalactic background is well described by a power-law
photon spectrum in the 30 MeV to 100 GeV energy range (Sreekumar et al.,
1998):
$\displaystyle\Phi_{\rm eg}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle(7.32\pm
0.34)\times 10^{-9}\quad{\rm MeV}^{-1}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}{\rm sr}^{-1}$
(13) $\displaystyle\left(\frac{E}{451{\rm MeV}}\right)^{(-2.10\pm 0.03)}.$
The diffuse Galactic gamma-ray background is produced by energetic
interactions of cosmic ray nucleons with interstellar medium (ISM) atoms
through neutral pion production, as well as from energetic electrons by
inverse Compton upscattering of lower energy photons and bremsstrahlung.
Modeling this background under the assumption that the locally measured
electron and proton energy spectra are representative of the Galaxy as a whole
(“conventional model”) underpredicts the flux in the measured EGRET spectrum
above 1 GeV by about a factor of two (Hunter et al., 1997). Strong et al.
(2004a) provide an explanation for this “GeV excess” by modeling cosmic ray
propagation within the Galaxy, allowing for mild departures in the electron
and nucleon spectra from the conventional model, and using a cosmic ray source
distribution based on the observed distribution of pulsars and supernova
remnants in conjunction with a variable CO-to-H2 conversion factor (Strong et
al., 2004b). This “optimized model” emphasizes the importance of inverse
Compton emission and is able to reproduce the EGRET observations in all
directions of the sky. Here we have employed the GALPROP444available from
http://galprop.stanford.edu/web_galprop/
galprop_home.html (v50p) cosmic ray propagation code (Strong & Moskalenko,
1998; Moskalenko et al., 2002, and references therein) to calculate an
“optimized model” allsky map of the gamma ray emissivity due to cosmic ray
interactions with the Galactic ISM. We have limited the pixel size of this map
to 0.5∘, corresponding to the angular resolution of the HI and CO surveys used
in GALPROP.
Figure 5.— Diffuse flux due to undetectable subhalos as a function of angle
$\psi$ from the Galactic center, for a number of different subhalo mass
functions. The thick lines show models with an anti-biased radial
distribution, concentrations increasing towards the host center, and different
values of the mass function slope $\alpha$ and low mass cutoff $m_{0}$:
$(\alpha,m_{0}/\,\rm M_{\odot})=(2.0,10^{-6})$ (solid), $(2.0,10^{-12})$
(dotted), $(2.0,1)$ (dashed), $(1.9,10^{-6})$ (dot-dashed), $(1.8,10^{-6})$
(triple-dot-dashed). The thin solid line represents the original Pieri et al.
(2008) model ($B_{\rm ref,z0}$), with $\alpha=2.0$, $m_{0}=10^{-6}\,\rm
M_{\odot}$, an un-biased radial distribution, and no radial concentration
dependence. The flux from the smooth host halo is overplotted with the grey
line, see Fig. 4.
In addition to these astrophysical backgrounds, individual detectable subhalos
must outshine DM annihilations from the smooth host halo as well as the
background from the population of individually undetectable subhalos (Pieri et
al., 2008). Note that these undetectable subhalos do not simply uniformly
boost the flux from the smooth host halo. Tidal disruption of satellites is
more effective close to the host halo center, leading to a spatial
distribution of subhalos that is antibiased with respect to the host halo mass
distribution (Kuhlen et al., 2007; Madau et al., 2008). The resulting
background will have a shallower angular dependence than the smooth host halo
signal, and can dominate it at large angular distances from the center.
To determine the magnitude and angular dependence of this background we repeat
the calculation presented in Pieri et al. (2008), with three important
differences. Firstly, we use an antibiased subhalo spatial distribution for
which $n_{\rm sub}(r)/\rho_{\rm host}(r)\propto r$ (see Kuhlen et al., 2007),
as opposed to one that follows the host halo mass distribution down to some
hard cut-off $r_{\rm min}(M)$ as in Pieri et al. (2008). Secondly, we allow a
range of values of the subhalo mass function slope $\alpha$ and cutoff mass
$m_{0}$. This can make a big difference, since by number the population of
individually undetected subhalos is dominated by objects with masses close to
$m_{0}$. Lastly, we include a radial dependence in the subhalo mass-
concentration relation, motivated by numerical simulations which tend to find
higher concentrations for subhalos closer to the host halo center (Diemand et
al., 2007b, 2008),
$c_{0}^{\rm sub}(M,R)=c_{0}^{\rm B01}(M)\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm
200}}\right)^{-0.286},$ (14)
where $c_{0}^{\rm B01}(M)$ is the median concentration of subhalo of mass $M$,
as given by the Bullock et al. (2001) model for field halos. With this
scaling, subhalos at $R_{\odot}$ are three times as concentrated as field
halos. We also include a log-normal scatter around this median, with width
$\sigma_{\log_{10}c}=0.14$ (Wechsler et al., 2002). In Fig. 5 we present the
resulting background flux as a function of angle from the halo center, and
also show the effects of our modifications on the original Pieri et al. (2008)
prescription (using their $B_{\rm ref,z0}$ model). A more detailed explanation
of our calculation of this background is included in the Appendix A.
We find that our use of an anti-biased radial distribution leads to a diffuse
subhalo flux that is almost independent of the viewing direction. The median
galacto-centric distance of a subhalo (i.e. the radius enclosing half of all
subhalos) is about 200 kpc in the anti-biased case, but only 100 kpc for the
unbiased distribution used by Pieri et al. (2008). The fraction of subhalos
within 8 kpc (within $r_{s}^{\rm VL-II}=21$ kpc) is $7\times 10^{-4}$ (0.01)
in the anti-biased case, and 0.02 (0.1) for the unbiased distribution. In the
unbiased case, subhalos within 8 kpc of the Galactic center contribute about
90% of the subhalo diffuse flux towards the Galactic center, whereas they only
make up 40% of the flux in the anti-biased case. The shift towards larger
distances also leads to an overall reduction in the amplitude of the flux.
Table 2Subhalo Mass Function Models $\alpha$ | $m_{0}$ | $N_{\rm tot}$ | $M_{\rm tot}$ | $f_{\rm tot}$ | $M_{\rm u}$ | $f_{\rm u}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| $(\,\rm M_{\odot})$ | | $(\,\rm M_{\odot})$ | | $(\,\rm M_{\odot})$ |
2.0 | $10^{-6}$ | $2.5\times 10^{16}$ | $9.3\times 10^{11}$ | 0.53 | $7.0\times 10^{11}$ | 0.40
1.9 | $10^{-6}$ | $9.2\times 10^{14}$ | $3.2\times 10^{11}$ | 0.19 | $1.2\times 10^{11}$ | 0.070
1.8 | $10^{-6}$ | $3.3\times 10^{13}$ | $2.1\times 10^{11}$ | 0.12 | $3.3\times 10^{10}$ | 0.018
2.0 | $1$ | $2.5\times 10^{10}$ | $5.8\times 10^{11}$ | 0.33 | $3.5\times 10^{11}$ | 0.20
2.0 | $10^{-12}$ | $2.5\times 10^{22}$ | $1.3\times 10^{12}$ | 0.73 | $1.0\times 10^{12}$ | 0.60
The final background considered here is due to annihilations from the smooth
host halo. For this component we simply use the angular flux distribution
calculated from all simulated particles that don’t belong to any subhalos.
Since higher numerical resolution would have resolved some of this DM mass
into individual subhalos, whose contribution we have accounted for above, we
uniformly reduce the smooth halo flux by a factor $(1-f_{u})$, where $f_{u}$
is the mass fraction below $10^{6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ (last column in Table 2).
### 3.2. Particle Physics Parameters
The particle physics dependence of the annihilation signal (Eq. 1) enters
through three factors: $M_{\chi}$, the mass of the DM particle, $\langle\sigma
v\rangle$, the thermally averaged velocity-weighted annihilation cross
section, and $dN_{\gamma}/dE$, the photon spectrum resulting from a single
annihilation event. The physical nature of DM is currently unknown, and a
plethora of particle physics models have been proposed to explain its
existence. It should be noted that not all of these models result in a DM
particle capable of annihilating, but those models are not of interest for the
present work. Instead we consider here only the class of models in which the
DM is a weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP), such as the neutralino in
supersymmetric extensions of the standard model or Kaluza-Klein excitations of
standard model fields in models with universal extra dimensions (for a recent
review of particle DM theories, see Bertone et al., 2005a).
For any given class of model it is possible to determine a range of $M_{\chi}$
and $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ resulting in a current relic DM density that is
consistent with the WMAP measurement of
$\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}=0.1105^{+0.0039}_{-0.0038}$ (Spergel et al., 2007).
Typical values for $M_{\chi}$ are 50 GeV up to $\sim 1$ TeV, and a simple
estimate of the cross section is $\langle\sigma v\rangle=3\times 10^{-27}{\rm
cm}^{3}{\rm s}^{-1}/\Omega_{\chi}h^{2}\approx 3\times 10^{-26}$ cm3
s-1(Jungman et al., 1996). However, this naive relation can fail badly
(Profumo, 2005), and a much wider range of cross sections, up to
$\langle\sigma v\rangle\sim 10^{-24}$ cm3 s-1 for $M_{\chi}<200$ GeV (e.g.
Fig.17 in Colafrancesco et al., 2006), should be considered viable. In this
work we consider values of $M_{\chi}$ from 50 to 500 GeV, and $\langle\sigma
v\rangle$ from $10^{-26}$ to $10^{-25}$ cm3 s-1.
Figure 6.— The gamma-ray spectrum $dN/dE$ resulting from WIMP annihilations
into $b\bar{b}$ quark pairs, calculated with DarkSUSY (Gondolo et al., 2004),
for $M_{\chi}$ between 50 and 500 GeV in increments of 50 GeV. The dashed line
shows the Fornengo et al. (2004) fitting function for $M_{\chi}=100$ GeV and
the dotted line the expected effective area of the GLAST/LAT detector (right
abscissa).
WIMP DM particles can annihilate into a range of different particle pairs,
including quarks, leptons (e.g. $\tau$’s), gauge bosons ($Z^{0}$, $W^{\pm}$),
gluons, and Higgs particles. The subsequent decay and hadronization of the
annihilation products leads to a spectrum of gamma-rays, mostly resulting from
the decay of $\pi^{0}$ mesons. The shape of this spectrum is almost
independent of the annihilation branch (with the exception of the $\tau$
branch, which has a harder spectrum, Cesarini et al., 2004; Fornengo et al.,
2004), and can be calculated using Monte-Carlo simulation, for example with
the PYTHIA package (Sjöstrand et al., 2001). Above
$x=(E_{\gamma}/M_{\chi})=0.01$ the spectrum is typically well fit by a
function of the form $\alpha_{0}x^{3/2}\exp(-\alpha_{1}x)$, with
$(\alpha_{0},\alpha_{1})$ dependent on the final state (Bergström et al.,
1998; Koushiappas et al., 2004; Fornengo et al., 2004). GLAST has non-
negligible sensitivity down to $\sim 0.1$GeV ($x<0.01$), where the spectrum
has turned over and the $x^{3/2}$ dependence is no longer a good match. Here
we calculate $dN/dE$ assuming a 100% branching ratio into $b\bar{b}$ quarks
(Baltz et al., 2007; Pieri et al., 2008) and calculate the spectrum directly
using the DarkSUSY code (Gondolo et al., 2004). Annihilation into two photons
or a photon and a $Z^{0}$, resulting in a monochromatic gamma-ray line signal,
is also possible, but is one-loop suppressed (Bergström & Ullio, 1997) and we
do not include such channels here. Fig. 6 shows the $b\bar{b}$ spectrum for
$M_{\chi}$ between 50 and 200 GeV, together with the Fornengo et al. (2004)
fitting function and the GLAST/LAT $A_{\rm eff}(E)$. For $M_{\chi}=100$ GeV,
this spectrum results in 32.6, 13.4, and 4.58 gamma-rays per annihilation
above 0.1, 1.0, and 3.0 GeV, respectively.
Recently Bringmann et al. (2008) presented new calculations of the gamma-ray
spectrum from DM annihilation, including electromagnetic radiative corrections
to all leading annihilation processes. In some cases the inclusion of internal
bremsstrahlung (IB) photons leads to large enhancements of the gamma-ray
fluxes, and also sharpens the spectral feature at the mass of the DM particle.
Above energies of $0.6M_{\chi}$, IB photons typically increase the gamma-ray
flux by no more than a factor of two over the range of $M_{\chi}$ considered
here. For the much lower energy threshold of 3 GeV employed in this study, the
enhancement from IB photons is negligible, and thus we have not included IB
photons here.
Figure 7.— $N_{5}$, the number of simulated subhalos exceeding
$\mathcal{S}=5$, as a function of the DM particle mass $M_{\chi}$ for
$\langle\sigma v\rangle=3\times 10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1 (top) and the cross section
$\langle\sigma v\rangle$ for $M_{\chi}=100$ GeV (bottom). Dependence on the
subhalo mass function cutoff mass $m_{0}$ for slope $\alpha=2.0$ (left) and on
$\alpha$ for $m_{0}=10^{-6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ (right). The $\alpha=1.8$ case is
almost identical to $\alpha=1.9$ and has been omitted from this plot. The
shaded regions indicate the range of $N_{5}$ for ten randomly chosen observer
locations and the solid lines refer to an observer placed along the
intermediate axis of the host halo ellipsoid. The dotted line is the case
without a boost factor.
### 3.3. EGRET Constraints
Given the theoretically motivated modifications and additions to the simulated
flux distribution discussed in the previous sections, we must ask whether our
models still satisfy existing constraints from EGRET on the diffuse gamma-ray
flux as well as limits on a Galactic center gamma-ray point source.
Integrating Eq. 13 from 30 MeV to 10 GeV, we obtain a specific intensity of
$5.91\times 10^{-5}$ cm-2 s-1 sr-1 for the extra-galactic background in the
EGRET energy range. Over this same energy range, DM annihilations result in
30-50 gamma rays per event for $M_{\chi}=50-500$ GeV(see Section 3.2). The
diffuse flux plotted in Fig. 5 can thus be converted to units of cm-2 s-1 sr-1
by multiplying by $(3.09\times 10^{21}{\rm
cm/kpc})\times(30-50)\times\langle\sigma v\rangle/M_{\chi}^{2}$. Even the
strongest diffuse background model considered here, $(\alpha,m_{0}/\,\rm
M_{\odot})=(2.0,10^{-12})$, remains below the EGRET extragalactic background
for $\langle\sigma v\rangle/M_{\chi}^{2}<10^{-28}$ cm3 s-1 GeV-2, i.e. over
the full range of $M_{\chi}$ and $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ that we consider in
the following analysis.
Hooper & Dingus (2004) performed a re-analysis of the EGRET Galactic center
data with an improved energy dependent point spread function and found no
evidence of a point source at the location of Sag A∗. For $M_{\chi}$ between
50 and 500 GeV they determined a 95% confidence upper limit of $\sim 10^{-8}$
cm-2 s-1 for gamma rays above 1 GeV. The total flux from the innermost 30
arcmin (EGRET’s angular resolution) from a central cusp matched to VL-II’s
density profile at $r_{\rm conv}$ is equal to $5.7\times 10^{-2}$ GeV2 kpc
cm-6 for a slope of $-1.0$. In the energy range from 1 to 30 GeV, DM
annihilations produce $8-33$ gamma rays per event for $M_{\chi}=50-500$ GeV,
and the central flux exceeds the EGRET limit if $\langle\sigma
v\rangle>4.1\times 10^{-26}(M_{\chi}/100{\rm\;GeV})^{1.41}$ cm3 s-1. Most of
the parameter space we considered here satisfies this limit, but models with
$M_{\chi}<80$ GeV and $\langle\sigma v\rangle=3\times 10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1
violate it. For an inner slope of $-1.2$ the constrait is stronger, and the
EGRET limit is already exceeded if $\langle\sigma v\rangle>1.5\times
10^{-26}(M_{\chi}/100{\rm\;GeV})^{1.41}$ cm3 s-1. In this case a DM particle
mass greater than 170 GeV (for $\langle\sigma v\rangle=3\times 10^{-26}$ cm3
s-1) would be required in order to remain below the EGRET point source limit.
For the uncorrected central flux, which may in fact be closer to reality if
dynamical processes have removed a significant amount of DM from the Galactic
center, the limit is relaxed to $\langle\sigma v\rangle>1.5\times
10^{-25}(M_{\chi}/100{\rm\;GeV})^{1.41}$ cm3 s-1, in which case all models
considered in this work would satisfy the limit.
Figure 8.— The number of detectable ($\mathcal{S}=5$) subhalos with more than
$N_{\rm pix}$ detectable pixels versus $N_{\rm pix}$, for three different
choices of $M_{\chi}$ (assuming $\langle\sigma v\rangle=3\times 10^{-26}$ cm3
s-1). The shaded regions show the range of $N(>\\!\\!N_{\rm pix})$ for ten
randomly chosen observer locations and the solid lines refer to an observer
placed along the intermediate axis of the host halo ellipsoid. Figure 9.— The
cumulative angular distribution of detectable ($\mathcal{S}>5$) subhalos, for
three different choices of $M_{\chi}$ (assuming $\langle\sigma
v\rangle=3\times 10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1). $\psi$ is the angle from the direction of
the host center to the brightest pixel in each subhalo. The shaded regions
show the range of $N(>\psi)$ for ten randomly chosen observer locations and
the solid lines refer to an observer placed along the intermediate axis of the
host halo ellipsoid. The thin solid line represents an isotropic distribution
normalized to the fiducial observer’s location.
### 3.4. Detectable subhalos
We have now assembled all necessary ingredients to convert our simulated
particle distribution into a quantitative prediction for the number of
subhalos detectable with GLAST. To recap: $N_{s}$, the expected number of
gamma-rays from a subhalo in one GLAST 9 arcmin “pixel”, is calculated by
summing $B(M)\rho_{i}m_{p}/(4\pi d_{i}^{2})$ over all the subhalo’s particles
falling within the pixel and multiplying by $\tau_{\rm exp}\langle\sigma
v\rangle/(2M_{\chi}^{2})\int_{E_{\rm th}}^{M_{\chi}}dN_{\gamma}/dE\,A_{\rm
eff}(E)\,dE$. The total signal from a subhalo is obtained by summing $N_{s}$
over all $S/N>1$ pixels covered by the subhalo. This flux is then compared to
$\sqrt{\sum N_{b}}$, the square root of the expected number of background
photons, made up of an isotropic extragalactic astrophysical component (as
measured by EGRET), an astrophysical Galactic background (calculated with
GALPROP), and two diffuse DM annihilation backgrounds, one from undetectable
subhalos and one from the smooth host halo. The resulting detection
significance $\mathcal{S}=\sum N_{s}/\sqrt{\sum N_{b}}$ depends critically on
the mass of the DM particle (smaller $M_{\chi}$ is better) and on its
annihilation cross section (larger $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ is better). At
fixed $M_{\chi}$ and $\langle\sigma v\rangle$, $\mathcal{S}$ depends on the
normalization, the slope $\alpha$, and the low mass cut-off $m_{0}$ of the
subhalo mass function through the calculation of the boost factor and the two
diffuse annihilation backgrounds. Note that changes in $\alpha$ and $m_{0}$
affect $\mathcal{S}$ in opposite ways: increasing the abundance of subhalos
below VL-II’s resolution limit, by increasing $\alpha$ or lowering $m_{0}$,
raises the boost factor (good for detection) as well as the background from
undetectable subhalos (bad for detection).
Due to departures from spherical symmetry in the host halo mass and subhalo
spatial distribution (Kuhlen et al., 2007), the number of detectable subhalos
will depend on the observer position. For an observer located at 8 kpc along
the major axis of the host halo ellipsoid the diffuse host halo background
will be higher than for an observer at the same distance along the minor axis
(Calcáneo-Roldán & Moore, 2000). Individual bright subhalos may also become
undetectable from certain vantage points, if they fall behind the Galactic
disk or center for example. For these reasons we have performed our analysis
for ten randomly drawn observer positions, in addition to our fiducial
observer located along the host halo intermediate axis. Our results are
presented in Fig. 7, where we plot $N_{5}$, the number of VL-II subhalos
exceeding $\mathcal{S}=5$, as a function of $M_{\chi}$ and $\langle\sigma
v\rangle_{-26}=\langle\sigma v\rangle/(10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1), for different
choices of $\alpha$ and $m_{0}$.
We find that $N_{5}$ ranges from a few up to multiple tens over the range of
$M_{\chi}$ and $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ we have considered. In our fiducial
model, $(M_{\chi}/{\rm GeV},\langle\sigma
v\rangle_{-26},\alpha,m_{0})=(100,3,2.0,10^{-6}$), an observer positioned
along the host halo’s intermediate axis would be able to detect $N_{5}=19$
subhalos. For the set of ten randomly placed observers we find a range of
$N_{5}$ from 13 to 19. Lowering $m_{0}$ from $10^{-6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ to
$10^{-12}\,\rm M_{\odot}$, the smallest value found by Profumo et al. (2006),
results in a factor $\sim 2$ increase in $N_{5}$. In this case, assuming
$\alpha=2.0$, more than ten subhalos should be detectable even with $M_{\chi}$
as high as 300 GeV (for $\langle\sigma v\rangle_{-26}=3)$ or $\langle\sigma
v\rangle$ as low as $10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1 (for $M_{\chi}=100$ GeV). If, on the
other hand, no subhalos exist with masses less than $1\,\rm M_{\odot}$, then
$N_{5}$ drops below 10 at $M_{\chi}\approx 160$ GeV (for $\langle\sigma
v\rangle_{-26}=3)$ or $\langle\sigma v\rangle_{-26}\approx 2$ (for
$M_{\chi}=100$ GeV). Reducing $\alpha$ below the critical value of 2.0
suppresses $N_{5}$ by about a factor of 2/3. At a fiducial value of
$(M_{\chi},\langle\sigma v\rangle_{-26})=(100,3)$ we find $N_{5}=13-19$,
$26-40$, $11-14$, $10-14$, and $9-14$ for $(\alpha,m_{0})=(2.0,10^{-6})$,
$(2.0,10^{-12})$, $(2.0,10^{0})$, $(1.9,10^{-6})$, and $(1.8,10^{-6})$,
respectively. In the most favorable case considered here, $(M_{\chi}/{\rm
GeV},\langle\sigma v\rangle_{-26},\alpha,m_{0})=(100,10,2.0,10^{-12}$), the
number of detectable subhalos exceeds 100. The dependence of $N_{5}$ on
$m_{0}$ and $\alpha$ is primarily driven by their effect on the boost factor:
lowering the abundance of DM subhalos below VL-II’s resolution limit reduces
the boost factor and lowers $N_{5}$. For comparison we have also plotted
results without a boost factor for the $(\alpha,m_{0})=(2.0,10^{-6}$) case.
This case is similar to the $m_{0}=1\,\rm M_{\odot}$ case, and even without
invoking such a sub-substructure boost factor multiple subhalos should be
bright enough for detection for most of the parameter space probed here.
The set of models we have considered includes a model similar to the one
recently proposed by Hooper et al. (2007) to explain the excess microwave
emission around the Galactic center measured by WMAP (so-called “WMAP haze”,
Finkbeiner, 2004). Hooper et al. (2007) showed that the intensity and angular
distribution of the WMAP haze can be modeled as synchrotron emission from
relativistic electrons and positrons generated in dark matter annihilations,
assuming a cusped central DM density profile of slope $-1.2$, a DM particle
mass of $\sim 100$ GeV, and an annihilation cross section of $\langle\sigma
v\rangle=3\times 10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1. If this explanation for the WMAP haze
turns out to be correct, we predict that GLAST should be able to detect about
15 subhalos.
In Fig. 8 we present the cumulative size distributions of all detectable
subhalos, for $M_{\chi}=50$, 100, and 200 GeV at fixed $\langle\sigma
v\rangle=3\times 10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1. The size here is defined as the number of
$S/N>1$ pixels ($N_{\rm pix}$) contributing to the total subhalo signal
exceeding the detection threshold of $\mathcal{S}=5$. Recall that we have
matched the pixel size to GLAST’s angular resolution of 9 arcmin, such that
each pixel corresponds to a solid angle of $4.363\times 10^{-6}$sr. Again we
plot distributions for the fiducial observer on the host halo’s intermediate
axis as well as the minimum and maximum over all ten randomly drawn observer
positions. Detectable subhalos are typically extended, with a median of
$N_{\rm pix}$ of 13. Only about 5% are detected in only one pixel. This should
aid in discriminating between subhalos lit up by DM annihilation and
conventional astrophysical sources (e.g. gamma-ray pulsars) which will often
appear as point sources (Baltz et al., 2007).
The angular distribution of detectable subhalos is shown in Fig. 9, where we
plot the cumulative number of detectable subhalos more than $\psi$ degrees
from the direction towards the host center. For the fiducial observer we have
overplotted an isotropic distribution (thin solid line), in which detectable
subhalos are uniformly distributed over the whole sky. The actual distribution
indicates a slight excess at large angles compared to an isotropic
distribution. However, a KS test shows that this discrepancy is not
statistically significant. For only two of all eleven observer positions can
the null hypothesis of an isotropic distribution be rejected at more than 90%
confidence, and we conclude that the distribution of detectable sources on the
sky is consistent with isotropy.
Figure 10.— Differential distribution of detection significance $\mathcal{S}$
(top), $V_{\rm max}$ (center), and distance to the observer (bottom) of the
subset of detectable ($\mathcal{S}>5$) subhalos, for three different choices
of $M_{\chi}$ (assuming $\langle\sigma v\rangle=5\times 10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1).
The solid lines are for the fiducial observer placed along the intermediate
axis of the host halo ellipsoid and the error bars indicate the range of
values for 10 randomly chosen observer locations. For the distance
distribution the best-fit Gaussian has been overplotted for the $M_{\chi}=100$
GeV case.
Next we consider the differential distribution of the detection significance
$\mathcal{S}$, $V_{\rm max}$, and the distance to the observer, of the subset
of detectable subhalos, see Fig. 10. In order to obtain better statistics for
this analysis we chose a slightly higher cross section of $\langle\sigma
v\rangle=5\times 10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1, resulting in 51, 29, and 12 detectable
subhalos for $M_{\chi}=$ 50, 100, 200 GeV, respectively. The histograms
represent the results for the fiducial observer position and the error bars
indicate the range of values for the 10 randomly drawn positions.
The $\mathcal{S}$ distribution is slightly peaked towards lower $\mathcal{S}$
values, with about two thirds of all detectable subhalos having
$\mathcal{S}<10$. About 10% of subhalos should be detectable at very high
significances, with $\mathcal{S}$ exceeding 25. For these, the median $V_{\rm
max}$ is 24 km s-1, indicating that the most detectable subhalos tend to be
the more massive ones. These would be more likely to host a dwarf galaxy (e.g.
Madau et al., 2008), which in some cases may have so far eluded discovery due
to their ultra-faint optical surface brightness. The $V_{\rm max}$
distribution, however, reveals that a siginificant number of lower $V_{\rm
max}$ subhalos should also be detectable. From 5 to 25 $\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$
the $V_{\rm max}$ distribution is approximately flat, and in the $M_{\chi}=50$
GeV case it even exhibits a pronounced peak towards lower $V_{\rm max}$. No
detectable subhalos are found with $V_{\rm max}$ less than 5 km s-1, which is
probably due to a lack of numerical resolution in these low mass halos. It
appears likely that the total number of detectable subhalos has not yet
converged in our simulations. We explore this further in Section 3.5 below.
The distance distribution of detectable subhalos is broadly peaked around the
median of 40 kpc from the observer. For the $M_{\chi}=100$ GeV case, it is
consistent with a simple log-normal distribution, centered at 32 kpc with a
width of $\sigma_{\log_{10}\\!D}=0.45$. About 80% of all detectable subhalos
have distances between 10 and 100 kpc, and only 7.5% are closer than 10 kpc.
### 3.5. Convergence?
In Section 3.1 we discussed the diffuse background resulting from undetectable
subhalos, but we should also consider whether any subhalos below VL-II’s
resolution limit of $10^{6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ might be detectable as individual
extended sources. The fact that the $V_{\rm max}$ distribution of detectable
subhalos remains flat (or even rises slightly) down to the smallest visible
subhalos hints that the number of detectable subhalos has not yet converged in
our simulations. Further evidence comes from directly comparing the VL-II
results with the lower resolution VL-I simulation. In VL-I we find far fewer
detectable subhalos. In fact, with $\langle\sigma v\rangle=3\times 10^{-26}$
cm3 s-1, at most 15 subhalos are visible, and that only for the most
optimistic assumptions. Typically only VL-I’s most massive subhalo reaches
$\mathcal{S}=5$. The likely explanation for the dearth of detectable subhalos
in VL-I is that the lower numerical resolution resulted in a significant
suppression of substructure close to the center. In VL-I only 42 subhalos with
at least 200 particles are closer than 50 kpc from the halo center, whereas in
VL-II this number is 362, of which 108 are more massive than $4.2\times
10^{6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ (200 VL-I particles). Subhalos in VL-II also typically
have higher central densities: the median of the maximum density in all
subhalos with $M_{\rm sub}>4.2\times 10^{6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ is 5.4 times
higher in VL-II than in VL-I. This will lead to higher fluxes and hence
increased detectability.
These considerations motivate a calculation of the total expected number of
detectable subhalos below the simulation’s resolution limit, including the
full hierarchy of substructure all the way down to the free streaming cutoff
$m_{0}$. Microhalos, the remnants of the earliest collapsed DM structures, are
of particular interest here, as they have recently been suggested as possible
GLAST sources that may even exhibit proper motion (Koushiappas, 2006). In the
following discussion we focus on resolved subhalos, because above the VL-II
resolution the unresolved component is small, and, as we now show, the
fraction of unresolved, detectable sources will further decrease with mass.
In the previous section we showed that in our simulations 95% of all
detectable subhalos are extended sources covering more than one pixel. The
fraction of point-like source is likely to become even smaller for less
massive systems. For an NFW density profile, 87.5% of the annihilation
luminosity is generated within the scale radius, hence $r_{s}/D$ is a good
proxy for a subhalo’s angular size. Assuming an angular resolution of 9
arcmin, the maximum distance out to which a subhalo will appear extended is
$D_{\rm max}=r_{s}/9$ arcmin $=380\;r_{s}$. For a Bullock et al. (2001)
concentration-mass relation $c(M)\propto M^{-0.025}$ for halos with masses
below $10^{6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$. In this case
$D_{\rm max}\propto r_{s}\propto R/c\propto M^{1/3}M^{0.025}\propto
M^{0.358}.$ (15)
Specifically, assuming that local subhalos are three times more concentrated
than field halos (Eq. 14), we find
$D_{\rm max}\approx 0.6\left(\frac{M}{10^{-6}\,\rm
M_{\odot}}\right)^{0.358}\\!\\!{\rm pc}.$ (16)
At distances exceeding $D_{\rm max}$, sources appear point-like and the
surface brightness in one pixel simply scales as $L/D^{2}$. For microhalos
with $M<1\,\rm M_{\odot}$, $L\propto M^{0.93}$ and hence the maximum surface
brightness of such unresolved sources scales with mass as $L/D_{\rm
max}^{2}\propto M^{0.93}\times(M^{0.358})^{-2}\propto M^{0.214}$, resulting in
a smaller fraction of detectable point-like sources for lower mass subhalos.
The differential mass function of extended (i.e. GLAST-resolvable) subhalos
scales approximately as $dN_{\rm ext}/dM\propto dn_{\rm sub}/dMD_{\rm
max}^{3}\sim M^{-\alpha+1.074}$, implying that even for $\alpha=2.0$ the total
number $N_{\rm ext}$ will be dominated by the most massive subhalos, i.e.
those just below VL-II’s resolution limit. The results of a more realistic
calculation (details in Appendix B), taking into account the radial
concentration bias and a log-normal concentration distribution at a given
mass, are consistent with this simple scaling and are shown with the thick
upper lines in Fig. 11. Integrating this differential extended source mass
function from $m_{0}=10^{-6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$ to $10^{6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$, we
find $N_{\rm ext}=1090,324,115$ for $\alpha=$2.0, 1.9, and 1.8, respectively.
Figure 11.— The differential mass function of extended (i.e. GLAST-resolvable,
$r_{s}/D>9$ arcmin, thick upper lines) and observable ($r_{s}/D>9$ arcmin and
$\Phi>1$ GeV2 kpc cm-6 sr-1, thin lower lines) subhalos below VL-II’s mass
resolution of $10^{6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$, for $\alpha=2.0$ (solid), 1.9 (dotted),
and 1.8 (dashed).
Of course not all of these extended subhalos would actually be detectable by
GLAST. We can extend the above calculation by imposing an additional
constraint on the subhalo surface brightness. For an NFW density profile the
surface brightness within $r_{s}$ is given by
$\Phi=\frac{L}{4\pi
D^{2}\pi(r_{s}/D)^{2}}=\frac{L}{4\pi^{2}r_{s}^{2}}\approx\frac{0.875}{3\pi}\rho_{s}^{2}r_{s}.$
(17)
Since $\rho_{s}\propto c^{3}/f(c)$, $\Phi\propto Rc^{5}/f(c)^{2}\propto
M^{1/3}c^{5}/f(c)^{2}$. Thus for a halo of a fixed mass, the surface
brightness has a very steep concentration dependence, $\Phi\propto c^{4.316}$
for $M<10^{6}\,\rm M_{\odot}$. For this reason it is very important to account
for the radial bias and the log-normal scatter in subhalo concentrations. A
conservative choice for the limiting surface brightness for detection is
$\Phi_{0}=1$ GeV2 kpc cm-6 sr-1, which is a bit below the minimum central
brightness of all detectable subhalos in our study. The thin lower lines in
Fig. 11 show how this additional constraint lowers the expected number of
detectable extended microhalos. Lower mass halos are more strongly affected by
a surface brightness cut, since $\Phi$ scales as $M^{0.225}$ for $c\propto
M^{-0.025}$. In total we find the surface brightness constraint lowers the
expected number of detectable subhalos with masses below $10^{6}\,\rm
M_{\odot}$ by about an order of magnitude to 82, 32, and 13 subhalos for
$\alpha=$2.0, 1.9, and 1.8, respectively. Thus we conclude that subhalos below
VL-II’s resolution limit contribute at most 3/4 of the expected total number
of detectable extended sources.
Contrary to previous results (Koushiappas, 2006), we find that GLAST is
unlikely to be able to detect and resolve individual microhalos, defined here
as subhalos with masses less than $1\,\rm M_{\odot}$. According to our
calculations, only 0.40, 0.042, and 0.0044 subhalos with masses between
$10^{-6}$ and $1\,\rm M_{\odot}$ would satisfy both angular size and surface
brightness constraints. The disagreement between Koushiappas (2006) and our
results is explained by our lower local subhalo abundance
($\xi=(M^{2}dn/dM)/\rho_{\rm host}(R_{\odot})=8\times 10^{-4}$ versus his
0.002), higher local concentrations resulting in smaller angular sizes, and a
more realistic treatment of the expected backgrounds, including a contribution
from undetectable subhalos. For comparison, we find that the local abundance
of microhalos is (10.7, 0.388, 0.0137) pc-3 for $\alpha=(2.0,1.9,1.8)$ for the
anti-biased radial subhalo distribution and (189, 6.83, 0.241) pc-3 in the
unbiased case.
## 4\. Discussion and Conclusion
In this work we have considered the possibility of directly observing Galactic
DM substructure through the detection of gamma rays originating in the
annihilation of DM particles in the centers of subhalos. Based on a hybrid
approach, making use of both the highest resolution numerical simulations
available as well as analytical models for the extrapolation beyond this
simulation’s resolution limit, we have shown that for reasonable values of the
DM particle physics and subhalo mass function parameters, future gamma-ray
observatories, such as the soon to be launched GLAST satellite, may very well
be able to detect a few, even up to several dozen, such subhalos.
An important overall systematic uncertainty in our study is the nature of the
DM particle. Our results are valid for the case of a weakly interacting relic
particle, such as the lightest supersymmetric particle in supersymmetric
extensions of the standard model. If the DM particle instead turns out to be
an axion, for example, then DM annihilation would not occur and our results
would be irrelevant. Even in the WIMP case, the allowed parameter space for
the mass and annihilation cross section of the DM particle spans many orders
of magnitude. Individual subhalos will only be detectable with GLAST, if
$M_{\chi}$ and $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ fall in an “observable window”,
roughly given by $M_{\chi}\sim 50-500$ GeV for $\langle\sigma v\rangle\sim
1-10\times 10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1.
Another set of uncertainties is associated with our use of a numerical
simulation. First of all, we have only simulated one host halo at very high
resolution. Statistical studies at lower resolution (e.g. Reed et al., 2005)
have found about a factor of two halo-to-halo scatter in the substructure
abundance. Secondly, an uncertainty arises from the importance of DM
substructure below the resolution limit of our simulation, due to its boosting
effect on the brightness of individual subhalos, its contribution to a diffuse
background from undetectable subhalos, and as individually detectable sources.
Lastly, the lack of a baryonic component in our simulation is another source
of uncertainty. In addition to the effects baryonic physics might have on the
DM distribution at the Galactic center (see Section 2.3), one may worry that
the abundance or detectability of nearby subhalos could be reduced by passages
through the Milky Way’s stellar disk. We can use the subhalo orbits from our
simulations to constrain how large an effect such disk crossings would have.
For this estimate we have used orbits from the VL-I simulation (Diemand et
al., 2007b; Kuhlen et al., 2007), as we are still in the process of extracting
them from the VL-II dataset. We model the Milky Way’s stellar disk as an
exponential disk with scale radius $R_{d}=3.5$ kpc and scale height
$z_{d}=350$ pc. Only 8.2% of all VL-I subhalos ever entered a central disk
region delimited by four scale lengths, i.e. $R<4R_{d}$ and
$|z|<4z_{d}$.555For simplicity we aligned the disk with the z-axis, but the
results are insensitive to this choice. This fraction grows to 22% when only
subhalos within 50 kpc of the halo center at $z=0$ are considered. Only about
one fifth of all disk crossing subhalos do so more than once. The median of
$V_{z}$, the velocity component perpendicular to the disk, is quite large,
about $400\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$. Since the typical disk crossing times are thus
a few Myr, much less than the internal dynamical time of subhalos even within
$r_{s}$ ($\sim 100$ Myr), we can apply the impulse approximation to determine
how much subhalos will be heated by disk passages (see §7.2 of Binney &
Tremaine, 1987). The change in the z-component of the velocity of a DM
particle belonging to a disk crossing subhalo is given by
$\Delta V_{z}=\frac{2|z|}{V_{z}}|g_{z}(R)|,$ (18)
where $|z|$ is the height of the particle above the subhalo’s midplane and
$g_{z}(R)$ is the gravitational field of the disk at radius R, and is
approximately equal to $g_{z}(R)=2\pi G\Sigma_{0}\exp[(R_{0}-R)/R_{d}]$. Here
$\Sigma_{0}\simeq 75\,\rm M_{\odot}$ pc-2 is the surface density of the disk
in the solar neighborhood $R=R_{0}$. Setting $z=r_{\rm Vmax}$, we find
$\displaystyle\Delta V_{z}(|z|)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 5\;\,{\rm
km\,s^{-1}}\exp\left[\frac{R_{0}-R}{R_{d}}\right]$ (19)
$\displaystyle\times\left(\frac{|z|}{500{\rm
pc}}\right)\left(\frac{V_{z}}{400\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}}\right)^{-1}.$
We can understand how destructive such kicks will be to the subhalo by
comparing $\Delta V_{z}$ to the local circular velocity at height $z$. We find
that for all disk crossings in VL-I the median of $(\Delta V_{z}/V_{c})$ is
0.4 at $z=r_{s}$, and only 25% have $\Delta V_{z}>V_{c}$ at $r_{s}$. These
numbers will be even smaller closer to the subhalo’s center, since $\Delta
V_{z}\propto z$ and $V_{c}\propto\sqrt{r}$. We conclude that only about 5% of
all subhalos within 50 kpc today might have experienced a significant
reduction in central density, and hence in annihilation luminosity, from disk
crossings.
Given the substantial uncertainties discussed above, one may wonder whether it
is even sensible to consider DM annihilations from subhalos at all. We believe
that the mere possibility of detecting DM annihilations with GLAST offers such
an exciting opportunity to directly confirm the existence of a DM particle and
to learn something about its properties, that it warrants theoretical
investigations such as the present one.
We conclude by summarizing our main findings:
* •
Numerical simulations indicate that DM is far from smoothly distributed
throughout the Galactic halo. Extremely high resolution simulations, such as
the Via Lactea series, have shown that this clumpiness extends into individual
subhalos, resulting in sub-substructure. Since the annihilation rate is
proportional to the DM density squared, such clumpiness leads to a boost by
$(1+B(M))$ of the annihilation luminosity compared to a smooth density
distribution. Any determination of the gamma-ray brightness of individual
subhalos must account for this boost factor. In the case of simulated subhalos
only the portion of the sub-substructure hierarchy below the simulation’s
resolution limit should be included in the boost factor calculation. Our
analytical model of the boost factor, which assumes a powerlaw subhalo mass
function of slope $\alpha$ and low-mass cutoff $m_{0}$, a resolved subhalo
mass fraction of 10%, and a Bullock et al. (2001) like concentration-mass
relation, results in moderate boost factors of a few up to 10 for
$(\alpha,m_{0})=(2.0,10^{-6})$. Lowering $m_{0}$ to $10^{-12}$ raises $B(M)$
by a factor of 2. For $\alpha=1.9$ $B(M)$ barely exceeds unity.
* •
The portion of the substructure hierarchy below Via Lactea’s resolution also
contributes to a diffuse annihilation background from undetectable sources.
The magnitude of this background depends on the spatial distribution of
subhalos within the host halo in addition to the subhalo mass function
parameters $(\alpha,m_{0})$. We have extended the model developed by Pieri et
al. (2008) to allow for an anti-biased subhalo radial distribution and for
higher subhalo concentrations closer to the host halo center. The resulting
background tends to dominate the diffuse background from the smooth host halo
at angles greater than $\psi=10^{\circ}-60^{\circ}$, depending on the choice
of $(\alpha,m_{0})$. At high galactic latitudes this background can dominate
the astrophysical backgrounds (both Galactic and extragalactic) and should be
accounted for when determining subhalo detectability.
* •
By comparing the expected number of gamma-ray photons from an individual
subhalo to the square root of the number of expected background photons, we
can determine a detection significance $\mathcal{S}$ for each subhalo.
$\mathcal{S}$ depends strongly on the mass $M_{\chi}$ and annihilation cross
section $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ of the DM particle as well as on the subhalo
mass function parameters $(\alpha,m_{0})$. We find that for $M_{\chi}\sim
50-500$ GeV and $\langle\sigma v\rangle\sim 1-10\times 10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1, a
few subhalos, even up to a few tens, exceed $\mathcal{S}=5$, and hence should
be detectable with GLAST. In the most optimistic case we considered
($M_{\chi}=100$ GeV, $\langle\sigma v\rangle=10^{-25}$ cm3 s-1, $\alpha=2.0$,
and $m_{0}=10^{-12}\,\rm M_{\odot}$) almost 100 subhalos would be detectable,
whereas increasing $M_{\chi}$ to 500 GeV or lowering $\langle\sigma v\rangle$
to $10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1 sharply reduces the expected number of sources,
especially for low $\alpha$ or high $m_{0}$.
* •
For the particular DM annihilation model that Hooper et al. (2007) proposed to
explain the WMAP haze, an excess microwave emission around the Galactic
center, namely $M_{\chi}\sim 100$ GeV, $\langle\sigma v\rangle=3\times
10^{-26}$ cm3 s-1, and a central host halo density cusp of slope -1.2, we find
that GLAST should be able to detect around 15 subhalos, for reasonable choices
of $(\alpha,m_{0})$.
* •
Th majority of all detectable subhalos are resolved with GLAST’s expected
angular resolution of 9 arcmin. The median number of pixels is 13, and only 5%
are detected in only one pixel.
* •
For 9 out of the 11 observer locations we considered, the angular distribution
of detectable subhalos is consistent with an isotropic distribution on the
sky.
* •
Those subhalos that are detected with the highest significances
($\mathcal{S}>25$) tend to be the more massive ones, with a median $V_{\rm
max}$ of 24 km s-1. However, the $V_{\rm max}$ distribution of detectable
subhalos is flat, or slightly rising, towards lower $V_{\rm max}$, down to
$V_{\rm max}=$ 5 km s-1.
* •
Detectable subhalos typically lie between 10 and 100 kpc from the observer.
The distance distribution is consistent with a log-normal distribution
centered at 32 kpc and a width of $\sigma_{\log_{10}\\!D}=0.45$.
* •
It appears that the number of detectable subhalos has not yet converged in our
simulations. Higher resolution simulations would likely resolve smaller
clumps, which are more abundant and more likely to be found near the observer.
We estimate that we may be missing up to three quarters of all detectable
subhalos.
Our results suggest that searching for Galactic DM substructure should be an
important part of the GLAST data analysis in the upcoming years.
We would like to thank our collaborators Ben Moore, Doug Potter, Joachim
Stadel, and Marcel Zemp for their help and assistance with code development
and testing, and for allowing the use of the Via Lactea II dataset prior to
publication. This work benefited from fruitful discussions with Bill Atwood,
Sergio Colafrancesco, Miguel Sánchez-Conde, Dan Hooper, Robert Johnson, Savvas
Koushiappas, Stefano Profumo, Louie Strigari, Andrew Strong, and Scott
Tremaine. Support for this work was provided by NASA grants NAG5-11513 and
NNG04GK85G. M.K. gratefully acknowledges support from the Hansmann Fellowship
at the Institute for Advanced Study. J.D. acknowledges support from NASA
through Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-01194.01. The “Via Lactea I” simulation
was performed on NASA’s Project Columbia supercomputer. “Via Lactea II” was
performed on the Jaguar Cray XT3 supercomputer at the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, through an award from DOE’s Office of Science as part of the 2007
Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE)
program. It is a pleasure to thank Bronson Messner and the Scientific
Computing Group at the National Center for Computational Sciences for their
help and assistance.
## References
* Aharonian et al. (2006) Aharonian, F., et al. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 97, 221102
* Albert et al. (2006) Albert, J., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, L101
* Albert et al. (2008) Albert, J., et al. 2008, ApJ, 679, 428
* Aloisio et al. (2004) Aloisio, R., Blasi, P., & Olinto, A. V. 2004, ApJ, 601, 47
* Athanassoula et al. (2008) Athanassoula, E., Ling, F. -., Nezri, E., & Teyssier, R. 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 801, arXiv:0801.4673
* Baltz et al. (2000) Baltz, E. A., Briot, C., Salati, P., Taillet, R., & Silk, J. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 61, 02351
* Baltz & Wai (2004) Baltz, E. A., & Wai, L. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 023512
* Baltz et al. (2007) Baltz, E. A., Taylor, J. E., & Wai, L. L. 2007, ApJ, 659, L1254
* Berezinsky et al. (1994) Berezinsky, V., Bottino, A., & Mignola, G. 1994, Physics Letters B, 325, 136
* Bergström & Ullio (1997) Bergström, L., & Ullio, P. 1997, Nuclear Physics B, 504, 27
* Bergström et al. (1998) Bergström, L., Ullio, P., & Buckley, J. H. 1998, Astroparticle Physics, 9, 137
* Bergström et al. (1999) Bergström, L., Edsjö, J., Gondolo, P., & Ullio, P. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 043506
* Bergström et al. (2001) Bergström, L., Edsjö, J., & Ullio, P. 2001, Physical Review Letters, 87, 251301
* Bertone et al. (2005a) Bertone, G., Hooper, D., & Silk, J. 2005, Phys. Rep., 405, 279
* Bertone et al. (2005b) Bertone, G., Zentner, A. R., & Silk, J. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 103517
* Binney & Tremaine (1987) Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 1987, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987
* Blumenthal et al. (1986) Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Flores, R., & Primack, J. R. 1986, ApJ, 301, 27
* Bringmann et al. (2008) Bringmann, T., Bergström, L., & Edsjö, J. 2008, Journal of High Energy Physics, 1, 49
* Bullock et al. (2001) Bullock, J. S., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559
* Calcáneo-Roldán & Moore (2000) Calcáneo-Roldán, C., & Moore, B. 2000, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 123005
* Cesarini et al. (2004) Cesarini, A., Fucito, F., Lionetto, A., Morselli, A., & Ullio, P. 2004, Astroparticle Physics, 21, 267
* Chiang & Mukherjee (1998) Chiang, J., & Mukherjee, R. 1998, ApJ, 496, 752
* Colafrancesco et al. (2006) Colafrancesco, S., Profumo, S., & Ullio, P. 2006, A&A, 455, 21
* Colafrancesco et al. (2007) Colafrancesco, S., Profumo, S., & Ullio, P. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 023513
* Dermer (2007) Dermer, C. D. 2007, ApJ, 659, 958
* Diemand et al. (2004a) Diemand, J., Moore, B., & Stadel, J. 2004, MNRAS, 353, 624
* Diemand et al. (2004b) Diemand, J., Moore, B., Stadel, J., & Kazantzidis, S. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 977
* Diemand et al. (2005a) Diemand, J., Zemp, M., Moore, B., Stadel, J., & Carollo, C. M. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 665
* Diemand et al. (2005b) Diemand, J., Madau, P., & Moore, B. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 367
* Diemand et al. (2006) Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., & Madau, P. 2006, ApJ, 649, 1
* Diemand et al. (2007a) Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., & Madau, P. 2007, ApJ, 657, 262
* Diemand et al. (2007b) Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., & Madau, P. 2007, ApJ, 667, 859
* Diemand et al. (2008) Diemand, J., Kuhlen, M., Madau, P., Zemp, M., Moore, B., Potter, D., Stadel, J. 2008, Nature, in press
* Driscoll et al. (2007) Driscoll, D. D., et al. (STACEE Collaboration) 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 710, arXiv:0710.3545
* Dutton et al. (2007) Dutton, A. A., van den Bosch, F. C., Dekel, A., & Courteau, S. 2007, ApJ, 654, 27
* Evans et al. (2004) Evans, N. W., Ferrer, F., & Sarkar, S. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 123501
* Finkbeiner (2004) Finkbeiner, D. P. 2004, ApJ, 614, 186
* Fornengo et al. (2004) Fornengo, N., Pieri, L., & Scopel, S. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 103529
* Giommi et al. (2006) Giommi, P., Colafrancesco, S., Cavazzuti, E., Perri, M., & Pittori, C. 2006, A&A, 445, 843
* Gnedin et al. (2004a) Gnedin, O. Y., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., & Nagai, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 16
* Gnedin & Primack (2004b) Gnedin, O. Y., & Primack, J. R. 2004, Physical Review Letters, 93, 061302
* Gondolo et al. (2004) Gondolo, P., Edsjö, J., Ullio, P., Bergström, L., Schelke, M., & Baltz, E. A. 2004, Journal of Cosmology and Astro-Particle Physics, 7, 8]
* Green et al. (2005) Green, A. M., Hofmann, S., & Schwarz, D. J. 2005, JCAP, 8, 3
* Hartman et al. (1999) Hartman, R. C., et al. 1999, ApJS, 123, 79
* Hooper & Dingus (2004) Hooper, D., & Dingus, B. L. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 113007
* Hooper et al. (2007) Hooper, D., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Dobler, G. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 083012
* Hunter et al. (1997) Hunter, S. D., et al. 1997, ApJ, 481, 205
* Jungman et al. (1996) Jungman, G., Kamionkowski, M., & Griest, K. 1996, Phys. Rep., 267, 195
* Klypin et al. (1999) Klypin, A., Kravtsov, A. V., Valenzuela, O., & Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82
* Koushiappas et al. (2004) Koushiappas, S. M., Zentner, A. R., & Walker, T. P. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 043501
* Koushiappas (2006) Koushiappas, S. M. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 97, 191301
* Kuhlen et al. (2005) Kuhlen, M., Strigari, L. E., Zentner, A. R., Bullock, J. S., & Primack, J. R. 2005, MNRAS, 357, 387
* Kuhlen et al. (2007) Kuhlen, M., Diemand, J., & Madau, P. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1135
* Lavalle et al. (2008) Lavalle, J., Yuan, Q., Maurin, D., & Bi, X.-J. 2008, A&A, 479, 427
* Loeb & Zaldarriaga (2005) Loeb, A., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2005, PRD, 71, 103520
* Macciò et al. (2007) Macciò, A. V., Dutton, A. A., van den Bosch, F. C., Moore, B., Potter, D., & Stadel, J. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 55
* Madau et al. (2008) Madau, P., Diemand, J., & Kuhlen, M., 2008, ApJ, in press
* Merritt et al. (2002) Merritt, D., Milosavljević, M., Verde, L., & Jimenez, R. 2002, Physical Review Letters, 88, 191301
* Moore et al. (1999) Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T., Stadel, J., & Tozzi, P. 1999, ApJ, 524, L19
* Moskalenko et al. (2002) Moskalenko, I. V., Strong, A. W., Ormes, J. F., & Potgieter, M. S. 2002, ApJ, 565, 280
* Pieri et al. (2008) Pieri, L., Bertone, G., & Branchini, E. 2008, MNRAS, 384, 1627
* Profumo (2005) Profumo, S. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 72, 103521
* Profumo et al. (2006) Profumo, S., Sigurdson, K., & Kamionkowski, M. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 97, 031301
* Reed et al. (2005) Reed, D., Governato, F., Quinn, T., Gardner, J., Stadel, J., & Lake, G. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 153
* Sánchez-Conde et al. (2007) Sánchez-Conde, M. A., Prada, F., Łokas, E. L., Gómez, M. E., Wojtak, R., & Moles, M. 2007, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 123509
* Sjöstrand et al. (2001) Sjöstrand, T., Edén, P., Friberg, C., Lönnblad, L., Miu, G., Mrenna, S., & Norrbin, E. 2001, Computer Physics Communications, 135, 238
* Spergel et al. (2007) Spergel, D. N., et al. 2007, ApJS, 170, 377
* Sreekumar et al. (1998) Sreekumar, P., et al. 1998, ApJ, 494, 523
* Stecker & Salamon (1996) Stecker, F. W., & Salamon, M. H. 1996, ApJ, 464, 600
* Stoehr et al. (2003) Stoehr, F., White, S. D. M., Springel, V., Tormen, G., & Yoshida, N. 2003, MNRAS, 345, 1313
* Strigari et al. (2007a) Strigari, L. E., Koushiappas, S. M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2007, PRD, 75, 083526
* Strigari et al. (2007b) Strigari, L. E., Koushiappas, S. M., Bullock, J. S., Kaplinghat, M., Simon, J. D., Geha, M., & Willman, B. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 709, arXiv:0709.1510
* Strong & Moskalenko (1998) Strong, A. W., & Moskalenko, I. V. 1998, ApJ, 509, 212
* Strong et al. (2004a) Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V., & Reimer, O. 2004, ApJ, 613, 962
* Strong et al. (2004b) Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V., Reimer, O., Digel, S., & Diehl, R. 2004, A&A, 422, L47
* Tasitsiomi & Olinto (2002) Tasitsiomi, A., & Olinto, A. V. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 083006
* Taylor & Silk (2003) Taylor, J. E., & Silk, J. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 505
* Ullio et al. (2002) Ullio, P., Bergström, L., Edsjö, J., & Lacey, C. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 123502
* Wechsler et al. (2002) Wechsler, R. H., Bullock, J. S., Primack, J. R., Kravtsov, A. V., & Dekel, A. 2002, ApJ, 568, 52
* Weinberg & Katz (2007) Weinberg, M. D., & Katz, N. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 460
* Zemp et al. (2007) Zemp, M., Stadel, J., Moore, B., & Carollo, C. M. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 273
* Zentner & Bullock (2003) Zentner, A. R., & Bullock, J. S. 2003, ApJ, 598, 49
## Appendix A Calculation of the diffuse flux from individually undetectable
subhalos
Figure 12.— Diagram of the relevant geometry for the calculation of
$\mathcal{F}_{\rm halo}$ (Eq. A8).
We follow the methodology presented in Pieri et al. (2008), and define the
diffuse flux from individually undetectable subhalos from a solid angle
$\Delta\Omega$ around the direction of observation $\psi$ by
$\mathcal{F}(\psi,\Delta\Omega)=\int_{\Delta\Omega}d\\!\cos\theta\;d\phi\int_{M}dM\int_{\rm
l.o.s.}d\lambda\;\lambda^{2}\;\int_{c}dc\;P(c;M,R)\;\mathcal{F}_{\rm
halo}(M,c,\lambda,\Delta\Omega)\;\frac{dn_{\rm sub}}{dM}(M,R),$ (A1)
where $\lambda$ is the distance along the line of sight and
$R(\psi,\lambda,\theta,\phi)$ is the Galacto-centric distance, given by
$R(\psi,\lambda,\theta,\phi)=\sqrt{\lambda^{2}+R_{\odot}^{2}-2\lambda
R_{\odot}(\cos\theta\cos\psi-\cos\phi\sin\theta\sin\psi)}.$ (A2)
The subhalo mass function and spatial distribtution is given by
$\frac{dn_{\rm sub}}{dM}(M,R)=AM^{-\alpha}\frac{1}{(1+R/r_{s}^{\rm
MW})^{2}}\,\rm M_{\odot}^{-1}\;{\rm kpc}^{-3},$ (A3)
and we have normalized it such that the total mass in subhalos with masses
between $m_{0}=10^{-5}M_{\rm halo}$ and $m_{1}=10^{-2}M_{\rm halo}$ is 10% of
$M_{\rm halo}$, i.e.
$\int_{m_{0}}^{m_{1}}dMM\int_{0}^{r_{\rm 200}}\\!\\!4\pi R^{2}\frac{dn_{\rm
sub}}{dM}(M,R)\;dR=0.1M_{\rm halo}.$ (A4)
Note that this anti-biased spatial distribution is motivated by numerical
simulations (Kuhlen et al., 2007; Madau et al., 2008) and differs from the
distribution chosen by Pieri et al. (2008), who employed an unbiased
distribution of the form
$\frac{dn_{\rm sub}}{dM}(M,R)=AM^{-2}\frac{\mathcal{H}(R-r_{\rm
min}(M))}{(R/r_{s}^{\rm MW})(1+R/r_{s}^{\rm MW})^{2}}\,\rm
M_{\odot}^{-1}\;{\rm kpc}^{-3},$ (A5)
where a Heaviside function $\mathcal{H}(R-r_{\rm min}(M))$ accounts for the
tidal destruction of subhalos below a radius $r_{\rm min}(M)$. The subhalo
concentration-mass relation $P(c;M,R)$ is based on the Bullock et al. (2001)
model ($F=0.01$ and $K=3.75$) to which we have added a radial dependence of
the form
$c_{0}^{\rm sub}(M,R)=c_{0}^{\rm B01}(M)\left(\frac{R}{r_{\rm
200}}\right)^{-0.286},$ (A6)
which we have determined directly from our numerical simulations (Diemand et
al., 2005b, 2008). With this scaling, subhalos at $R_{\odot}$ are three times
as concentrated as field halos. Note that we include a log-normal scatter of
width $\sigma_{\log_{10}c}=0.14$, such that
$P(c;M,R)=\frac{1}{c\ln{10}}\;\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_{\log_{10}c}}\;\exp{\left[-\frac{(\log_{10}c-\log_{10}c_{0}^{\rm
sub})^{2}}{2\;\sigma_{\log_{10}c}^{2}}\right]}.$ (A7)
The flux in a solid angle $\Delta\Omega$ around $\psi$ originating from a
subhalo of mass M at a position $(\lambda,\theta,\phi)$ is given by
$\mathcal{F}_{\rm
halo}(M,c,\lambda,\theta,\phi,\Delta\Omega)=\int_{\Delta\Omega}d\\!\cos\theta^{\prime}\;d\phi^{\prime}\int_{\rm
l.o.s.}\lambda^{\prime
2}\;\frac{\rho^{2}(M,c,r(\lambda,\theta,\phi,\lambda^{\prime},\theta^{\prime},\phi^{\prime}))}{4\pi\lambda^{\prime
2}}\;d\lambda^{\prime},$ (A8)
where the subhalo’s density profile is given by an NFW profile with a constant
core below $r_{c}=10^{-8}$ kpc:
$\rho(M,c,r)=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}\frac{\rho_{s}}{(r/r_{s})(1+r/r_{s})^{2}}&{\rm
for}\,r>r_{c}\\\ \frac{\rho_{s}}{(r_{c}/r_{s})(1+r_{c}/r_{s})^{2}}&{\rm
for}\,r\leq r_{c}.\end{array}\right.$ (A9)
The NFW scale density $\rho_{s}$ depends only on $c$, and the scale radius
$r_{s}$ on $M$ and $c$. We have checked that our results are not strongly
dependent on the value of $r_{c}$: $\mathcal{F}$ changes by less than 1% for
$r_{c}$ between $10^{-9}$ kpc and $10^{-7}$ kpc.
Fig.12 shows a diagram of the geometry relevant for the calculation of
$\mathcal{F}_{\rm halo}$. Without loss of generality we can choose a
coordinate system in which $\phi=0$ for the position $\vec{p}$ of a given
subhalo, and hence $\mathcal{F}_{\rm halo}$ is independent of $\phi$. The
distance $r$ from the center of the subhalo at $\vec{p}=(\lambda,\theta,0)$ to
the point $\vec{q}=(\lambda^{\prime},\theta^{\prime},\phi^{\prime})$ within
the cone of integration is
$r(\lambda,\theta,\lambda^{\prime},\theta^{\prime},\phi^{\prime})=\sqrt{\lambda^{2}+\lambda^{\prime
2}-2\lambda\lambda^{\prime}\left(\sin\theta\sin\theta^{\prime}\cos\phi^{\prime}+\cos\theta\cos\theta^{\prime}\right)}.$
(A10)
We are integrating over a very small opening angle $\Delta\Omega=4.36\times
10^{-6}$ sr, corresponding to $\theta_{\rm max}=1.2\times 10^{-3}$, and hence
we are justified in setting $\sin\theta=0$ and $\cos\theta=1$, i.e. placing
the subhalo on the line of sight given by $\psi$. In this case
$\mathcal{F}_{\rm halo}$ depends only on $M,c,\lambda,$ and $\Delta\Omega$,
and is given by
$\mathcal{F}_{\rm
halo}(M,c,\lambda,\Delta\Omega)=\frac{\rho_{s}^{2}r_{s}}{2}\int_{\cos\theta_{\rm
max}}^{1}d\\!\cos\theta^{\prime}\int_{0}^{\infty}\\!\\!\frac{1}{(\xi^{2}+\xi^{\prime
2}-2\xi\xi^{\prime}\cos\theta^{\prime})\left(1+\sqrt{\xi^{2}+\xi^{\prime
2}-2\xi\xi^{\prime}\cos\theta^{\prime}}\right)^{4}}\;d\xi^{\prime},$ (A11)
where $\xi=\lambda/r_{s}$ and $\xi^{\prime}=\lambda^{\prime}/r_{s}$.
## Appendix B Calculation of detectable and extended subhalo mass functions
The mass function of extended subhalos is given by
$\frac{dN_{\rm res}}{dM}=\int_{4\pi}\\!d\cos\theta\;d\phi\int
d\lambda\;\lambda^{2}\int dc\;P(c;M,R)\;\frac{dn_{\rm
sub}}{dM}(M,R)\;\mathcal{H}(D_{\rm max}(M,c)-\lambda),$ (B1)
where $\lambda$, $R$, $P(c;M,r)$, and $dn_{\rm sub}/dM$ are defined as in Eq.
A1 (with $\psi=0$), $\mathcal{H}$ is the Heaviside step function, and
$D_{\rm max}=r_{s}/9\;{\rm arcmin}=10\;{\rm
kpc}\frac{1}{c(M,R)}\left(\frac{M}{1\,\rm M_{\odot}}\right)^{1/3}$ (B2)
is the maximum distance out to which a subhalo of mass $M$ and concentration
$c(M,R)$ would appear extended. An additional constraint on the surface
brightness $\Phi$ can be incorporated by introducing a second Heaviside step
function, $\mathcal{H}(\Phi-\Phi_{0})$.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-29T18:19:04 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.009973 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Michael Kuhlen, J\\\"urg Diemand, Piero Madau",
"submitter": "Michael Kuhlen",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4416"
} |
0805.4464 | # Asymptotically flat charged rotating dilaton black holes in higher
dimensions
A. Sheykhi1,2111sheykhi@mail.uk.ac.ir, M. Allahverdizadeh1, Y.
Bahrampour3222bahram@mail.uk.ac.ir and M.
Rahnama1333Majid.Rahnama@mail.uk.ac.ir 1Department of Physics, Shahid Bahonar
University, P.O. Box 76175, Kerman, Iran
2Research Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha (RIAAM),
Maragha, Iran
3Department of Mathematics, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman, Iran
###### Abstract
We find a class of asymptotically flat slowly rotating charged black hole
solutions of Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory with arbitrary dilaton coupling
constant in higher dimensions. Our solution is the correct one generalizing
the four-dimensional case of Horne and Horowitz Hor1 . In the absence of a
dilaton field, our solution reduces to the higher dimensional slowly rotating
Kerr-Newman black hole solution. The angular momentum and the gyromagnetic
ratio of these rotating dilaton black holes are computed. It is shown that the
dilaton field modifies the gyromagnetic ratio of the black holes.
###### pacs:
04.70.Bw, 04.20.Ha, 04.50.+h
## I Introduction
General Relativity in higher dimensions has been the subject of increasing
attention in recent years. There are several motivations for studying higher
dimensional Einstein’s theory, and in particular its black hole solutions.
First of all, string theory contains gravity and requires more than four
dimensions. In fact, the first successful statistical counting of black hole
entropy in string theory was performed for a five-dimensional black hole Stro
. This example provides the best laboratory for the microscopic string theory
of black holes. Besides, the production of higher-dimensional black holes in
future colliders becomes a conceivable possibility in scenarios involving
large extra dimensions and TeV-scale gravity. Furthermore as mathematical
objects, black hole spacetimes are among the most important Lorentzian Ricci-
flat manifolds in any dimension. While the non-rotating black hole solution to
the higher-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell gravity was found several decades ago
Tan , the counterpart of the Kerr-Newman solution in higher dimensions, that
is the charged generalization of the Myers-Perry solution Myer in higher
dimensional Einstein-Maxwell theory, still remains to be found analytically.
Indeed, the case of charged rotating black holes in higher dimensions has been
discussed in the framework of supergravity theories and string theory Cvetic0
; Cvetic1 ; Cvetic2 . Recently, charged rotating black hole solutions in
higher dimensions with a single rotation parameter in the limit of slow
rotation has been constructed in Aliev2 (see also Aliev3 ; kunz1 ).
On the other hand, a scalar field called the dilaton appears in the low energy
limit of string theory. The presence of the dilaton field has important
consequences on the causal structure and the thermodynamic properties of black
holes. Thus much interest has been focused on the study of the dilaton black
holes in recent years. While exact static dilaton black hole solutions of
Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton (EMd) gravity have been constructed by many authors (
see e.g. CDB1 ; CDB2 ; Cai ; Sheykhi1 ), exact rotating dilaton black hole
solutions have been obtained only for some limited values of the dilaton
coupling constant kun ; kunz2 ; Bri . For general dilaton coupling constant,
the properties of charged rotating dilaton black holes only with
infinitesimally small charge Cas or small angular momentum in four Hor1 ; Shi
; Sheykhi2 and five dimensions have been investigated Sheykhi3 . Recently,
one of us has constructed a class of charged slowly rotating dilaton black
hole solutions in arbitrary dimensions Sheykhi4 . However, in contrast to the
four-dimensional Horne and Horowitz solution, these solutions (Sheykhi4 ) have
unusual asymptotics. They are neither asymptotically flat nor (A)dS. Besides,
they are ill-defined for the string case where $\alpha=1$. The purpose of the
present paper is to generalize the four dimensional Horne and Horowitz
solution with sensible asymptotics, to arbitrary dimensions. These
asymptotically flat solutions describe an electrically charged, slowly
rotating dilaton black hole with an arbitrary value of the dilaton coupling
constant in various dimensions. We also investigate the effects of the dilaton
field on the angular momentum and the gyromagnetic ratio of these rotating
dilaton black holes.
## II Field equations and solutions
We consider the $n$-dimensional $(n\geq 4)$ theory in which gravity is coupled
to dilaton and Maxwell field with an action
$\displaystyle S$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_{\mathcal{M}}d^{n}x\sqrt{-g}\left(R\text{
}-\frac{4}{n-2}\partial_{\mu}\Phi\partial^{\mu}\Phi-e^{-\frac{4\alpha\Phi}{n-2}}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}\right)$
(1)
$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\partial\mathcal{M}}d^{n-1}x\sqrt{-h}\Theta(h),$
where ${R}$ is the scalar curvature, $\Phi$ is the dilaton field,
$F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_{\mu}A_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}A_{\mu}$ is the
electromagnetic field tensor, and $A_{\mu}$ is the electromagnetic potential.
$\alpha$ is an arbitrary constant governing the strength of the coupling
between the dilaton and the Maxwell field. The last term in Eq. (1) is the
Gibbons-Hawking boundary term which is chosen such that the variational
principle is well-defined. The manifold $\mathcal{M}$ has metric $g_{\mu\nu}$
and covariant derivative $\nabla_{\mu}$. $\Theta$ is the trace of the
extrinsic curvature $\Theta^{ab}$ of any boundary $\partial\mathcal{M}$ of the
manifold $\mathcal{M}$, with induced metric $h_{ab}$. The equations of motion
can be obtained by varying the action (1) with respect to the gravitational
field $g_{\mu\nu}$, the dilaton field $\Phi$ and the gauge field $A_{\mu}$
which yields the following field equations
$R_{\mu\nu}=\frac{4}{n-2}\partial_{\mu}\Phi\partial_{\nu}\Phi+2e^{\frac{-4\alpha\Phi}{n-2}}\left(F_{\mu\eta}F_{\nu}^{\text{
}\eta}-\frac{1}{2(n-2)}g_{\mu\nu}F_{\lambda\eta}F^{\lambda\eta}\right),$ (2)
$\nabla^{2}\Phi=-\frac{\alpha}{2}e^{\frac{-4\alpha\Phi}{n-2}}F_{\lambda\eta}F^{\lambda\eta},$
(3)
$\partial_{\mu}{\left(\sqrt{-g}e^{\frac{-4\alpha\Phi}{n-2}}F^{\mu\nu}\right)}=0.$
(4)
We would like to find $n$-dimensional rotating solutions of the above field
equations. For small rotation, we can solve Eqs. (2)-(4) to first order in the
angular momentum parameter $a$. Inspection of the $n$-dimensional Kerr
solutions shows that the only term in the metric that changes to the first
order of the angular momentum parameter $a$ is $g_{t\phi}$. Similarly, the
dilaton field does not change to $O(a)$ and $A_{\phi}$ is the only component
of the vector potential that changes. Therefore, for infinitesimal angular
momentum we assume the metric being of the following form
$\displaystyle ds^{2}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-U(r)dt^{2}+{dr^{2}\over
W(r)}-2af(r)\sin^{2}{\theta}dtd{\phi}$ (5)
$\displaystyle+r^{2}R^{2}(r)\left(d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta
d\phi^{2}+\cos^{2}\theta d\Omega_{n-4}^{2}\right),$
where $d\Omega^{2}_{n-4}$ denotes the metric of an unit $(n-4)$\- sphere. The
functions $U(r)$, $W(r)$, $R(r)$ and $f(r)$ should be determined. In the
particular case $a=0$, this metric reduces to the static and spherically
symmetric cases. For small $a$, we can expect to have solutions with $U(r)$
and $W(r)$ still functions of $r$ alone. The $t$ component of the Maxwell
equations can be integrated immediately to give
$F_{tr}=\sqrt{\frac{U(r)}{W(r)}}\frac{Qe^{\frac{4\alpha\Phi}{n-2}}}{\left(rR\right)^{n-2}},$
(6)
where $Q$, an integration constant, is the electric charge of the black hole.
In general, in the presence of rotation, there is also a vector potential in
the form
$A_{\phi}=aQC(r)\sin^{2}\theta.$ (7)
Asymptotically flat static ($a=0$) black hole solutions of the above field
equations was found in Hor2 . Here we are looking for the asymptotically flat
solutions in the case $a\neq 0$. Our strategy for obtaining the solution is
the perturbative method suggested in Hor1 . Inserting the metric (5), the
Maxwell fields (6) and (7) into the field equations (2)-(4), one can show that
the static part of the metric leads to the following solutions Hor2
$\displaystyle U(r)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left[1-\left(\frac{r_{+}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\right]\left[1-\left(\frac{r_{-}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\right]^{1-\gamma\left(n-3\right)},$
(8) $\displaystyle W(r)$
$\displaystyle=\left[1-\left(\frac{r_{+}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\right]\left[1-\left(\frac{r_{-}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\right]^{1-\gamma},$
(9) $\displaystyle R(r)$
$\displaystyle=\left[1-\left(\frac{r_{-}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\right]^{\gamma/2}$ ,
(10)
$\displaystyle\Phi(r)=\frac{n-2}{4}\sqrt{\gamma(2+3\gamma-n\gamma)}\ln\left[1-\left(\frac{r_{-}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\right],$
(11)
while the rotating part of the metric admits a solution
$\displaystyle f(r)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(n-3\right)\left(\frac{r_{+}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\left[1-\left(\frac{r_{-}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\right]^{\frac{n-3-\alpha^{2}}{n-3+\alpha^{2}}}$
(12)
$\displaystyle+\frac{(\alpha^{2}-n+1)(n-3)^{2}}{\alpha^{2}+n-3}r_{-}^{n-3}r^{2}\left[1-\left(\frac{r_{-}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\right]^{\gamma}$
$\displaystyle\times\int\left[1-\left(\frac{r_{-}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\right]^{\gamma(2-n)}\frac{dr}{r^{n}},$
$\displaystyle C(r)=\frac{1}{r^{n-3}}.$ (13)
We can also perform the integration and express the solution in terms of
hypergeometric function
$\displaystyle f(r)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(n-3\right)\left(\frac{r_{+}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\left[1-\left(\frac{r_{-}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\right]^{\frac{n-3-\alpha^{2}}{n-3+\alpha^{2}}}$
(14)
$\displaystyle+\frac{(\alpha^{2}-n+1)(n-3)^{2}}{(1-n)(\alpha^{2}+n-3)}(\frac{r_{-}}{r})^{n-3}\left[1-\left(\frac{r_{-}}{r}\right)^{n-3}\right]^{\gamma}$
$\displaystyle\times_{2}F_{1}\left(\left[(n-2)\gamma,\frac{n-1}{n-3}\right],\left[\frac{2n-4}{n-3}\right],\left({\frac{b}{r}}\right)^{n-3}\right).$
Here $r_{+}$ and $r_{-}$ are the event horizon and Cauchy horizon of the black
hole, respectively. The constant $\gamma$ is
$\gamma=\frac{2\alpha^{2}}{(n-3)(n-3+\alpha^{2})}.$ (15)
The charge $Q$ is related to $r_{+}$ and $r_{-}$ by
$Q^{2}=\frac{(n-2)(n-3)^{2}}{2(n-3+\alpha^{2})}r_{+}^{n-3}r_{-}^{n-3},$ (16)
and the physical mass of the black hole is obtained as follows Fang
${M}=\frac{\Omega_{n-2}}{16\pi}\left[(n-2)r^{n-3}_{+}+\frac{n-2-p(n-4)}{p+1}r^{n-3}_{-}\right],$
(17)
where $\Omega_{n-2}$ denotes the area of the unit $(n-2)$-sphere and the
constant $p$ is
${p}=\frac{(2-n)\gamma}{(n-2)\gamma-2}.$ (18)
The metric corresponding to (8)-(14) is asymptotically flat. In the special
case $n=4$, the static part of our solution reduces to
$U(r)=W(r)=\left(1-{\frac{r_{+}}{r}}\right)\left(1-{\frac{r_{-}}{r}}\right)^{\,{\frac{{1-\alpha}^{2}}{1+{\alpha}^{2}}}},$
(19)
$R\left(r\right)=\left(1-{\frac{r_{-}}{r}}\right)^{{\frac{{\alpha}^{2}}{1+{\alpha}^{2}}}},$
(20)
$\Phi\left(r\right)=\frac{\alpha}{\left(1+{\alpha}^{2}\right)}\ln\left(1-{\frac{r_{-}}{r}}\right),$
(21)
while the rotating part reduces to
$f(r)=\frac{r^{2}(1+\alpha^{2})^{2}(1-\frac{r_{-}}{r})^{\frac{2\alpha^{2}}{1+\alpha^{2}}}}{(1-\alpha^{2})(1-3\alpha^{2})r^{2}_{-}}-\left(1-\frac{r_{-}}{r}\right)^{\frac{1-\alpha^{2}}{1+\alpha^{2}}}\left(1+\frac{(1+\alpha^{2})^{2}r^{2}}{(1-\alpha^{2})(1-3\alpha^{2})r^{2}_{-}}+\frac{(1+\alpha^{2})r}{(1-\alpha^{2})r_{-}}-\frac{r_{+}}{r}\right),$
(22)
which is the four-dimensional charged slowly rotating dilaton black hole
solution of Horne and Horowitz Hor1 . One may also note that in the absence of
a non-trivial dilaton ($\alpha=0=\gamma$), our solutions reduce to
$U\left(r\right)=W(r)=\left[1-\left({\frac{r_{+}}{r}}\right)^{n-3}\right]\left[1-\left({\frac{r_{-}}{r}}\right)^{n-3}\right],$
(23)
$f\left(r\right)=(n-3)\left[\frac{r^{n-3}_{-}+r^{n-3}_{+}}{r^{n-3}}-\left(\frac{r_{+}r_{-}}{r^{2}}\right)^{n-3}\right],$
(24)
which describe $n$-dimensional Kerr-Newman black hole in the limit of slow
rotation Aliev2 .
Next, we calculate the angular momentum and the gyromagnetic ratio of these
rotating dilaton black holes which appear in the limit of slow rotation
parameter. The angular momentum of the dilaton black hole can be calculated
through the use of the quasilocal formalism of the Brown and York BY .
According to the quasilocal formalism, the quantities can be constructed from
the information that exists on the boundary of a gravitating system alone.
Such quasilocal quantities will represent information about the spacetime
contained within the system boundary, just like the Gauss’s law. In our case
the finite stress-energy tensor can be written as
$T^{ab}=\frac{1}{8\pi}\left(\Theta^{ab}-\Theta h^{ab}\right),$ (25)
which is obtained by variation of the action (1) with respect to the boundary
metric $h_{ab}$. To compute the angular momentum of the spacetime, one should
choose a spacelike surface $\mathcal{B}$ in $\partial\mathcal{M}$ with metric
$\sigma_{ij}$, and write the boundary metric in ADM form
$\gamma_{ab}dx^{a}dx^{a}=-N^{2}dt^{2}+\sigma_{ij}\left(d\varphi^{i}+V^{i}dt\right)\left(d\varphi^{j}+V^{j}dt\right),$
where the coordinates $\varphi^{i}$ are the angular variables parameterizing
the hypersurface of constant $r$ around the origin, and $N$ and $V^{i}$ are
the lapse and shift functions respectively. When there is a Killing vector
field $\mathcal{\xi}$ on the boundary, then the quasilocal conserved
quantities associated with the stress tensors of Eq. (25) can be written as
$Q(\mathcal{\xi)}=\int_{\mathcal{B}}d^{n-2}\varphi\sqrt{\sigma}T_{ab}n^{a}\mathcal{\xi}^{b},$
(26)
where $\sigma$ is the determinant of the metric $\sigma_{ij}$, $\mathcal{\xi}$
and $n^{a}$ are, respectively, the Killing vector field and the unit normal
vector on the boundary $\mathcal{B}$. For boundaries with rotational
($\varsigma=\partial/\partial\varphi$) Killing vector field, we can write the
corresponding quasilocal angular momentum as follows
$\displaystyle J$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int_{\mathcal{B}}d^{n-2}\varphi\sqrt{\sigma}T_{ab}n^{a}\varsigma^{b},$
(27)
provided the surface $\mathcal{B}$ contains the orbits of $\varsigma$.
Finally, the angular momentum of the black holes can be calculated by using
Eq. (27). We find
${J}=\frac{a\Omega_{n-2}}{8\pi}\left(r^{n-3}_{+}+\frac{(n-3)(n-1-\alpha^{2})r^{n-3}_{-}}{(n-3+\alpha^{2})(n-1)}\right).$
(28)
For $a=0$, the angular momentum vanishes, and therefore $a$ is the rotational
parameter of the dilaton black hole. In the case $n=4$, the angular momentum
reduces to
${J}=\frac{a}{2}\left(r_{+}+\frac{3-\alpha^{2}}{3(1+\alpha^{2})}r_{-}\right),$
(29)
which restores the angular momentum of the four-dimensional Horne and Horowitz
solution Hor1 , while in the absence of dilaton field $(\alpha=0)$, the
angular momentum reduces to
${J}=\frac{a\Omega_{n-2}}{8\pi}\left(r^{n-3}_{+}+r^{n-3}\right),$ (30)
which is the angular momentum of the $n$-dimensional Kerr-Newman black hole.
Next, we calculate the gyromagnetic ratio of this rotating dilaton black
holes. The magnetic dipole moment for this asymptotically flat slowly rotating
dilaton black hole can be defined as
${\mu}=Qa.$ (31)
The gyromagnetic ratio is defined as a constant of proportionality in the
equation for the magnetic dipole moment
${\mu}=g\frac{QJ}{2M}.$ (32)
Substituting $M$ and $J$ from Eqs. (17) and (28), the gyromagnetic ratio $g$
can be obtained as
$g=\frac{(n-1)(n-2)[(n-3+\alpha^{2})r^{n-3}_{+}+(n-3-\alpha^{2})r^{n-3}_{-}]}{(n-1)(n-3+\alpha^{2})r^{n-3}_{+}+(n-3)(n-1-\alpha^{2})r^{n-3}_{-}}.$
(33)
Figure 1: The behaviour of the gyromagnetic ratio $g$ versus $\alpha$ in
various dimensions for $r_{-}=1$, $r_{+}=2$. $n=4$ (bold line), $n=5$
(continuous line), and $n=6$ (dashed line).
It was argued in Hor1 that the dilaton field modifies the gyromagnetic ratio
of the asymptotically flat four dimensional black holes. Our general result
here in $n$-dimensions confirms their arguments. We have shown the behaviour
of the gyromagnetic ratio $g$ of the dilatonic black holes versus $\alpha$ in
figure 1. From this figure we find out that the gyromagnetic ratio decreases
with increasing $\alpha$ in any dimension. In the absence of a non-trivial
dilaton $(\alpha=0=\gamma)$, the gyromagnetic ratio reduces to
${g}=n-2,$ (34)
which is the gyromagnetic ratio of the $n$-dimensional Kerr-Newman black hole
(see e.g.Aliev2 ). When $n=4$, Eq. (33) reduces to
${g}=2-\frac{4\alpha^{2}r_{-}}{(3-\alpha^{2})r_{-}+3(1+\alpha^{2})r_{+}},$
(35)
which is the gyromagnetic ratio of the four dimensional Horne and Horowitz
dilaton black hole.
## III Summary and Conclusion
To sum up, we found a class of asymptotically flat slowly rotating charged
dilaton black hole solutions in higher dimensions. Our strategy for obtaining
this solution was the pertarbative method suggested by Horne and Horowitz Hor1
and solving the equations of motion up to the linear order of the angular
momentum parameter. We stared from the asymptotically flat non-rotating
charged dilaton black hole solutions in $n$-dimensions Hor2 . Then, we
considered the effect of adding a small amount of rotation parameter $a$ to
the solution. We discarded any terms involving $a^{2}$ or higher powers in
$a$. Inspection of the Kerr-Newman solutions shows that the only term in the
metric which changes to $O(a)$ is $g_{t\phi}$. Similarly, the dilaton field
does not change to $O(a)$. The vector potential is chosen to have a non-radial
component $A_{\phi}=aQC(r)\sin^{2}{\theta}$ to represent the magnetic field
due to the rotation of the black hole. As expected, our solution $f(r)$
reduces to the Horne and Horowitz solution for $n=4$, while in the absence of
dilaton field $(\alpha=0=\gamma)$, it reduces to the $n$-dimensional Kerr-
Newman modification thereof for small rotation parameter Aliev2 . We
calculated the angular momentum $J$ and the gyromagnetic ratio $g$ which
appear up to the linear order of the angular momentum parameter $a$.
Interestingly enough, we found that the dilaton field modifies the value of
the gyromagnetic ratio $g$ through the coupling parameter $\alpha$ which
measures the strength of the dilaton-electromagnetic coupling. This is in
agrement with the arguments in Hor1 .
###### Acknowledgements.
This work has been supported financially by Research Institute for Astronomy
and Astrophysics of Maragha, Iran.
## References
* (1) J. H. Horne and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. D 46, 1340 (1992).
* (2) A. Strominger and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B 379, 99 (1996).
* (3) F. Tangherlini, Nuovo Cimento 27, 636 (1963).
* (4) R. C. Myers and M. J. Perry, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 172, 304 (1986).
* (5) M. Cvetic and D. Youm, Phys. Rev. D 54, 2612 (1996);
D. Youm, Phys. Rep. 316, 1 (1999).
* (6) M. Cvetic and D. Youm, Nucl. Phys. B 477, 449 (1996).
* (7) M. Cvetic and D. Youm, Nucl. Phys. B 476, 118 (1996);
Z. W. Chong, M. Cvetic, H. Lu, and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev. D 72, 041901 (2005).
* (8) A. N. Aliev, Phys. Rev. D 74, 024011 (2006).
* (9) A. N. Aliev, Phys. Rev. D 75, 084041 (2007);
A. N. Aliev, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21, 751 (2006);
A. N. Aliev, Class. Quant. Gravit. 24, 4669 (2007).
* (10) J. Kunz, F. Navarro-L rida, A. K. Petersen, Phys. Lett. B 614, 104 (2005);
H. C. Kim, R. G. Cai, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024045 (2008) .
* (11) G. W. Gibbons and K. Maeda, Nucl. Phys. B 298, 741 (1988);
T. Koikawa and M. Yoshimura, Phys. Lett. B 189, 29 (1987).
* (12) D. Garfinkle, G. T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3140 (1991);
R. Gregory and J. A. Harvey, ibid. 47, 2411 (1993).
* (13) R. G. Cai and Y. Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 54, 4891 (1996);
R. G. Cai, J. Y. Ji and K. S. Soh, ibid. 57, 6547 (1998);
R. G. Cai and Y. Z. Zhang, ibid. 64, 104015 (2001).
* (14) A. Sheykhi, Phys. Rev. D 76, 124025 (2007).
* (15) H. Kunduri and J. Lucietti, Phys. Lett. B 609, 143 (2005);
S. S. Yazadjiev Phys. Rev. D 72, 104014 (2005).
* (16) J. Kunz, D. Maison, F. N. Lerida and J. Viebahn, Phys. Lett. B 639 (2006) 95.
* (17) Y. Brihaye, E. Radu, C. Stelea, Class. Quant. Gravit. 24, 4839 (2007).
* (18) R. Casadio, B. Harms, Y. Leblanc and P. H. Cox, Phys. Rev. D 55, 814 (1997).
* (19) K. Shiraishi, Phys. Lett. A 166, 298 (1992).
* (20) A. Sheykhi and N. Riazi, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 45, (2006) 2453.
* (21) A. Sheykhi and N. Riazi, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, Vol. 22, No. 26, (2007) 4849\.
* (22) A. Sheykhi, Phys. Rev. D 77, 104022 (2008).
* (23) G. T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, Nucl. Phys. B 360 (1991) 197\.
* (24) H. Z. Fang, Nucl. Phys. B 767 (2007) 130.
* (25) J. Brown and J. York, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1407 (1993).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-29T03:26:09 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.018432 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "A. Sheykhi, M. Allahverdizadeh, Y. Bahrampour and M. Rahnama",
"submitter": "Ahmad Sheykhi",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4464"
} |
0805.4543 |
UDC 512
© 2003
T. R. Seifullin
Determination of the basis of the space of all root
functionals of a system of polynomial equations
and of the basis of its ideal by the operation of the extension
of bounded root functionals
(Presented by Corresponding Member of the NAS of Ukraine A. A. Letichevsky)
The notion of a root functional of a system of polynomials or an ideal of
polynomials is a generalization of the notion of a root, in particular, for a
multiple root. A basis of the space of all root functionals and a basis of the
ideal are found by using the operation of extension of bounded root
functionals when the number of equations is equal to the number of unknowns
and if it is known that the number of roots is finite. The asyptotic
complexity of these methods is $d^{O(n)}$ operations, where $n$ is the number
of equations and unknowns, $d$ is the maximal degree of polynomials.
Presence of roots at infinity leads to large degrees of polynomials in
Buchberger algorithm for construction of a Gröbner basis of the ideal of
polynomials [8]. Therefore the complexity of Buchberger algorithm such large,
in the case of the $0$-dimensional variety of roots it is equal to
$d^{O(n^{2})}$ for the number of operations [9], where $d$ is the maximal
degree of polynomials, $n$ is the number of variables. In the paper [10] it is
shown the exactness of this estimation. For a system of polynomial equations,
in which the number of polynomials is equal to the number of variables, the
application of extension operations to bounded root functionals [6], [7]
gradually cuts components of functionals, lying at infinity, not exiting over
the limits of degrees $\leq(d_{1}-1)+\ldots+(d_{n}-1)$, where
$d_{1},\ldots,d_{n}$ are degrees of polynomials. This allows, in the case, if
it is known, that the variety of roots is $0$-dimensional, to find a basis of
the space of all root functionals of the system of polynomials and a basis of
the ideal of polynomials in $O(D^{4})$ operations, where
$D=C^{n}_{d_{1}+\ldots+d_{n}}$. A similar complexity is had by the method,
based on the use of a multivariate resultant, that find all isolated roots of
polynomials in $d^{O(n)}$ operations, even in the case of the infinite number
of roots at affine domain and at infinity [11].
Let ${\bf R}$ a be commutative ring with unity $1$ and zero $0$.
Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ be variables, ${\bf R}[x]$ be a ring of
polynomials in variables $x$ with coefficients in ${\bf R}$.
In the paper we will use definition and assumption, given in [6,7].
Lemma 1. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{s}(x))$ be polynomials. There holds:
1) a functional $L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$ if and only if $\forall
i=1,s:L(x_{*})\cdot f_{i}(x)=0$;
2) a functional $L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq d}_{x}$ if and only if
$\forall i=1,s:L(x_{*})\cdot f_{i}(x)=0$ in ${\bf R}[x^{\leq d-\deg(f_{i})}]$.
Proof 1. $L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))_{x}$ if and only if $\forall
i=1,s:0=L(x_{*}).f_{i}(x)\cdot g^{i}(x)=$ $L(x_{*})\cdot f_{i}(x).g^{i}(x)$
for any $g^{i}(x)\in{\bf R}[x]$. $L(x_{*})\cdot f_{i}(x).g^{i}(x)=0$ for any
$g^{i}(x)\in{\bf R}[x]$ means that $L(x_{*})\cdot f_{i}(x)=0$.
Proof 2. $L(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq d}_{x}$ if and only if $\forall
i=1,s:0=L(x_{*}).f_{i}(x)\cdot g^{i}(x)=$ $L(x_{*})\cdot f_{i}(x).g^{i}(x)$
for any $g^{i}(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq d-\deg(f_{i})}]$. $L(x_{*})\cdot
f_{i}(x).g^{i}(x)=0$ for any $g^{i}(x)\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq d-\deg(f_{i})}]$
means that $L(x_{*})\cdot f_{i}(x)=0$ in ${\bf R}[x^{\leq d-\deg(f_{i})}]$.
Definition 1. Let ${\cal V}$ be a module over ${\bf R}$, denote by ${\cal
V}_{*}$ the set of all linear over ${\bf R}$ maps ${\cal V}\rightarrow{\bf
R}$. Let ${\cal U}$ be a submodule of the module ${\cal V}$ over ${\bf R}$,
denote by ${\cal U}^{\bot}$ the set of all $l\in{\cal V}_{*}$, annulling
${\cal U}$, i. e. such that $\forall F\in{\cal U}:l.F=0$.
Definition 2. Let ${\cal U},{\cal V},{\cal G}$ be sets, let $l:{\cal
V}\rightarrow{\cal G}$ be a map, let ${\cal U}\subseteq{\cal V}$. Denote by
$l|_{\cal U}$ the restriction of the map $l$ on the set ${\cal U}$, i. e. such
a map $l^{\prime}:{\cal U}\rightarrow{\cal G}$, that $\forall F\in{\cal
U}:l^{\prime}.F=l.F$.
Statement 1. Let ${\cal U}$ be a submodule of a module ${\cal V}$ over ${\bf
R}$, let ${\cal L}$ be a submodule of the module ${\cal V}_{*}$ over ${\bf
R}$. If $l_{1},l_{2}\in{\cal L}$, then $l_{1}=l_{2}$ in ${\cal U}$ if and only
if $l_{1}-l_{2}\in{\cal U}^{\bot}$, the last means that $l_{1}/{\cal
U}^{\bot}=l_{2}/{\cal U}^{\bot}$. Hence, there is an isomorphism ${\cal
L}|_{\cal U}\simeq{\cal L}/{\cal U}^{\bot}$ such that $l|_{\cal
U}\leftrightarrow l/{\cal U}^{\bot}$ for any $l\in{\cal L}$.
Theorem 1. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials,
${\delta}_{f}=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}(\deg(f_{i})-1)$.
1\. Let ${\delta},{\delta}^{\prime}\geq 0$. If $L(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}$, $L^{\prime}(x_{*})=L(x_{*})$ in
${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]$, then $L^{\prime}(x_{*})$
annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]$.
2\. Let $0\leq{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}\leq{\delta}_{1}$,
$0\leq{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}\leq{\delta}_{2}$,
$0\leq{\delta}\leq{\delta}_{1}+{\delta}_{2}+1$,
$0\leq{\delta}^{\prime}\leq{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}+1$. Let
$L_{1}(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{1}}_{x}$,
$L_{2}(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{2}}_{x}$, then
$L_{1}(x_{*})*L_{2}(x_{*})$ annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}$.
If $L^{\prime}_{1}(x_{*})=L_{1}(x_{*})$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}}]$,
$L^{\prime}_{2}(x_{*})=L_{2}(x_{*})$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}}]$, then
$L^{\prime}_{1}(x_{*})*L^{\prime}_{2}(x_{*})=L_{1}(x_{*})*L_{2}(x_{*})$ in
${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]$.
From above it follows that the extension map $*$ for functionals induces the
map
$\frac{((f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{1}}_{x})^{\bot}}{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}}]^{\bot}}\times\frac{((f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{2}}_{x})^{\bot}}{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}}]^{\bot}}\rightarrow\frac{((f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x})^{\bot}}{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]^{\bot}},$
or, in other words, induces the map
$((f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{1}}_{x})^{\bot}|_{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}}]}\times((f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{2}}_{x})^{\bot}|_{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}}]}\rightarrow((f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x})^{\bot}|_{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]}.$
Proof 1. Let $F(x)\in(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]$,
$L^{\prime}(x_{*}).F(x)=L(x_{*}).F(x)$, since $L^{\prime}(x_{*})=L(x_{*})$ in
${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]\ni F(x)$ ; and
$L(x_{*}).F(x)=0$, since $L(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}\ni F(x)$. Then, by the arbitrariness
of $F(x)\in(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]$, $L^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]$.
Proof 2. Since $L_{1}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{1}}_{x}$, $L_{2}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{2}}_{x}$, then by virtue of 2 of theorem 3
in [6] $L_{1}(x_{*})*L_{2}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{1}+{\delta}_{2}+1}_{x}\supseteq(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}$,
hence, annuls $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x}$.
Since $L_{1}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{1}}_{x}\supseteq(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}}_{x}$,
then annuls and $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}}_{x}$; since
$L_{2}(x_{*})$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}_{2}}_{x}\supseteq(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}}_{x}$,
then annuls and $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}}_{x}$. Then,
since $L^{\prime}_{1}(x_{*})=L_{1}(x_{*})$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}}]$ and
$L^{\prime}_{2}(x_{*})=L_{2}(x_{*})$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}}]$, by virtue of 3 of theorem 3
in [6] $L^{\prime}_{1}(x_{*})*L^{\prime}_{2}(x_{*})=$
$L_{1}(x_{*})*L_{2}(x_{*})$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}+1}]\supseteq{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]$, hence,
$L^{\prime}_{1}(x_{*})*L^{\prime}_{2}(x_{*})=L_{1}(x_{*})*L_{2}(x_{*})$ in
${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]$. Two last statements are
obtained by applying of statement 1.
Definition 3. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials, $d\geq 0$. Denote by ${\cal
P}^{\leq d}_{x}$ a linear over ${\bf R}$ map ${\bf R}[x]\rightarrow{\bf R}[x]$
such that ${\cal P}^{\leq d}_{x}.x^{\alpha}=x^{\alpha}$, if $|{\alpha}|\leq
d$, and ${\cal P}^{\leq d}_{x}.x^{\alpha}=0$, if $|{\alpha}|>d$.
Statement 2. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials, let $d\geq 0$.
If $L(x_{*})\in{\bf R}[x]_{*}$, then $L(x_{*})=L(x_{*}).{\cal P}^{\leq d}_{x}$
in ${\bf R}[x^{\leq d}]$ and $L(x_{*}).{\cal P}^{\leq d}_{x}=0$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{>d}]$.
If $l(x_{*})\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq d}]_{*}$, then the functional
$L(x_{*})=l(x_{*}).{\cal P}^{\leq d}_{x}\in{\bf R}[x]_{*}$ and is continuation
of $l(x_{*})$ on ${\bf R}[x]$, i. e. $l(x_{*})=L(x_{*})$ in ${\bf R}[x^{\leq
d}]$, moreover, $L(x_{*}).{\cal P}^{\leq d}_{x}=0$ in ${\bf R}[x^{>d}]$.
Proof. Let $|{\alpha}|\leq d$, then $L(x_{*}).{\cal P}^{\leq
d}_{x}.x^{\alpha}=L(x_{*}).x^{\alpha}$. Since the monoms $x^{\alpha}$, for
which $|{\alpha}|\leq d$, linearly over ${\bf R}$ generate ${\bf R}[x^{\leq
d}]$, then $L(x_{*})=L(x_{*}).{\cal P}^{\leq d}_{x}$ in ${\bf R}[x^{\leq d}]$.
Let $|{\alpha}|>d$, then $L(x_{*}).{\cal P}^{\leq d}_{x}.x^{\alpha}=0$. Since
the monoms $x^{\alpha}$, for which $|{\alpha}|>d$, linearly over ${\bf R}$
generate ${\bf R}[x^{>d}]$, then $L(x_{*}).{\cal P}^{\leq d}_{x}=0$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{>d}]$.
The second part of the statement proved exactly as the first.
Commentary to theorem 1. In 2 of theorem 1 computation of
$L^{\prime}_{1}(x_{*})*L^{\prime}_{2}(x_{*})$ on ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]$ use values of
$L^{\prime}_{1}(x_{*})$ outside ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}}]$ and values of
$L^{\prime}_{2}(x_{*})$ outside ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}}]$, therefore necessary to
determine values of $L^{\prime}_{1}(x_{*})$ outside ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}}]$ and values of
$L^{\prime}_{2}(x_{*})$ outside ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}}]$. With computational point of
view it is convenient to determine the action of $L^{\prime}_{1}(x_{*})$ in
${\bf R}[x^{>{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}}]$, and the action of
$L^{\prime}_{2}(x_{*})$ in ${\bf R}[x^{>{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}}]$
as zeroes. This holds in the case, if we set
$L^{\prime}_{1}(x_{*})=L_{1}(x_{*}).{\cal
P}^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{1}}_{x}$,
$L^{\prime}_{2}(x_{*})=L_{2}(x_{*}).{\cal
P}^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}_{2}}_{x}$. It is enough to compute
values of the functional $L^{\prime}_{1}(x_{*})*L^{\prime}_{2}(x_{*})$ only on
${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}^{\prime}}]$.
Definition 4. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $y\simeq x$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials. A functional $E(x_{*})$ we
call a unit root functional of polynomials $f(x)$, if it annuls $(f(x))_{x}$,
and $E(x_{*})*1=E(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|=1+f(x)\cdot g(x)$. A
functional $E^{\prime}(x_{*})$ we call a unit bounded root functional of
polynomials $f(x)$, if it annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$, where ${\varepsilon}\geq 0$,
and $E^{\prime}(x_{*})*1=E^{\prime}(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla
f(x,y)\right\|=1+f(x)\cdot g(x)$.
Theorem 2. Let ${\bf R}$ be a field. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ be
variables, let $f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials,
${\delta}_{f}=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}(\deg(f_{i})-1)$. Let ${\bf
R}[x]/(f(x))_{x}$ be a finite-dimensional space over ${\bf R}$, in this case
there exists a unit root functional $E(x_{*})$ of polynomials $f(x)$.
Let ${\varepsilon}\geq 0$, ${\cal A}(x_{*})$ be the set of all functionals
annulling $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$, ${\cal L}(x_{*})$ be
the set of all functionals annulling $(f(x))_{x}$, ${\cal U}(x)={\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$. Then:
1) ${\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$ with the extension operations for
functionals is an associative and commutative algebra over ${\bf R}$;
2) there exists $d$ such that ${\cal A}(x_{*})^{d}|_{{\cal U}(x)}={\cal
A}(x_{*})^{d+1}|_{{\cal U}(x)}$, and for any such $d$ there holds
${\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}={\cal A}(x_{*})^{d}|_{{\cal U}(x)}=({\cal
A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)})^{d}.$
Proof 1. By virtue of 2 of theorem 1 the extension operation for functionals
induces the map
$((f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x})^{\bot}|_{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]}\times((f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x})^{\bot}|_{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]}\rightarrow((f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x})^{\bot}|_{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]},$
since for ${\delta}_{1}={\varepsilon}$, ${\delta}_{2}={\varepsilon}$,
${\delta}={\varepsilon}$, ${\delta}^{\prime}_{1}={\varepsilon}$,
${\delta}^{\prime}_{2}={\varepsilon}$, ${\delta}^{\prime}={\varepsilon}$ there
holds the condition 2 of this theorem. Hence, ${\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)}=((f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x})^{\bot}|_{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]}$ is an algebra with the extension
operation for functionals.
If $L_{1}(x_{*}),L_{2}(x_{*})\in{\cal A}(x_{*})$, then they annul
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$. Then by virtue of theorem 1 in
[7] $L_{1}(x_{*})*L_{2}(x_{*})=L_{2}(x_{*})*L_{1}(x_{*})$ in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}+1}]\supseteq{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$, and so, and in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$. This implies the commutativity of
${\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$.
If $L_{1}(x_{*}),L_{2}(x_{*}),L_{3}(x_{*})\in{\cal A}(x_{*})$, then they annul
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$. Then by virtue of 1 of theorem
2 in [7]
$(L_{1}(x_{*})*L_{2}(x_{*}))*L_{3}(x_{*})=L_{1}(x_{*})*(L_{2}(x_{*})*L_{3}(x_{*}))$
in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}+{\varepsilon}+2}]\supseteq{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$, and so, and in ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$. This implies the associativity of
${\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$.
Proof 2. In papers [1,3,4,5] there is the theorem about existence of a unit
root functional of polynomials $f(x)$ in the case, when ${\bf
R}[x]/(f(x))_{x}$ be a finite-dimensional space over ${\bf R}$.
An functionals in ${\cal A}(x_{*})$ annul
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$, then by virtue of 2 of theorem
3 in [6] any functional $L^{\prime}(x_{*})\in{\cal A}(x_{*})^{p}$ annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+p\cdot{\varepsilon}+(p-1)}_{x}$, and so, annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+p\cdot{\varepsilon}+(p-1)}_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$. By the finite dimensionality of ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$ over ${\bf R}$, there exists such $p$,
that $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+p\cdot{\varepsilon}+(p-1)}_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]=(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$, denote by $d=p$. Hence, any
functional $L^{\prime}(x_{*})\in{\cal A}(x_{*})^{d}$ annuls
$(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$. Then by virtue of
4 of theorem 6 in [7] the functional $L(x_{*})=L^{\prime}(x_{*})*E(x_{*})$
annuls $(f(x))_{x}$ and $L(x_{*})=L^{\prime}(x_{*})$ in ${\cal U}(x)={\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}]$. Since $L^{\prime}(x_{*})$ is an
arbitrary element $\in{\cal A}(x_{*})^{d}$, and $L(x_{*})\in{\cal L}(x_{*})$,
then ${\cal A}(x_{*})^{d}|_{{\cal U}(x)}\subseteq{\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)}$.
Let $L(x_{*})$ is an arbitrary element $\in{\cal L}(x_{*})$, then $L(x_{*})$
annuls $(f(x))_{x}$. By virtue of 2 of theorem 6 in [7]
$L(x_{*})*E(x_{*})=L(x_{*})$. Since and $E(x_{*})\in{\cal L}(x_{*})$, then
${\cal L}(x_{*})*{\cal L}(x_{*})={\cal L}(x_{*})$, and so, ${\cal
L}(x_{*})^{d}={\cal L}(x_{*})$. There holds ${\cal L}(x_{*})\subseteq{\cal
A}(x_{*})$, since any functional, annulling $(f(x))_{x}$, annuls
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}}_{x}$. Hence, ${\cal L}(x_{*})={\cal
L}(x_{*})^{d}\subseteq{\cal A}(x_{*})^{d}$, and so, ${\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)}\subseteq{\cal A}(x_{*})^{d}|_{{\cal U}(x)}$.
From above it follows that ${\cal A}(x_{*})^{d}|_{{\cal U}(x)}={\cal
L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$.
Since by virtue of 1 of the theorem the extension map $*$ for functionals
induces the map ${\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}\times{\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)}$ $\rightarrow{\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$, then $({\cal
A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)})^{d}={\cal A}(x_{*})^{d}|_{{\cal U}(x)}$.
Algorithm. (Finding a basis of all root functionals and a basis of the ideal
of polynomials, and also the unit root functional.) Let ${\bf R}$ be a field,
let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$, $y\simeq x$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials. Let ${\bf R}[x]/(f(x))_{x}$
be a finite-dimensional space over ${\bf R}$. Denote by
${\delta}_{f}=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}(\deg(f_{i})-1)$, ${\cal
L}(x_{*})=((f(x))_{x})^{\bot}$, ${\cal U}(x)={\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$.
Here and below by space we shall mean a linear space over ${\bf R}$.
The algorithm finding a basis of the space ${\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)}=((f(x))_{x})^{\bot}|_{{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]}$ of restrictions
of all root functionals on ${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$ and a basis of the
space $(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$, and also the restriction
of the unit root functional on ${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$ consists of the
following steps:
1\. Construct by Gauss elimination method a basis of the space
$(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}_{x}$.
2\. From Gauss basis of the space $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}_{x}$ construct
Gauss basis of the space of functionals defined on ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$ and annulling $(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}_{x}$, this
space coincide with ${\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)}=((f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}_{x})^{\bot}|_{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]}$. Let obtained basis be
$L_{1}(x_{*}),\ldots,L_{d}(x_{*})$.
3\. Compute the restriction of operators
$\left[L_{1}(x_{*})\right],\ldots,\left[L_{d}(x_{*})\right]$ on ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$.
4\. Compute the restriction of functionals
$(L_{1}(x_{*}))^{d},\ldots,(L_{d}(x_{*}))^{d}$ on ${\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$ by
$\forall
p=1,d:\forall{\delta}=2,d:(L_{p}(x_{*}))^{\delta}=(L_{p}(x_{*}))^{{\delta}-1}.\left[L_{p}(x_{*})\right]\hbox{
in }{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}].$
5\. Compute the following generators:
$\\{(L_{p}(x_{*}))^{d}*L_{q}(x_{*})|p=1,d\ \&\ q=1,d\\}$
of the space ${\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}=({\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)})^{d+1}.$
6\. By Gauss elimination method construct a basis of the space ${\cal
L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$ from its system of generators.
7\. From Gauss basis of the space ${\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$ construct
Gauss basis of the space of polynomials $\in{\cal U}(x)={\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$ annulled by ${\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$. This
space of polynomials coincide with $(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$.
8\. Let $h_{1}(x),\ldots,h_{d\,^{\prime}}(x)$ be a basis of the space
$(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$, let
$l_{1}(x_{*}),\ldots,l_{d\,^{\prime\prime}}(x_{*})$ be a basis of the space
${\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$. From $\\{l_{p}(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla
f(x,y)\right\||p=1,d\,^{\prime\prime}\\}$ and
$\\{h_{q}(x)|q=1,d\,^{\prime}\\}$ by Gauss elimination method find the
decomposition
$\sum\limits^{d\,^{\prime\prime}}_{p=1}a_{p}\cdot(l_{p}(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla
f(x,y)\right\|)+\sum\limits^{d\,^{\prime}}_{q=1}b_{q}\cdot
h_{q}(x)=1,\hphantom{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc}$
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})=\sum\limits^{d\,^{\prime\prime}}_{p=1}a_{p}\cdot
l_{p}(x_{*})$ is the restriction of the unit root functional of polynomials
$f(x)$ on ${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$, since
$E^{\prime}(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|-1\in(f(x))_{x}$.
Proof of the algorithm.
5\. The dimension of the space ${\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$ is equal to
$d$. Therefore the chain
$({\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)})^{1}\supseteq\ldots\supseteq({\cal
A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)})^{\delta}\supseteq({\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)})^{{\delta}+1}\supseteq\ldots$
is stabilized for some ${\delta}\leq d+1$, i. e. $({\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)})^{{\delta}^{\prime}}=({\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)})^{{\delta}^{\prime}+1}$ for any ${\delta}^{\prime}\geq{\delta}$. Then
$({\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)})^{d+1}=({\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)})^{d+2}=\ldots=({\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)})^{d+{\delta}^{\prime}}=\ldots\ .$
Any element in $({\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)})^{d+1}=({\cal
A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)})^{d\cdot(d-1)+2}$ generated by elements of the form
$(L_{1}(x_{*}))^{{\alpha}_{1}}*\ldots*(L_{d}(x_{*}))^{{\alpha}_{d}}$, where
${\alpha}_{1}+\ldots+{\alpha}_{d}=d\cdot(d-1)+2$. Then there exists such $p$,
that ${\alpha}_{p}\geq d$, since otherwise $\forall p:{\alpha}_{p}\leq d-1$,
and, hence, $d\cdot(d-1)\geq{\alpha}_{1}+\ldots+{\alpha}_{d}=d\cdot(d-1)+2$,
that is impossible. In this case
$(L_{1}(x_{*}))^{{\alpha}_{1}}*\ldots*(L_{d}(x_{*}))^{{\alpha}_{d}}=(L_{p}(x_{*}))^{d}*\left((L_{p}(x_{*}))^{{\alpha}_{p}-d}*(\prod\limits_{q:\not=p}(L_{q}(x_{*}))^{{\alpha}_{q}})\right)=$
$\qquad=(L_{p}(x_{*}))^{d}*L(x_{*}).$
Here $L(x_{*})\in{\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$, since
$({\alpha}_{1}+\ldots+{\alpha}_{d})-d=d\cdot(d-1)+2-d=d\cdot(d-2)+2=(d-1)^{2}+1\geq
1$. Then $L(x_{*})$ is expressed via $L_{1}(x_{*}),\ldots,L_{d}(x_{*})$
linearly over ${\bf R}$. Hence, the space $({\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)})^{d+1}$ is generated by generators
$\\{(L_{p}(x_{*}))^{d}*L_{q}(x_{*})|p=1,d\ \&\ q=1,d\\}.$
That ${\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}=({\cal A}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)})^{d+1}$
is stated in 2 of theorem 2.
7\. Any functional in ${\cal L}^{\prime}(x_{*})={\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal
U}(x)}=((f(x))_{x})^{\bot}|_{{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]}$ annuls the space
${\cal M}(x)=(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]\subseteq{\cal U}(x)$,
hence, ${\cal L}^{\prime}(x_{*})\subseteq{\cal M}(x)^{\bot}$. Here we consider
the annulet of the space ${\cal M}(x)$ as a subspace of the space ${\cal
U}(x)$, and the annulet of the space ${\cal L}^{\prime}(x_{*})$ as a subspace
of the space ${\cal U}(x)_{*}$. Let a functional $l(x_{*})$, determined on
${\cal U}(x)={\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$, annuls ${\cal
M}(x)=(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$. By virtue of statement 2
functional $L^{\prime}(x_{*})=l(x_{*}).{\cal P}^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}_{x}$ is
determined on ${\bf R}[x]$, and $L^{\prime}(x_{*})|_{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]}=l(x_{*})$, hence, $L^{\prime}(x_{*})$ annuls ${\cal
M}(x)=(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$. Then by virtue of 4 of
theorem 6 in [7] there exists $L(x_{*})$, annulling $(f(x))_{x}$, such that
$L(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}=L(x_{*})|_{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]}=L^{\prime}(x_{*})|_{{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]}=l(x_{*})$. Since $L(x_{*})\in{\cal L}(x_{*})$, then
$l(x_{*})\in{\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}={\cal L}^{\prime}(x_{*})$. Hence,
${\cal M}(x)^{\bot}\subseteq{\cal L}^{\prime}(x_{*})$. Thus ${\cal
L}^{\prime}(x_{*})={\cal M}(x)^{\bot}$. Then by virtue of the finite
dimensionality of the space ${\cal U}(x)={\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$ there
holds ${\cal M}(x)={\cal L}^{\prime}(x_{*})^{\bot}$. Here we identify $({\cal
U}(x)_{*})_{*}$ with ${\cal U}(x)$.
Estimation of the complexity of the algorithm. Let $D$ be a dimension of the
space ${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$, then
$D=C^{n}_{{\delta}_{f}+n}=C^{n}_{d_{1}+\ldots+d_{n}}$, where
$d_{i}=\deg(f_{i})$. Let us estimate the complexity of steps of the algorithm.
1\. The number of polynomials in system of polynomials $\\{f_{i}(x)\cdot
x^{{\alpha}(i)}\in{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]|i=1,n\\}$ not exceed $n\cdot
D$. Construction of a basis from this system of polynomials by Gauss
elimination method requires $\leq(n\cdot D)\cdot O(D^{2})=n\cdot O(D^{3})$
operations.
2\. The step requires $\leq O(D^{2})$ operations.
3\. Computation of all minors of the matrix
$\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla f(x,y)\cr f(x)\end{matrix}\right\|$
of order $n$ without divisions requires $\leq({\delta}_{f}\cdot
n^{2}+n^{4})\cdot O(D^{3})$ operations. Within this it computing and
$\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|$. Computation of the operator
$\left[L_{p}(x_{*})\right]=L_{p}(y_{*}).\det\left\|\begin{matrix}\nabla
f(x,y)&\nabla_{x}(x,y)\cr f(x)&{\bf 1}_{x}(x)\end{matrix}\right\|$
on ${\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}]$ requires $\leq O(D^{3})$ operations.
Computation of such operators for all $p=1,d$ requires $\leq d\cdot
O(D^{3})\leq D\cdot O(D^{3})=O(D^{4})$ operations.
4\. Computation of
$(L_{p}(x_{*}))^{\delta}=(L_{p}(x_{*}))^{{\delta}-1}.\left[L_{p}(x_{*})\right]$
requires $\leq O(D^{2})$ operations, and for all ${\delta}=2,d$ and $p=1,d$
requires $\leq d^{2}\cdot O(D^{2})\leq D^{2}\cdot O(D^{2})=O(D^{4})$
operations.
5\. Computation of
$(L_{p}(x_{*}))^{d}*L_{q}(x_{*})=(L_{p}(x_{*}))^{d}.\left[L_{q}(x_{*})\right]$
requires $\leq O(D^{2})$ operations. Since this computation necessary to
perform for all $p=1,d$ and of all $q=1,d$, then in all performed $\leq
d^{2}\cdot O(D^{2})\leq D^{2}\cdot O(D^{2})=O(D^{4})$ operations.
6\. Computation of a basis of the space ${\cal L}(x_{*})|_{{\cal U}(x)}$ from
$d^{2}$ generators by Gauss elimination method requires $\leq d^{2}\cdot
O(D^{2})\leq D^{2}\cdot O(D^{2})=O(D^{4})$ operations.
7\. The step requires $\leq O(D^{2})$ operations.
8\. Computation of $l_{p}(y_{*}).\det\left\|\nabla f(x,y)\right\|$ for single
$p$ requires $\leq O(D^{2})$ operations, then computation for all
$p=1,d^{\prime\prime}$ requires $\leq d^{\prime\prime}\cdot O(D^{2})\leq
D\cdot O(D^{2})=O(D^{3})$ operations. Decomposition of $1$ by Gauss
elimination method requires $\leq O(D^{3})$ operations, and computation of
$E^{\prime}(x_{*})=\sum\limits^{d^{\prime\prime}}_{p=1}a_{p}\cdot
l_{p}(x_{*})$ requires $\leq d^{\prime\prime}\cdot O(D)\leq D\cdot O(D)\leq
O(D^{2})$ operations.
If to regard $n$ as constant, then the summarized number of operations
performed in the algorithm is $\leq O(D^{4})$.
Theorem 3. Let $x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})$ be variables,
$f(x)=(f_{1}(x),\ldots,f_{n}(x))$ be polynomials,
${\delta}_{f}=\sum\limits^{n}_{i=1}(\deg(f_{i})-1)$. Let ${\bf
R}[x]/(f(x))_{x}$ be a finite generated as module over ${\bf R}$, then
$(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}]=((f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}}])\cdot{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}}]+(f(x))^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}}_{x},$
$(f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\delta}+{\varepsilon}+1}]=((f(x))_{x}\cap{\bf
R}[x^{\leq{\delta}_{f}+{\varepsilon}+1}])\cdot{\bf R}[x^{\leq{\delta}}],$
where ${\delta}\geq 0$ and ${\varepsilon}\geq 0$.
Proof of theorem 3 will be given in the subsequent papers.
1. 1.
Seifullin, T. R. Root functionals and root polynomials of a system of
polynomials. (Russian) Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukraïni – 1995, – no. 5, 5–8.
2. 2.
Seifullin, T. R. Root functionals and root relations of a system of
polynomials. (Russian) Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukraïni – 1995, – no 6, 7–10.
3. 3.
Seifullin, T. R. Homology of the Koszul complex of a system of polynomial
equations. (Russian) Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukr. Mat. Prirodozn. Tekh. Nauki
1997, no. 9, 43–49.
4. 4.
Seifullin, T. R. Koszul complexes of systems of polynomials connected by
linear dependence. (Russian) Some problems in contemporary mathematics
(Russian), 326–349, Pr. Inst. Mat. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukr. Mat. Zastos., 25,
Natsional. Akad. Nauk Ukraïni, Inst. Mat., Kiev, 1998.
5. 5.
Seifullin, T. R. Koszul complexes of embedded systems of polynomials and
duality. (Russian) Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukr. Mat. Prirodozn. Tekh. Nauki
2000, no. 6, 26–34.
6. 6.
Seifullin, T. R. Extension of bounded root functionals of a system of
polynomial equations. Dopov. Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukr. Mat. Prirodozn. Tekh. Nauki
2002, no. 7, 35–42. arXiv:0804.2420.
7. 7.
Seifullin, T. R. Continuation of root functionals of a system of polynomial
equations and the reduction of polynomials modulo its ideal. (Russian) Dopov.
Nats. Akad. Nauk Ukr. Mat. Prirodozn. Tekh. Nauki 2003, no. 7, 19–27.
arXiv:0805.4027 (English).
8. 8.
Buchberger B. Gröbner: An algorithmic method in polynomial ideal theory
//Multidimensional Systems Theory. / Ed. N. K. Bose, – Dordrecht: D. Reidel,
1985. – Chapter 6.
9. 9.
Caniglia L., Galligo A., Heintz J. Some new effictivity bounds in
computational geometry // Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Appied Algebra and
Error–correcting codes. / LNCS 357, Springer–Verlag, Berlin. – 1989. – pp.
131–152.
10. 10.
Brownawell D. Bounds for the degrees in the Nullstellensatz // Ann. Math. 2nd
series. – 1987. – No 126. – pp. 577–591.
11. 11.
Canny J. Generalized characteristic polynomials //J. Symbolic Computation. –
1990. – No 9. – pp. 241–250.
V. M. Glushkov Institute of Cybernetics of the NAS of Ukraine, Kiev Received
26.06.2002
E-mail: timur_sf@mail.ru
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-29T18:15:22 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.023014 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Timur R. Seifullin",
"submitter": "Timur R. Seifullin",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4543"
} |
0805.4644 | # Direct photons $\sim$basis for characterizing heavy ion collisions$\sim$
Takao Sakaguchi Brookhaven National Laboratory, Physics Department, Upton, NY
11973, U.S.A. takao@bnl.gov
###### Abstract
After years of experimental and theoretical efforts, direct photons become a
strong and reliable tool to establish the basic characteristics of a hot and
dense matter produced in heavy ion collisions. The recent direct photon
measurements are reviewed and a future prospect is given.
## 1 Introduction
Direct photons are an excellent probe for extracting thermodynamical
information of a matter produced in nucleus-nucleus collisions, as they are
emitted from all the stages of collisions, and don’t interact strongly with
medium once produced. They are produced through a Compton scattering of quarks
and gluons ($qg\rightarrow q\gamma$) or an annihilation of quarks and anti-
quarks ($q\overline{q}\rightarrow g\gamma$) as leading order processes, and
the next leading order (NLO) process is dominated by bremsstrahlung (fragment)
($qg\rightarrow qg\gamma$) as depicted in Fig. 1(a). Theoretical studies show
that a part of fragment processes arises as leading order [1]. The source of
radiations are from various processes and manifest as a function of transverse
momentum ($p_{T}$) [2](Fig. 1(b)).
Figure 1: (a)Production processes of direct photons (left), and (b) their
manifestation as a function $p_{T}$ (right).
Photons with high $p_{T}$ are primarily produced in the initial hard
scattering, and often called as ”hard photons”. Under the formation of hot and
dense medium, in addition to the hard photons, a calculation predicts that the
photon contribution from a quark gluon plasma (QGP) state dominates lower
transverse momentum ($p_{T}$) region in heavy ion collisions (1$<p_{T}<$3
GeV/$c$ in Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV [3]). The signal from a
hadron rescattering process dominates even lower $p_{T}$. Compton scattering
of hard-scattered partons and partons in the medium (jet-photon conversion),
or bremsstrahlung of the hard scattered partons in the medium will also arise
[4]. Photons from the processes would become an another measure of the parton
density of the medium since they are produced through an interaction of hard-
scattered partons and the medium. All the contributions are overwhelmed by
huge photonic background from known hadron sources such as $\pi^{0}$’s or
$\eta$’s, except for high $p_{T}$.
## 2 High $p_{T}$ direct photons $\sim$how well are they calibrated?$\sim$
### 2.1 $p+p$ collisions: precision test
Hard direct photon production in p+p collisions is extensively studied both
experimentally and theoretically. Figure 2 shows the ratios of direct photon
cross-sections to NLO pQCD calculation measured by various experiments [5].
Figure 2: (a)Data over NLO pQCD from various experiments in p+p collisions,
and (b)fragment photons measured through $h-\gamma_{dir}$ $\Delta\phi$
correlation by PHENIX.
The data are explained by NLO pQCD calculations within $\sim$20 %.
As depicted in Fig. 1(a), photons are produced in the fragment process as
well. Several experiments have measured the prompt to all hard photons by
applying an isolation cut. The same cut is applied to a NLO pQCD calculation
to compare with the measurement. The PHENIX experiment at RHIC has used a
similar technique and confirmed that the calculation is consistent with the
result [6]. There is a new attempt of measuring fragment contribution more
directly. The PHENIX experiment has recently measured photons associated with
the same side of trigger high $p_{T}$ hadrons [7]. These photons are
considered to be from fragment processes. Fig. 2(b) shows the associated
photon yield $\Delta\phi$ distributions from the analysis. The ratio of near-
side-associated fragment to inclusive photons is also measured, and show a
consistency with the previous PHENIX measurement [6]. A detailed study of PID
efficiency important in the analysis because possible mis-identification of
photons/hadrons would produce a trigger bias.
### 2.2 Hard photons suppressed in Au+Au?
The yield of high $p_{T}$ direct photons are well-scaled by a nuclear overlap
function ($T_{AB}$) in heavy ion collisions. The first measurement of such
photons at RHIC confirmed that the high $p_{T}$ hadron suppression is a
consequence of an energy loss of hard-scattered partons in the hot and dense
medium. The latest high statistics data from PHENIX showed a trend of
decreasing at high $p_{T}$ ($p_{T}>$14 GeV/$c$) (Fig. 3(a)). The decrease of
the yield in Au+Au starts at $\sim$12 GeV/$c$ ($x_{T}$=0.12) and drops by
$\sim$30 % at 18 GeV/$c$ ($x_{T}$=0.18) [8]. Parton distribution functions
(PDFs) do not change by 30 % between the two $x_{T}$ regions [9].
Figure 3: (a) $R_{AA}$ for direct photons, $\pi^{0}$ and $\eta$ in Au+Au
collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200GeV (left), (b) expected $R_{AA}$ from NLO
pQCD calculation at 200 and 62 GeV (middle), and (c) $R_{AA}$ for direct
photons in Au+Au collisions at 62 GeV (right) by PHENIX.
Isospin effect has been proposed to explain the suppression [10]. The photon
production cross-section is proportional to $\alpha\alpha_{s}\Sigma
e_{q}^{2}$. Therefore, the yield of photons will be different between p+p, p+n
and n+n collisions. It results in the deviation of $R_{AA}$ from unity at high
$p_{T}$ in Au+Au collisions, where the contribution of valence quarks become
prominent. There is a $\sim$15 % drop at 18 GeV/$c$ at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV
expected from the effect (Fig. 3(b)). Combining PDF effect with the isospin
effect would explain the data. As shown in Fig. 3(b), the effect will manifest
in lower $p_{T}$ region at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=62.4 GeV because the effect scales
with $x_{T}$. The PHENIX experiment has measured photons in Au+Au collisions
at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=62.4 GeV [11] and divided them by NLO pQCD instead of p+p
yield (Fig. 3(c)), since there is no p+p data from the experiment. The
difference between p+p yield and NLO pQCD calculation measured at 200 GeV is
scaled to 62.4 GeV and shown as a dot-dashed line in 62.4 GeV. Assuming this
is the baseline, we may have confirmed the isospin effect (i.e., suppressed at
$p_{T}>$5 GeV/$c$, corresponding to 16 GeV/$c$ at 200 GeV), also at 62.4 GeV.
Combining the Au+Au data with the ones from future high statistics d+Au data
would disentangle the PDF and isospin effect.
## 3 Application of well-calibrated probe $\sim$$\gamma$-jet analysis$\sim$
Well calibrated high $p_{T}$ photons are ideal as measure of the initial
momenta of back-scattered partons. The idea was first proposed a decade ago
[12], but the measurement has not become realized until recent. The PHENIX has
measured an associated away-side hadron yield when triggered by a hard photon,
both p+p and Au+Au collisions at $\sqrt{s_{NN}}$=200 GeV as shown in Fig.
4(a).
Figure 4: Away-side associated hadron yield measured in $\gamma_{dir}-h$
correlation in p+p and Au+Au collisions at (a) PHENIX (left) and (b) STAR
(right).
The result shows that the away-side per-trigger hadron yield is reduced in
Au+Au collisions compared to that expected from p+p collisions [7]. This is
qualitatively consistent with single particle measurement [8]. In this
analysis, all the hadron contribution associated with photons from hadron
decay are subtracted on statistical basis to obtain $\gamma_{dir}-h$
correlation as:
$(\gamma_{dir}-h)=(\gamma_{incl.}-h)-(\gamma_{dec}-h)$
There is a new result from the STAR experiment showing $I_{AA}$ in
$\gamma_{dir}-h$ correlation [13]. In this analysis, the correlation is
obtained by:
$(\gamma_{dir}-h)=(Clus_{\gamma-en}-h)-\alpha\times(\pi^{0}-h)$
where $Clus_{\gamma-en}$ stands for $\gamma$-enriched clusters by a shower
shape cut. $\alpha$ is determined such that the near side associated hadron
yield be zero. This procedure will be justified under the assumption that the
$\eta$-triggered hadron yield and fragment-photon-triggered hadron yield are
as same as the $\pi^{0}$-triggered hadron yield. The cross-section measurement
of direct photons would help justifying the procedure.
## 4 Thermal photons from CERN to RHIC
The measurement of thermal photons delivers the temperature of the system.
Combining the temperature with an entropy derived from a particle multiplicity
measurement will deduce the degree of the freedom of the system [14, 15].
There is a direct photon measurement in thermal region in Pb+Pb collisions,
made by WA98 experiments at CERN [16]. However, the lack of p+p measurement at
the same energy made it difficult to understand whether or not there is a
thermal emission [3]. WA98 has recently analyzed p+Pb and p+C collision data
to measure hard photons with a nuclear effect ($k_{T}$ smearing). Taking the
ratio of the yield in Pb+Pb to p+Pb should be able to quantify the pure non-
hard photon component. However, the error is too large to make a conclusion.
The experiment is now making an effort to minimize the systematic errors [17].
Figure 5: (a) Direct photon measurement in thermal region by WA98 at CERN and
theoretical interpretation (left), and (b) comparison of direct photon yield
in p+Pb and Pb+Pb (right).
The thermal photon contribution is believed to be $\sim$10 % at RHIC energy,
and might need a measurement with an error of $<$5 %. Measurement of the
internal conversion of direct photons ($\gamma\rightarrow\gamma^{*}\rightarrow
e^{+}e^{-}$) opened up a possibility to significantly reduce the systematic
errors. The PHENIX experiment has applied the technique of measuring low
$p_{T}$ and low mass di-electrons to high $p_{T}$ and low mass di-electrons.
The measured yield is converted into a direct photon yield using Kroll-Wada
formula [18, 19]. If $M_{ee}\ll p_{T}$, and $M_{ee}<2M_{\pi}$, there is little
contribution from $q\overline{q}\rightarrow\gamma^{*}$, and thus the
conversion is straightforward. The yield of direct photons are found to be
higher than the ones expected from p+p collisions scaled by the number of
binary collisions, suggesting there are additional sources of photons in Au+Au
system (Fig. 6(a)).
Figure 6: (a) Low $p_{T}$ direct photon spectra (left) and (b) direct photon
elliptic flow (right) in Au+Au collisions measured by the PHENIX experiment at
RHIC
The average of simple exponential fits to the low $p_{T}$ regions gives a
temperature of 220$\pm$23$\pm$8 MeV. However, the possible contribution from a
nuclear effect ($k_{T}$ smearing) to the $p_{T}$ region still remains [20].
The internal conversion technique would help precisely determining the
contributions in d+Au collisions. It should be noted that there are a number
of theoretical analyses for extracting thermodynamical quantities [15, 21].
## 5 Decomposition of photon sources –photon elliptic flow–
It is predicted that the elliptic flow ($v_{2}$) of photons show the different
sign and/or magnitude, depending on the production processes of photons [22].
The observable is powerful to disentangle the contributions from various
photon sources in the $p_{T}$ region where they intermixes. The photons from
hadron-gas interaction and thermal radiation follow the collective expansion
of a system, and would give a positive $v_{2}$. The amount of photons produced
by jet-photon conversion or in-medium bremsstrahlung increases as the medium
to traverse increases. Therefore these photons show a negative $v_{2}$. The
intrinsic fragment or bremsstrahlung photons will give positive $v_{2}$ since
larger energy loss of jets is expected in out-plane.
PHENIX has measured the $v_{2}$ of direct photons by subtracting the $v_{2}$
of hadron decay photons off from that of the inclusive photons, following the
formula below:
${v_{2}}^{dir.}=(R\times{v_{2}}^{incl.}-{v_{2}}^{bkgd.})/(R-1),\ \ \
R=(\gamma/\pi^{0})_{meas}/(\gamma/\pi^{0})_{bkgd}$
The result is shown in Fig. 6(b). Although the systematic error is very large,
the $v_{2}$ of direct photons tends to be positive in 3-6 GeV/$c$ independent
of centrality [23]. It naively implies that the contribution from intrinsic
fragment or bremsstrahlung photons are dominant over that from jet-photon
conversion process. It could happen if the energy loss is very large and most
of the hadrons observed are produced near surface of the system; hard
scattered partons are absorbed before making enough Compton scattering to
produce additional photons. In any case, minimizing the systematic error is
desired before making a conclusion.
## 6 What would be the next measurement?
### 6.1 LHC
At LHC energies, the cross-section of hard photons increases drastically, and
therefore the primary target will be to measure the energy loss of hard
scattered partons with a trigger of prompt photons; the measurement of
$\gamma$-jet correlation [24].
Figure 7: (a) ALICE simulation of tagging efficiency of an optimized cut for
photons (triangle), and rejection power to hadrons (circle) (left), (b) CMS
simulation of fragmentation function reconstruction (middle), and (c) possible
scenario of photon contributions at low to mid $p_{T}$ region at LHC (right).
The experiments planning the measurement at LHC have already started
feasibility studies on the measurement using realistic simulations. Figure
7(a) shows the tagging efficiency of prompt photons and rejection power to
hadrons with an optimized cut in the ALICE detector [25]. At high $p_{T}$, the
tagged samples are shown to be mostly photons. Figure 7(b) shows the
reconstructed fragmentation function in CMS detector [26]. The function is in
good agreement with the input fragmentation function within systematic errors
in hand. These studies show that measurement of energy loss of partons in the
medium is promising at LHC.
Turing eyes into the low to mid $p_{T}$ region, thermal photon emission would
be of great interest as are at CERN and RHIC. Here, we can estimate how well
such photons are resolved. The temperature and the degree of freedom can be
associated with energy density. Using the fact and following the idea
presented in [3], the yield of thermal photons can simply be written as:
$\sigma\sim N_{part}\times(\tau_{freeze}-\tau_{0})\times(s^{1/2})^{1/4\times
2}$
At LHC, the c.m.s. energy will increase by a factor of 70 and the $N_{part}$
by a little, therefore the yield may increase by a factor of $\sim$9\. On the
other hand, photons related to hard-scattered partons would increase
drastically in LHC, because the jet cross-section becomes exponentially larger
as a function of c.m.s. energy. The jet-photon conversion yield would be
proportional to the multiple of jet cross-section and QGP volume, resulting
in:
$\sigma\sim N_{part}\times N_{coll}\times(s^{1/2})^{n}\times g(x_{T})$
where the last term represents hard-scattering cross-section, $n$ is the
$x_{T}$-scaling power, and $\sim 5-8$. Therefore, the jet-photon conversion
would overwhelm thermal photon production. A rough schematics is shown in Fig.
7(c). From these consideration, it would be hard to observe thermal photons,
instead, the medium can be investigated by observing photons from the jet-
photon conversion process, together with $v_{2}$ measurement.
### 6.2 Forward measurement
Comparison of the hadron production at mid and forward rapidities has deduced
particle production mechanisms, such as CGC. There is an interesting
prediction on photon production at mid and forward rapidity, which can
discriminate system expansion scenarios as shown in Fig. 8 [27].
Figure 8: Direct photon cross-section at (a)y=0 (left) and (b)y=2 (right),
under different system expansion scenario.
Landau and Björken expansion of the system would differ the ratio of the yield
in mid and forward rapidity. At RHIC, STAR has photon detector [28] and has
already measured photons at a forward rapidity. PHENIX also has a photon
detector at the rapidity [29]. The detectors would provide interesting results
on the system expansion.
## 7 Summary
The recent direct photon measurements were reviewed and a future prospect was
given. Direct photons would establish a status as one of the most fundamental
measurement in heavy ion collisions in the future.
## References
## References
* [1] P. Arnold, G. D. Moore and L. G. Yaffe, JHEP 0111, 057 (2001).
* [2] G. David, Nucl. Phys. A783 (2007) 359.
* [3] S. Turbide, R. Rapp and C. Gale, Phys. Rev. C69, 140903 (2004).
* [4] R. Fries et al., Phys. Rev. C72, 041902 (2005).
* [5] P. Aurenche, et al., Phys. Rev. D73, 094007 (2006).
* [6] S. S. Adler et al. (PHENIX Coll.), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 012002 (2007).
* [7] M. Nguyen (PHENIX Coll.), these proceedings.
* [8] T. Isobe (PHENIX Coll.), J. Phys. G 34 (2007) S1015.
* [9] K.J. Eskola, V.J. Kolhinen and C.A. Salgado, Eur. Phys. J. C9, 61 (1999).
* [10] F. Arleo, JHEP 0609(2006)015.
* [11] T. Sakaguchi (PHENIX Coll.), Nucl. Phys. A805 (2008) 355c.
* [12] X. N. Wang and Z. Huang, Phys. Rev. C55, 3047 (1997).
* [13] A. Hamed et al. (STAR Coll.), these proceedings.
* [14] B. Muller and K. Rajagopal, Eur. Phys. J. C43, 15 (2005).
* [15] D. d’Enterria and D. Peressounko,Eur. Phys. J. C46, 451 (2006).
* [16] M. M. Aggarwal et al. (WA98 Coll.), Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 3595.
* [17] C. Baumann (WA98 Coll.), these proceedings.
* [18] T. Dahms (PHENIX Coll.), these proceedings; A. Adare et al., arXiv:0804.4168 [nucl-ex].
* [19] N. M. Kroll and W. Wada, Phys. Rev. 98, 1355 (1955).
* [20] M. J. Russcher (STAR Coll.), J. Phys. G 34, S1033 (2007); D. Peressounko (PHENIX Coll.), J. Phys. G 34, S869 (2007).
* [21] J. e. Alam, et al., J. Phys. G 34, 871 (2007).
* [22] S. Turbide, C, Gale and R.J. Fries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 032303 (2006); R. Chatterjee et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 202302 (2006); S. Turbide et al., arXiv:0712.0732
* [23] K. Miki (PHENIX Coll.), these proceedings.
* [24] S. Abreu et al., J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35 (2008) 054001.
* [25] A. Morsch (ALICE Coll.), these proceedings.
* [26] C. Loizides (CMS Coll.), these proceedings; arXiv:0804.3679[nucl-ex].
* [27] T. Renk, Phys. Rev. C71, 064905 (2005).
* [28] R. Raniwara (STAR Coll.), these proceedings.
* [29] E. Kistenev (PHENIX Coll.), these proceedings.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-30T05:22:27 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.028417 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Takao Sakaguchi",
"submitter": "Takao Sakaguchi",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4644"
} |
0805.4661 | # Topological aspect of disclinations in two-dimensional melting
Wei-Kai Qi Institute of Theoretical Physics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou
$730000$, China Tao Zhu Institute of Theoretical Physics, Lanzhou
University, Lanzhou $730000$, China Yong Chen Author to whom correspondence
should be addressed. Email: ychen@lzu.edu.cn Institute of Theoretical
Physics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou $730000$, China Key Laboratory for
Magnetism and Magnetic materials of the Ministry of Education, Lanzhou
University, Lanzhou $730000$, China Ji-rong Ren Institute of Theoretical
Physics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou $730000$, China
###### Abstract
By using topological current theory, we study the inner topological structure
of disclinations during the melting of two-dimensional systems. From two-
dimensional elasticity theory, it is found topological currents for
topological defects in homogeneous equation. The evolution of disclinations is
studied, and the branch conditions for generating, annihilating, crossing,
splitting and merging of disclinations are given.
###### pacs:
64.70.D-, 82.70.Dd, 61.72.Lk
††preprint: Chinese Phys. B 18, 1674 (2009).
Topological defects, which are a necessary consequence of broken continuous
symmetry, play an important role in two-dimensional phase transition. In
1970’s, Kosterlitz and Thouless construct a detailed and complete theory of
superfluidity on two-dimensions kt . They indicate vortices pair unbinding
will lead to a second-order transition in superfluid films. Later, a
microscopic scenario of 2D melting has been posited in the form of the
Kosterlitz-Thouless-Halperin-Nelson-Young (KTHNY) theory two ; nh ; Yp . The
KTHNY theory predicts a new phase, the so-called hexatic phase, that exists
between the solid and liquid phases in 2D melting Dn .
In two-dimensional colloid systems, topological defects have been studied in
experiments and computer simulations. A serial experiments were performed to
calculate dislocations and disclinations dynamic of two-dimensional colloidal
systems, and dissociation of dislocations and disclinations were observed My ;
Ta ; Mar ; soft . During the years, a large number of computer simulations
indicated that exist a two-stage melting as prescribed by KTHNY theory,
however, results are still controversial ja ; bo ; Kn ; Ns . Although the
KTHNY theory is currently preferred, a different theoretical approach, evoking
grain-boundary-induced melting, was a first-order transition suggested by Chui
chui . One may note that the condensation of geometrical defects is also a
first-order transition Gd1 ; Gd2 . Our previous work found that exist a
hexatic-isotropic liquid phase coexistence during the melting of soft Yukawa
systems Qi ; XQ . By Voronoi polygons analysis, the behavior of piont defects
in the coexistence is very complicated. The evolution of topological defects
during the melting of two-dimensional system still a open question.
Recently, a topological field theory for topological defects developed by Duan
et alDuan01 . By using Duan’s topological current theory, the inner
topological structure and bifurcation of topological defects, such as
disclination and dislocation in liquid crystal and soild, were studied. In KT
phase transition, there also exists an elementary vortex topological current
constructed by the superfluid order parameterDuan02 . By using the topological
current theory, we can give the the branch conditions for generating,
annihilating, crossing, splitting and merging of topological defects.
In this paper, we will discuss the topological quantization and bifurcation of
topological defects in two-dimensional crystals. This work is based on the so-
called Duan’s topological current theory. The organization of this paper is as
follows. We describe the elasticity theory. Using Duan’s topological current
theory, we discussed the topological structure of disclination in two-
dimensional crystals. In the last section, we summarize our results.
In continuum elasticity theory, the elastic Hamiltonian in two-dimensional
triangular solid is given by Landau
$F=\frac{1}{2}\int d^{2}r(2\mu u_{ij}^{2}+\lambda u_{kk}^{2}),$ (1)
where $\lambda$ and $\mu$ are the two-dimensional Lamé coefficients. The
strain tensor is
$u_{ij}(r)=\frac{1}{2}\bigg{[}\frac{\partial u_{i}(r)}{\partial
r_{j}}+\frac{\partial u_{j}(r)}{\partial r_{i}}\bigg{]}$ (2)
A deformation is represented by a displacement vector field
$\textbf{u}(r)=(u_{1},u_{2})$, which maps the point $\textbf{r}=(x,y)$ to
$\textbf{r}+\textbf{u}$. If there are no defects, the deformation is a single-
valued mapping of the plane onto itself. But u becomes a multi-valued function
when there is a dislocation. A single dislocation corresponds to an extra half
lattice plane, which characterized by a Burger’s vector b. Another type of
defect in two-dimension crystal is disclination, which is defined in terms of
the bond angle field $\theta$. $\theta(x)$ is the angle between local lattice
bonds and a reference axis.
If we minimize $F_{s}$ with respect to variations in u, we obtain the equation
$\partial_{i}\sigma_{ij}=0,$ (3)
Where the stress tensor $\sigma_{ij}$ is defined by
$\sigma_{ij}=2\mu u_{ij}+\lambda u_{kk}\delta_{ij},$ (4)
Because $\sigma_{ij}$ is symmetric, it can be written as
$\sigma_{ij}=\epsilon_{ik}\epsilon_{jl}\nabla_{k}\nabla_{l}\chi,$ (5)
The function $\chi$ is called the Airy stress function. Although any choice
for $\chi$ yields a stress tensor that satisfies Eq.(3), the choice cannot be
arbitrary. The strain $u_{ij}$ is related to the stress is
$\displaystyle u_{ij}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\mu}\sigma_{ij}-\frac{\lambda}{4(\lambda+\mu)}\delta_{ij}\sigma_{kk}$
(6)
$\displaystyle=\frac{1+\sigma_{0}}{Y}\epsilon_{ik}\epsilon_{kl}\nabla_{k}\nabla_{l}\chi-\frac{\sigma_{0}}{Y}\nabla^{2}\chi\delta_{ij}$
where $Y=4\mu(\mu+\lambda)/(2\mu+\lambda)$ is the two-dimensional Young’s
modulus and $\sigma_{0}=\lambda/(2\mu+\lambda)$ the two-dimensional Poisson
ratio. Applying $\epsilon_{ik}\epsilon_{jl}\nabla_{k}\nabla_{l}$ to both of
this equation, we find
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{Y}\nabla^{4}\chi$
$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ik}\epsilon_{jl}\nabla_{k}\nabla_{l}(\partial_{i}u_{j}+\partial_{j}u_{i})$
(7)
$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ik}\epsilon_{jl}\nabla_{k}\nabla_{l}(\partial_{i}u_{j}-\partial_{j}u_{i})+\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{ik}\epsilon_{jl}\nabla_{k}\nabla_{l}\partial_{j}u_{i}$
$\displaystyle=\epsilon_{kl}\partial_{k}\partial_{l}\theta+\epsilon_{ik}\partial_{k}(\epsilon_{jl}\partial_{l}\partial_{j}u_{i})$
The defects associated with the continuum elastic theory of a solid are
dislocations and disclinations. Dislocations and disclinations can be
introduced into the theory in a way similar to the discussion of superfluid
vorticesDuan04. In the following we consider only the triangular lattice since
it is the most densely packed one in two-dimensional and favored by Nature.
Disclinations, which are characterized by a topological charge, have a much
higher energy than dislocations. They are defined in terms of the bond angle
field $\theta(r)$, which measures the bonds orientation. It is convenient to
define an order parameter for bond orientations, which for the triangular
lattices is $\psi(r)=\psi_{0}e^{i6\theta(r)}$. However, the bond angle field
is undefined at the disclination cores, i.e., the zero points of the order
parameter. We rewrite the orientation order parameter
$\psi(r)=\phi_{6}^{1}+i\phi_{6}^{2}$ instead of
$\psi(r)=\psi_{0}e^{i6\theta(r)}$. Let us define the unit vector field
$\vec{n}$ as
$n^{a}=\frac{\phi_{6}^{a}}{||\phi_{6}||},~{}||\phi_{6}||=\sqrt{\phi_{6}^{a}\phi_{6}^{a}},~{}a=1,2.$
(8)
Obviously, $n^{a}n^{a}=1$. The topological defect is related to the zero
points of the two-component vector parameter $\Psi$, i.e.,
$\displaystyle\phi_{6}^{1}(x,y)=0,~{}\phi_{6}^{2}(x,y)=0.$ (9)
Suppose there is a defect located at $z_{i}$, the topological charge of the
defect is defined by the Gauss map n: $\partial\sum_{i}\rightarrow S^{1}$,
$W(\phi_{6},z_{i})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\oint_{\partial\sum_{i}}\epsilon_{ab}n^{a}dn^{b}$
(10)
Using the stokes’ theorem in the exterior differential form, one can deduce
that
$W(\phi_{6},z_{i})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\oint_{\sum_{i}}\epsilon_{ab}\epsilon^{ij}\partial_{i}n^{a}\partial_{j}n^{b}d^{2}x$
(11)
We can deduce a topological current of disclinations in two-dimensional
crystal,
$j_{disc}^{k}=\frac{1}{6}\epsilon^{ijk}\epsilon_{ab}\partial_{i}n_{6}^{a}\partial_{j}n_{6}^{b}=\delta^{2}(\vec{\phi_{6}})J^{k}\big{(}\frac{\phi_{6}}{x}\big{)}$
(12)
It is the $\phi$-mapping current for disclination. where $J^{k}(\phi_{6}/x$)
is the vector Jacobians of $\vec{\phi_{6}}$,
$J^{k}\big{(}\frac{\phi_{6}}{x}\big{)}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{ijk}\epsilon_{ab}\partial_{i}\phi_{6}^{a}\partial_{j}\phi_{6}^{b},$
(13)
It is easy to see that this topological current is identically conserved,
i.e.,
$\partial_{k}j^{k}=0.$ (14)
Figure 1: Disclination in triangular lattices. A $-\pi/3$ disclination with
its sevenfold coordinated site in the center (left). A $\pi/3$ disclination
with its fivefold coordinated site (right).
According to the implicit function theorem, if Jacobian determinant
$J^{0}\big{(}\frac{\phi_{6}}{x}\big{)}=J\big{(}\frac{\phi_{6}}{x}\big{)}\neq
0,$ (15)
the solutions of Eq.(9) can be generally expressed as
$x=x_{l}(t),~{}y=y_{l}(t),~{}l=1,2,...,N,$ (16)
which represent N zero points $\vec{z_{l}}(t)$ (l=1,2,…,N) or world line of N
diclinations $D_{l}$ in space-time.
Figure 2: Generating and annihilating of disclination pairs.
With the $\delta$-function theory, $\delta^{2}(\phi)$ can be expanded as
$\delta^{2}(\phi_{6})=\sum_{l=1}^{N}\frac{\beta_{l}}{|J(\phi_{6}/x)_{z_{l}}|}\delta^{2}(\vec{r}-\vec{z_{l}}(t))$
(17)
where the positive integer $\beta_{l}$ is called the Hopf index of map
$x\rightarrow\vec{\phi}$. The meaning of $\beta_{l}$ is that when the point
$\vec{r}$ covers the neighborhood of the zero $\vec{z_{l}}$ once, the vector
field $\vec{\phi_{6}}$ covers the corresponding region for $\beta_{l}$ times.
Using the implicit function theorem and the definition of vector Jacobians
(13), we can get the velocity of the l-th defect,
$\displaystyle\vec{v_{l}}=\frac{d\vec{z_{l}}}{dt}=\big{[}\frac{\vec{J}(\phi_{6}/x)}{J(\phi_{6}/x)}\big{]}_{\vec{z_{l}}}$
$\displaystyle\vec{J}\big{(}\frac{\phi_{6}}{x}\big{)}=\big{[}J^{1}\big{(}\phi_{6}/x\big{)},J^{2}\big{(}\phi_{6}/x\big{)}\big{]}$
(18)
Then the spatial and temporal components of the defect current $j^{u}$, can be
written as the form of the current and the density of the system of N
classical points particles with topological charge $W_{l}=\beta_{l}\eta_{l}$
moving in the (2+1)-dimensional space-time,
$\vec{j}=\sum_{l=1}^{N}\beta_{l}\eta_{l}\vec{v_{l}}\delta^{2}(\vec{r}-\vec{z_{l}}(t))$
(19) $\rho=\sum_{l=1}^{N}\beta_{l}\eta_{l}\delta^{2}(\vec{r}-\vec{z_{l}}(t))$
(20)
where $\eta_{l}$ is Brouwer degree,
$\eta_{l}=\frac{J(\phi_{6}/x)}{|J(\phi_{6}/x)|}\bigg{|}_{\vec{z_{l}}}=\pm 1$
(21)
For disclinations, using Duan’s topological current theory the homogeneous
equation can write as
$\frac{1}{Y}\nabla^{4}\chi=\frac{2\pi}{6}\delta^{2}(\vec{\phi_{6}})J\big{(}\frac{\phi_{6}}{x}\big{)}$
(22)
Similar results get by Nelson in the KTHNY theoryNelson . In our theory, the
topological charge of a disclination $D_{l}$ is
$\displaystyle Q_{l}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{6}\oint_{\Sigma_{i}}\epsilon_{ab}\epsilon^{ij}\partial_{i}n_{6}^{a}\partial_{j}n_{6}^{b}d^{2}x$
(23) $\displaystyle=\frac{2\pi}{6}W_{l}=\beta_{l}\eta_{l}$
where $W_{l}$ is the winding number of $\Psi$ around $D_{l}$, the above
expression reveals distinctly that the topological charge of disclination is
not only the winding number, but also expressed by the Hopf indices and
Brouwer degrees. The topological inner structure showed in Eq.(23) is more
essential than that in Eq.(7), this is the advantage of our topological
description of the disclination.
It is clearly seen that Eq.(19) shows the movement of two-dimension crystal
topological defects in space-time. According to Eq.(14), the topological
charge of defects in two-dimensional crystal are conserved,
$\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t}+\nabla\vec{j}=0.$ (24)
In addition, there is a constraint of ”charge neutrality”,
$\int\rho d^{2}x=\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{l=1}^{N}\beta_{l}\eta_{l}=0.$ (25)
It indicate that the defect in two-dimensional crystal appear in pair.
Figure 3: Two disclinations collide with different directions of motion at the
bifurcation point in (2+1)-dimensional space-time.
Analogy to vortices in superfluid films, the zero point of the order parameter
field play an important role in describing the topological defects in two-
dimensional crystal. Now we study the properties of these zero points. If the
Jacobian determinant $J^{0}(\phi_{6}/x)\neq 0$, we will have the isolated
solution ofthe zeros of the order parameter field. But when
$J^{0}(\phi_{6}/x)=0$, the above results will change in some way, and will
lead to the branch process of defects. We denote one of the vectors Jacobian
at zero points as $(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})$. According to the values of the vector
Jacobian at zero points of the order parameter, there are limit points and
bifurcation points. Each kind corresponds to different cases of branch
processes.
Figure 4: Two disclinations collide with different directions of motion at the
bifurcation point in (2+1)-dimensional space-time.
Let us explore what will happen to the disclination at the limit point
$(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})$. The limit points are determined by
$J^{0}\big{(}\frac{\phi_{6}}{x}\big{)}\big{|}_{t^{*},\vec{z_{l}}}=0,~{}J^{1}\big{(}\frac{\phi_{6}}{x}\big{)}\big{|}_{t^{*},\vec{z_{l}}}\neq
0$ (26)
$J^{0}\big{(}\frac{\phi_{6}}{x}\big{)}\big{|}_{t^{*},\vec{z_{l}}}=0,~{}J^{2}\big{(}\frac{\phi_{6}}{x}\big{)}\big{|}_{t^{*},\vec{z_{l}}}\neq
0$ (27)
Considering the condition (26) and making use of the implicit function
theorem, the solution of Eq.(9) in the neighborhood of the point
($t^{*},\vec{z_{l}}$),
$t=t(x),~{}y=y(x)$ (28)
where $t^{*}=t(z_{l}^{1})$. In this case, one can see that
$\frac{dx}{dt}\bigg{|}_{(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})}=\frac{J^{1}(\phi_{6}/x)}{J(\phi_{6}/x)}\bigg{|}_{(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})}=\infty,$
(29)
or
$\frac{dt}{dx}\bigg{|}_{(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}}}=0.$ (30)
The Taylor expansion of $t=t(x)$ at the limit points $(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})$ is
$t-t^{*}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^{2}t}{dx^{2}}\bigg{|}_{t^{*},\vec{z_{l}}}(x-z_{l}^{1})^{2},$
(31)
which is a parabola in the x-t plane. From this equation, we can obtain two
solutions $x_{1}(t)$ and $x_{2}(t)$, which give two branch solutions (World
lines of disclinations). If
$\frac{d^{2}t}{dx^{2}}\bigg{|}_{(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})}>0,$
we have the branch solutions for $t>t^{*}$. It is related to the origin of a
disclination pair. Otherwise, we have the branch solutions for $t<t^{*}$,
which related to the annihilation of a disclination pair.
Since the topological current is identically conserved, the topological
charges of these two generated or annihilated disclinations must be opposite
at the limit points, say
$\beta_{1}\eta_{1}+\beta_{2}\eta_{2}=0.$ (32)
For a limit point it is required that $J^{1}(\phi/x)|_{t^{*},\vec{z_{l}}}\neq
0$. As to bifurcation point, it must satisfy a more complex condition. This
case will be discussed in the following.
Now, let us turn to consider in which the restrictions on zero point
$(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})$ are
$J^{k}\bigg{(}\frac{\phi_{6}}{x}\bigg{)}\bigg{|}_{(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})}=0,~{}~{}k=0,1,2,$
(33)
which imply an important fact that the function relationship between t and x
or y is not unique in the neighborhood of the bifurcation point
$(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})$. This fact is easily seen from
$\frac{dx}{dt}=\frac{J^{1}(\phi_{6}/x)}{J(\phi_{6}/x)}\bigg{|}_{t^{*},\vec{z_{l}}},~{}~{}\frac{dy}{dt}=\frac{J^{2}(\phi_{6}/x)}{J(\phi_{6}/x)}\bigg{|}_{t^{*},\vec{z_{l}}},$
(34)
which under Eq.(33) directly shows the indefiniteness of the direction of
integral curve of Eq.(34) at $(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})$. This is why the very point
$(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})$ is called a bifurcation point of the orientation order
parameter.
With the aim of finding the different directions of all branch curves at the
bifurcation point, we suppose
$\frac{\partial\phi_{6}^{1}}{\partial y}\bigg{|}_{t^{*},\vec{z_{l}}}\neq 0.$
(35)
According to the $\phi$-mapping theory, the Taylor expansion of the solution
of the zeros of the order parameter field in the neighborhood of
$(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})$ can be expressed as
$A(x-z_{l}^{1})^{2}+2B(x-z_{l}^{1})(t-t^{*})+C(t-t^{*})^{2}+...=0,$ (36)
which leads to
$A\big{(}\frac{dt}{dx}\big{)}^{2}+2B\frac{dx}{dt}+C=0,$ (37)
and
$C\big{(}\frac{dx}{dt}\big{)}^{2}+2B\frac{dt}{dx}+A=0,$ (38)
where A, B, and C are constants determined by the order parameter. The
solutions of Eq.(37) or Eq.(38) give different directions of the branch curves
(world line of vortices) at the bifurcation point. There are four possible
cases, which will show the physical meanings of the bifurcation points.
Figure 5: Two disclinations collide with different directions of motion at the
bifurcation point in (2+1)-dimensional space-time.
Case 1 $(A\neq 0)$. For $\Delta=4(B^{2}-AC)>0$, from Eq.(37) we get two
different motion directions of the core of disclination
$\frac{dx}{dt}\big{|}_{1,2}=\frac{-B\pm\sqrt{B^{2}-AC}}{A},$ (39)
where two world lines of two disclination intersect which different directions
at the bifurcation point. This shows that two disclinations encounter and the
depart at the bifurcation point.
Case 2 $(A\neq 0)$. For $\Delta=4(B^{2}-AC)>0$, form Eq.(37), we obtain only
one motion direction of the core of disclination
$\frac{dx}{dt}\bigg{|}_{1,2}=-\frac{B}{A},$ (40)
which includes three important cases. (i) Two world lines tangentially
contact, i.e., two disclinations tangentially encounter at the bifurcation
point. (ii) Two world lines merge into one world line, i.e., two disclinations
merge into one disclination at the bifurcation point. (iii) One world line
resolves into two world lines, i.e., one disclinations splits into two
disclinations at the bifurcation point.
Case 3 $(A=0,C\neq=0)$ For $\Delta=4(B^{2}-AC)=0$ from Eq.(37) we have
$\frac{dt}{dx}\bigg{|}_{1,2}=\frac{-B\pm\sqrt{B^{2}-AC}}{C}=0,~{}-\frac{2B}{C}.$
(41)
There are two important cases: (i) One world line resolves into three world
lines, i.e., one disclination split into three disclinations at the
bifurcation point. (ii) Three world line merge into one world line, i.e.,
three disclinations merge into one disclination at the bifurcation point.
Case 4 (A=C=0). Equations (37) and (38) give respectively
$\frac{dx}{dt}=0,~{}\frac{dt}{dx}=0.$ (42)
This case shows that two worldlines intersect normally at the bifurcation
point, which is similar to case 3. It is no surprise that both parts of
Eq.(42) are correct because they give the slope coefficients of two different
curves at the same point $(t^{*},\vec{z_{l}})$.
In conclusion, we study the inner topological structure of disclinations in
two-dimensional colloid systems. We have obtained a more essential topological
formulary of charge density of disclinations in two-dimensional crystals, and
revealed the inner topological relationship of the charge of disclinations is
characterized by the Hopf index and the Brouwer degree. We have studied the
evolution of disclinations by making use of Duan’s topological current theory.
We concluded that there exist crucial cases of branch processes in the
evolution of disclinations when $J(\phi/x)=0$, i.e, $\eta_{l}$ is indefinite.
It means that disclinations are generated or annihilated at the limit points
and are encountered, split, or merge at the bifurcation points, which shows
that the disclination is unstable at these branch points. We would like to
pointed that all the results in this paper obtains from the viewpoint of
topology without any hypothesis, and they are not depended on the property of
systems, such as interaction between particles.
###### Acknowledgements.
This work was supported by the SRF for ROCS, SEM, and by the Interdisciplinary
Innovation Research Fund for Young Scholars, Lanzhou University.
## References
* (1) J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C. 6, 1181 (1973).
* (2) D. R. Nelson and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B. 19, 2457 (1979).
* (3) A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B. 19, 1855 (1979).
* (4) K. J. Strandburg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 161 (1988).
* (5) D. R. Nelson, Defects and Geometry in Condensed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002).
* (6) C. A. Murry and D. H Van Winkle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1200 (1987).
* (7) Y. Tang, A. J. Armstrong, R. C. Mockler, and W. J. O’Sullivan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2401 (1989).
* (8) A. H. Marcus and S. A. Rice, Phys. Rev. E 55, 637 (1997).
* (9) C. Eisenmann, U. Gasser, P. Keim, G. Maret, and H. H. von Günberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 185502 (2005).
* (10) H. H. von Günberg, P. Keim, K. Zahn, and G. Maret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 255703 (2004).
* (11) H. H. von Grünberg, P. Keim, and G. Maret, Soft Matter( Vol.3): Colloidal Order from Entropic and Surface Forces, Edited by G. Gompper and M. Schick, Wiley-VCH (2007).
* (12) A. Jaster, Phys. Rev. E 59, 2594 (1999).
* (13) S. Z. Lin, B. Zheng, and S. Trimper, Phys. Rev. E 73, 066106 (2006).
* (14) K. Chen, T. Kaplan, and N. A. Clark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4019 (1995).
* (15) K. J. Naidoo and J. Schnitker, J. Chem. Phys. 100, 3114 (1994).
* (16) S. T. Chui, Phys. Rev. B. 28, 178 (1983).
* (17) M. A. Glaser and N. A. Clark, Adv. Chem. Phys. 83, 543 (1993).
* (18) Y. Lansac, M. A. Glaser, and N. A. Clark, Phys. Rev. E 73, 041501 (2006).
* (19) W. K. Qi, S. M. Qin, X. Y. Zhao, and Y. Chen, J. Phys.: condensed Matter 20, 245102 (2008).
* (20) X. Qi, Y. Chen, Y Jin, and Y. H. Yang. Kor. phys. Soc. 49, 1682 (2006); J. Dobnikar, Y. Chen, R. Rzehak, and H. H. von Grünberg, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 04971 (2003); J. Dobnikar, Y. Chen, R. Rzehak, and H.H. von Grüberg, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15, S263 (2003).
* (21) G. H. Yang and Y. S. Duan, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 37, 2371 (1998); Y. S. Duan, G. H. Yang, and Y Jiang, Gen. Rel. Grav. 29, 715 (1997); Y. S. Duan, H. Zhang, and L. B. Fu, Phys. Rev. E 59, 528 (1999); Y. S. Duan and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. E 60, 2568 (1999); J. R. Ren, T. Zhu, and Y. S. Duan, Chin. Phys. Lett. 25, 353 (2008).
* (22) J. P. Wang and Y. S. Duan, Commun. Theor. Phys. 44, 160 (2004).
* (23) L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Theory of Elasticity (Pergamon, New York, 1970).
* (24) H. S. Seung and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. A. 38, 1005 (1984).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-30T02:34:34 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.032399 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Wei-Kai Qi, Tao Zhu, Yong Chen, and Ji-Rong Ren",
"submitter": "Yong Chen",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4661"
} |
0805.4702 | On leave of absence from the ]Institute of Physics and Electronics, Hanoi,
Vietnam
# Pairing within the self-consistent quasiparticle random-phase approximation
at finite temperature
N. Dinh Dang1,2 dang@riken.jp N. Quang Hung1 [ nqhung@riken.jp 1) Heavy-Ion
Nuclear Physics Laboratory, RIKEN Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based
Science, 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako City, 351-0198 Saitama, Japan
2) Institute for Nuclear Science and Technique, Hanoi, Vietnam
###### Abstract
An approach to pairing in finite nuclei at nonzero temperature is proposed,
which incorporates the effects due to the quasiparticle-number fluctuation
(QNF) around Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) mean field and dynamic coupling
to quasiparticle-pair vibrations within the self-consistent quasiparticle
random-phase approximation (SCQRPA). The numerical calculations of pairing
gap, total energy, and heat capacity were carried out within a doubly folded
multilevel model as well as realistic nuclei 56Fe and 120Sn. The results
obtained show that, under the effect of QNF, in the region of moderate and
strong couplings, the sharp transition between the superconducting and normal
phases is smoothed out, resulting in a thermal pairing gap, which does not
collapse at the BCS critical temperature, but has a tail, which extends to
high temperature. The dynamic coupling of quasiparticles to SCQRPA vibrations
significantly improves the agreement with the results of exact calculations
and those obtained within the finite-temperature quantal Monte Carlo method
for the total energy and heat capacity. It also causes a deviation of the
quasiparticle occupation numbers from the Fermi-Dirac distributions for free
fermions.
Suggested keywords
###### pacs:
21.60.Jz, 21.60.-n, 24.10.Pa, 24.60.-k
## I INTRODUCTION
Pairing phenomenon is a common feature in strongly interacting many-body
systems ranging from tiny ones such as atomic nuclei to very large ones such
as neutron stars. Because of its simplicity, the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer
(BCS) theory bcs , which explains the conventional superconductivity, has been
widely employed as the first step in nuclear structure calculations that
include pairing forces. In infinite systems such as low-temperature
superconductors, the BCS theory offers a correct description of the pairing
gap as functions of temperature $T$ and pairing-interaction strength $G$.
Here, as $T$ increases, the BCS gap decreases from its value $\Delta(0)$ at
$T=$ 0 until it collapses at a critical temperature $T_{\rm c}=$
0.567$\Delta(0)$, at which the phase transition between the superconducting
phase and normal one (SN-phase transition) occurs es ; Landau . However, the
application of the BCS theory to small systems such as atomic nuclei needs to
be carried out with a certain care since quantal and thermal fluctuations are
not negligible in finite systems, especially when the number of particles is
small.
The effects of thermal fluctuations on the pairing properties of nuclei have
been the subject of numerous theoretical studies in the last three decades. In
the seventies, by applying the macroscopic Landau theory of phase transitions
to a uniform model, Moretto has shown that thermal fluctuations smooth out the
sharp SN phase transition in finite systems Moretto . In the eighties, this
approach was incorporated by Goodman into the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB)
theory at finite temperature Goodman1 to account for the effect of thermal
fluctuations Goodman2 . Theoretical studies within the static-path
approximation (SPA) carried out in the nineties also came to the non-vanishing
pairing correlations at finite temperature SPA , which are qualitatively
similar to the predictions by Landau theory of phase transitions. The shell-
model and Monte-Carlo shell-model calculations shell ; Monte also show that
pairing does not abruptly vanish at $T_{\rm c}$, but still survives at
$T>T_{\rm c}$. For rotating systems, Frauendorf and collaborators have
recently shown a phenomenon of pairing induced by temperature Frau , which
reflects strong fluctuations of the order parameter in very small systems with
a fixed number of particles. The recent microscopic approach to thermal
pairing, called modified-HFB (MHFB) theory MHFB , includes the quasiparticle-
number fluctuation (QNF) in the modified single-particle density matrix and
particle-pairing tensor. Its limit of constant pairing interaction $G$ is the
modified BCS (MBCS) theory MBCS1 ; MBCS2 ; MBCS3 ; MBCS4 . The MBCS theory
predicts a pairing gap, which does not collapse at $T_{\rm c}$, but
monotonously decreases with increasing $T$, in qualitative agreement with the
predictions by the Landau theory of phase transitions and SPA. This feature
also agrees with the results obtained by averaging the exact eigenvalues of
the pairing problem over the canonical ensemble with a temperature-dependent
partition function MBCS3 . The recent extraction of pairing gap from the
experimental level densities exp confirms that the pairing gap does not
vanish at $T_{\rm c}$ but decreases as $T$ increases, in line with the
predictions by these approaches.
The above mentioned approaches are based on the independent quasiparticles,
whose occupation numbers follow the Fermi-Dirac distribution of free fermions.
Dynamic effects such as those due to coupling to small-amplitude vibrations
within the random-phase approximation (RPA) are ignored. These effects have
recently been explored by extending the self-consistent particle-particle RPA
(SCRPA) to finite temperature using the double-time Green’s function method
DaTa . Since the SCRPA fails in the region of strong pairing, where it should
be replaced by the quasiparticle representation, it is highly desirable to
develop a self-consistent quasiparticle RPA (SCQRPA) at finite temperature,
which is workable with any value of pairing interaction parameter $G$.
Recently, we have developed in Ref. SCQRPA a SCQRPA for the multilevel
pairing Hamiltonian and applied it to the Richardson model Ric at zero
temperature. The derivation of the SCQRPA is based on a set of renormalized
BCS equations, which include the corrections due to the QNF and the SCQRPA.
The latter arise from the expectation values $\langle{\cal
A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$ and $\langle{\cal
A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$ in the correlated ground state.
Here ${\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}$ is the product of two time-reversal conjugated
quasiparticle operators, $\alpha^{\dagger}_{j}$ and $\alpha^{\dagger}_{-j}$,
corresponding to the $j$-th orbital. Within the particle-particle ($pp$) SCRPA
SCRPA , these expectation values overscreen the attractive pairing
interaction, turning it into repulsion in agreement with the trend of the
exact solutions of the Richardson model. For this reason, the expectation
values $\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$
and $\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$ are called the
screening factors. The goal of the present study is to extend the SCQRPA in
Ref. SCQRPA to non-zero temperature to explore the effects due to QNF as well
as coupling to QRPA vibrations on the pairing properties of finite systems in
a self-consistent way.
The article is organized as follows. The derivation of the equations for
quasiparticle propagation, which include the effects of QNF and SCQRPA
corrections as well as coupling of quasiparticles to pair vibrations at finite
temperature is presented Section II. Two approximation schemes will be
considered, which are based on the thermal quasiparticle representation
without and including dynamic coupling to SCQRPA quasiparticle-pair
vibrations. In Section III, the developed approach undergoes a thorough
numerical test within the Richardson model as well as in realistic nuclei 56Fe
and 120Sn. The last section summarizes the article, where conclusions are
drawn.
## II FORMALISM
### II.1 Quasiparticle Hamiltonian
The pairing Hamiltonian
$H=\sum_{jm}\epsilon_{j}a_{jm}^{\dagger}a_{jm}-G\sum_{jj^{\prime}}\sum_{mm^{\prime}>0}a_{jm}^{\dagger}a_{j\widetilde{m}}^{\dagger}a_{j^{\prime}\widetilde{m^{\prime}}}a_{j^{\prime}m^{\prime}}~{}.$
(1)
describes a set of $N$ particles with single-particle energies $\epsilon_{j}$,
which are generated by particle creation operators $a_{jm}^{\dagger}$ on
$j$-th orbitals with shell degeneracies $2\Omega_{j}$ ($\Omega_{j}=j+1/2$),
and interacting via a monopole-pairing force with a constant parameter $G$.
The symbol $~{}~{}\widetilde{}~{}~{}$ denotes the time-reversal operator,
namely $a_{j\widetilde{m}}=(-)^{j-m}a_{j-m}$. In general, for a two-component
system with $Z$ protons and $N$ neutrons, the sums in Eq. (1) run over all
$j_{\tau}m_{\tau}$, $j^{\prime}_{\tau}m^{\prime}_{\tau}$, and $G_{\tau}$ with
$\tau=(Z,N)$. This general notation is omitted here as the calculations in the
present article are carried out only for one type of particles.
By using the Bogoliubov’s transformation from the particle operators,
$a_{jm}^{\dagger}$ and $a_{jm}$, to the quasiparticle ones,
$\alpha_{jm}^{\dagger}$ and $\alpha_{jm}$,
$a_{jm}^{\dagger}=u_{j}\alpha_{jm}^{\dagger}+v_{j}\alpha_{j\widetilde{m}}~{},\hskip
14.22636pta_{j\widetilde{m}}=u_{j}\alpha_{j\widetilde{m}}-v_{j}\alpha_{jm}^{\dagger}~{},$
(2)
the pairing Hamiltonian (1) is transformed into the quasiparticle Hamiltonian
as follows MBCS2 ; MBCS3
$H=a+\sum_{j}{b_{j}\mathcal{N}_{j}}+\sum_{j}{c_{j}(\mathcal{A}_{j}^{\dagger}+\mathcal{A}_{j}})+\sum_{jj^{\prime}}{d_{jj^{\prime}}\mathcal{A}_{j}^{\dagger}\mathcal{A}_{j^{\prime}}}+\sum_{jj^{\prime}}{g_{j}(j^{\prime})(\mathcal{A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\mathcal{N}_{j}+\mathcal{N}_{j}\mathcal{A}_{j^{\prime}})}$
$+\sum_{jj^{\prime}}{h_{jj^{\prime}}(\mathcal{A}_{j}^{\dagger}\mathcal{A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}+\mathcal{A}_{j^{\prime}}\mathcal{A}_{j})}+\sum_{jj^{\prime}}{q_{jj^{\prime}}\mathcal{N}_{j}\mathcal{N}_{j^{\prime}}}~{},$
(3)
where $\mathcal{N}_{j}$ is the quasiparticle-number operator, whereas
$\mathcal{A}_{j}^{\dagger}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{j}$ are the creation and
destruction operators of a pair of time-reversal conjugated quasiparticles:
$\mathcal{N}_{j}=\sum_{m=-\Omega_{j}}^{\Omega_{j}}\alpha_{jm}^{\dagger}\alpha_{jm}=\sum_{m=1}^{\Omega_{j}}(\alpha_{jm}^{\dagger}\alpha_{jm}+\alpha_{j-m}^{\dagger}\alpha_{j-m})~{},$
(4)
$\mathcal{A}_{j}^{\dagger}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\big{[}\alpha^{\dagger}_{j}\otimes\alpha_{j}^{\dagger}\big{]}_{0}^{0}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Omega_{j}}}\sum_{m=1}^{\Omega_{j}}\alpha_{jm}^{\dagger}\alpha_{j\widetilde{m}}^{\dagger}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt\mathcal{A}_{j}=(\mathcal{A}_{j}^{\dagger})^{\dagger}~{}.$ (5)
They obey the following commutation relations
$\displaystyle[\mathcal{A}_{j}~{},~{}\mathcal{A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}]=\delta_{jj^{\prime}}{\cal
D}_{j}~{},\hskip 5.69054pt{\rm where}\hskip 5.69054pt{\cal
D}_{j}=1-\frac{\mathcal{N}_{j}}{\Omega_{j}}~{},$ (6)
$\displaystyle[\mathcal{N}_{j}~{},~{}\mathcal{A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}]=2\delta_{jj^{\prime}}\mathcal{A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt[\mathcal{N}_{j}~{},~{}\mathcal{A}_{j^{\prime}}]=-2\delta_{jj^{\prime}}\mathcal{A}_{j^{\prime}}~{}.$
(7)
The functionals $a$, $b_{j}$, $c_{j}$, $d_{jj^{\prime}}$, $g_{j}(j^{\prime})$,
$h_{jj^{\prime}}$, $q_{jj^{\prime}}$ in Eq. (3) are given in terms of the
coefficients $u_{j}$, $v_{j}$ of the Bogoliubov’s transformation, and the
single particle energies $\epsilon_{j}$ as (See Eqs. (7) – (13) of Ref. MBCS2
, e.g.)
$a=2\sum_{j}\Omega_{j}\epsilon_{j}v_{j}^{2}-G\big{(}\sum_{j}\Omega_{j}u_{j}v_{j}\big{)}^{2}-G\sum_{j}\Omega_{j}v_{j}^{4}~{},$
(8)
$b_{j}=\epsilon_{j}(u_{j}^{2}-v_{j}^{2})+2Gu_{j}v_{j}\sum_{j^{\prime}}\Omega_{j^{\prime}}u_{j^{\prime}}v_{j^{\prime}}+Gv_{j}^{4}~{},$
(9)
$c_{j}=2\sqrt{\Omega_{j}}\epsilon_{j}u_{j}v_{j}-G\sqrt{\Omega_{j}}(u_{j}^{2}-v_{j}^{2})\sum_{j^{\prime}}\Omega_{j^{\prime}}u_{j^{\prime}}v_{j^{\prime}}-2G\sqrt{\Omega_{j}}u_{j}v_{j}^{3}~{},$
(10)
$d_{jj^{\prime}}=-G\sqrt{\Omega_{j}\Omega_{j^{\prime}}}(u_{j}^{2}u_{j^{\prime}}^{2}+v_{j}^{2}v_{j^{\prime}}^{2})=d_{j^{\prime}j}~{},$
(11)
$g_{j}(j^{\prime})=Gu_{j}v_{j}\sqrt{\Omega_{j^{\prime}}}(u_{j^{\prime}}^{2}-v_{j^{\prime}}^{2})~{},$
(12)
$h_{jj^{\prime}}=\frac{G}{2}\sqrt{\Omega_{j}\Omega_{j^{\prime}}}(u_{j}^{2}v_{j^{\prime}}^{2}+v_{j}^{2}u_{j^{\prime}}^{2})=h_{j^{\prime}j}~{},$
(13)
$q_{jj^{\prime}}=-Gu_{j}v_{j}u_{j^{\prime}}v_{j^{\prime}}=q_{j^{\prime}j}~{}.$
(14)
By setting $\Omega_{j}=$ 1 in Eqs. (8) – (14), one recovers the expressions
for the case with $\Omega$ doubly-folded levels of the Richardson model (See,
e.g., Eqs. (12) – (18) of Ref. SCQRPA ).
### II.2 Gap and number equations
The derivation of the equation for the pairing gap that include the effect of
correlations in the ground state has been presented briefly in Ref. SCQRPA
for the Richardson model. For the clarity of the extension to finite
temperature $T$, we give below the detailed derivation of the gap equation,
which is applied to the more general quasiparticle Hamiltonian (3) and valid
for $T\neq$ 0.
The coefficients $u_{j}$ and $v_{j}$ of the Bogoliubov’s transformation (2)
are determined by using the variational procedure, which minimizes the
expectation value of the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}=H-\lambda\hat{N}$ in the grand
canonical ensemble. This leads to the variational equations Schuck
$\frac{\partial{\langle{\cal
H}\rangle}}{\partial{u_{j}}}+\frac{\partial{\langle{\cal
H}\rangle}}{\partial{v_{j}}}\frac{\partial{v_{j}}}{\partial{u_{j}}}\equiv\langle[{\cal
H},{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}]\rangle=0~{},$ (15)
where $\langle\hat{\cal O}\rangle$ denotes the ensemble average of the
operator $\hat{\cal O}$,
$\langle\hat{\cal O}\rangle\equiv\frac{{\rm Tr}[\hat{\cal O}e^{-\beta{\cal
H}}]}{{\rm Tr}e^{-\beta{\cal H}}}~{},\hskip 28.45274pt\beta=T^{-1}~{}.$ (16)
The commutation relation $[{\cal H},{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}]$ is found by using
Eqs. (6) and (7) as
$[{\cal H},{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}]=2b_{j}^{\prime}{\cal
A}_{j}^{\dagger}+\bigg{\\{}c_{j}^{\prime}+\sum_{j^{\prime}}\big{[}d_{jj^{\prime}}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}+g_{j^{\prime}}(j){\cal
N}_{j^{\prime}}+h_{jj^{\prime}}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}\big{]}\bigg{\\}}{\cal
D}_{j}$ $+2\sum_{j^{\prime}}\bigg{\\{}g_{j}(j^{\prime})\big{[}{\cal
A}^{\dagger}_{j^{\prime}}{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}+{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}\big{]}+q_{jj^{\prime}}\big{[}{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal
N}_{j^{\prime}}+{\cal N}_{j^{\prime}}{\cal
A}^{\dagger}_{j}\big{]}\bigg{\\}}+\sum_{j^{\prime}}h_{jj^{\prime}}{\cal
D}_{j}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}~{}.$ (17)
The ensemble average of the commutation relation (17) is then given as
$\langle[{\cal H},{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}]\rangle=c_{j}^{\prime}\langle{\cal
D}_{j}\rangle+\sum_{j^{\prime}}\bigg{\\{}2g_{j}(j^{\prime})\big{[}\langle{\cal
A}^{\dagger}_{j^{\prime}}{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}\rangle+\langle{\cal
A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle\big{]}+g_{j^{\prime}}(j)\langle{\cal
N}_{j^{\prime}}{\cal D}_{j}\rangle\bigg{\\}}~{},$ (18)
where the functionals $b_{j}^{\prime}$ and $c_{j}^{\prime}$ are
$b_{j}^{\prime}=b_{j}-\lambda(u_{j}^{2}-v_{j}^{2})~{},\hskip
14.22636ptc_{j}^{\prime}=c_{j}-2\lambda\sqrt{\Omega_{j}}u_{j}v_{j}~{},$ (19)
i.e. they have the same form as that of $b_{j}$ in Eq. (9), and $c_{j}$ in Eq.
(10), but with $\epsilon_{j}-\lambda$ replacing $\epsilon_{j}$ at the right-
hand sides. Inserting the explicit expressions for the functionals
$c_{j}^{\prime}$ from Eq. (19) as well as $g_{j}(j^{\prime})$ and
$g_{j^{\prime}}(j)$ from Eq. (12) into the right-hand side of Eq. (18), and
equalizing the obtained result to zero as required by the variational
procedure (15), we come to the following equation, which is formally identical
to the BCS one:
$2(\epsilon^{\prime}_{j}-Gv_{j}^{2}-\lambda)u_{j}v_{j}-\Delta_{j}(u_{j}^{2}-v_{j}^{2})=0~{},$
(20)
where, however, the single-particle energies $\epsilon^{\prime}_{j}$ are
renormalized as
$\epsilon_{j}^{\prime}=\epsilon_{j}+\frac{G}{\sqrt{\Omega_{j}}\langle{\cal
D}_{j}\rangle}\sum_{j^{\prime}}\sqrt{\Omega_{j^{\prime}}}(u_{j^{\prime}}^{2}-v_{j^{\prime}}^{2})\bigg{(}\langle{\cal
A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle+\langle{\cal
A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle\bigg{)}~{}.$ (21)
The pairing gap is found as the solution of the following equation
$\Delta_{j}=\frac{G}{\langle{\cal
D}_{j}\rangle}{\sum_{j^{\prime}}\Omega_{j^{\prime}}\langle{\cal D}_{j}{\cal
D}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle}u_{j^{\prime}}v_{j^{\prime}}~{},$ (22)
which is level-dependent. The coefficients $u_{j}$ and $v_{j}$ of the
Bogoliubov’s transformation (2) are derived in a standard way from Eq. (20)
and the unitarity constraint $u_{j}^{2}+v_{j}^{2}=$ 1\. They read
$u_{j}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\bigg{(}1+\frac{\epsilon^{\prime}_{j}-Gv_{j}^{2}-\lambda}{E_{j}}\bigg{)}~{},\hskip
14.22636ptv_{j}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\bigg{(}1-\frac{\epsilon^{\prime}_{j}-Gv_{j}^{2}-\lambda}{E_{j}}\bigg{)}~{},$
(23)
where $E_{j}$ are the quasiparticle energies
$E_{j}=\sqrt{(\epsilon^{\prime}_{j}-Gv_{j}^{2}-\lambda)^{2}+\Delta_{j}^{2}}~{}.$
(24)
The particle-number equation is obtained by transforming the particle-number
operator $\hat{N}\equiv\sum_{jm}a_{jm}^{\dagger}a_{jm}$ into the quasiparticle
presentation using the Bogoliubov’s transformation (2) and taking the ensemble
average. The result is
$N=2\sum_{j}\Omega_{j}\bigg{[}v_{j}^{2}\langle{\cal
D}_{j}\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\big{(}1-\langle{\cal
D}_{j}\rangle\big{)}\bigg{]}~{}.$ (25)
The pairing gap $\Delta_{j}$ and chemical potential $\lambda$, which is the
Lagrangian multiplier in the variational equations (15), are determined as
solutions of Eqs. (22) and (25).
The right-hand side of Eq. (22) contains the expectation values $\langle{\cal
D}_{j}{\cal D}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$, whose exact treatment is not possible as
it involves an infinite boson expansion series Samba . In the present article,
following the treatment on Ref. SCQRPA , we use the exact relation
$\langle{\cal D}_{j}{\cal D}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle=\langle{\cal
D}_{j}\rangle\langle{\cal D}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle+\frac{\delta{\cal
N}_{jj^{\prime}}}{\Omega_{j}\Omega_{j^{\prime}}}~{},\hskip 14.22636pt{\rm
with}\hskip 14.22636pt\delta{\cal N}_{jj^{\prime}}=\langle{\cal N}_{j}{\cal
N}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle-\langle{\cal N}_{j}\rangle\langle{\cal
N}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle~{},$ (26)
and the mean-field contraction for the term $\delta{\cal N}_{jj^{\prime}}$
$\delta{\cal N}_{jj^{\prime}}\simeq 2\Omega_{j}\delta{\cal
N}_{j}^{2}\delta_{jj^{\prime}}~{},\hskip 14.22636pt\delta{\cal
N}_{j}^{2}\equiv n_{j}(1-n_{j})~{},$ (27)
with the quasiparticle occupation number $n_{j}$
$n_{j}=\frac{\langle{\cal
N}_{j}\rangle}{2\Omega_{j}}=\frac{1}{2}(1-\langle{\cal D}_{j}\rangle)~{},$
(28)
to rewrite the gap equation (22) as a sum of a level-independent part,
$\Delta$, and a level-dependent part, $\delta\Delta_{j}$, namely
$\Delta_{j}=\Delta+\delta\Delta_{j}~{},$ (29)
where
$\Delta=G\sum_{j^{\prime}}\Omega_{j^{\prime}}\langle{\cal
D}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle u_{j^{\prime}}v_{j^{\prime}}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt\delta\Delta_{j}=2G\frac{\delta{\cal N}_{j}^{2}}{\langle{\cal
D}_{j}\rangle}u_{j}v_{j}~{}.$ (30)
The quantity $\delta{\cal N}_{j}^{2}$ in Eqs. (27) and (30), is nothing but
the standard expression for the QNF corresponding to the $j$-th orbital
Goodman2 ; MHFB 111The definition (27) for the QNF $\delta{\cal N}_{j}^{2}$
is different from that in Eq. (32) of Ref. SCQRPA by a factor 2 as this
factor is now put in front of $\Omega_{j}$ to have the complete shell
degeneracy $2\Omega_{j}$.. Using Eqs. (23) and (30), after simple algebras, we
rewrite the gap (29) in the following form
$\Delta_{j}=\frac{\widetilde{G}_{j}}{2}\sum_{j^{\prime}}\Omega_{j^{\prime}}\langle{\cal
D}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle\frac{\Delta_{j^{\prime}}}{E_{j^{\prime}}}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt{\rm where}\hskip
14.22636pt\widetilde{G}_{j}={G}\bigg{(}1-G\frac{\delta{\cal
N}_{j}^{2}}{\langle{\cal D}_{j}\rangle E_{j}}\bigg{)}^{-1}~{}.$ (31)
### II.3 Finite-temperature BCS with quasiparticle number fluctuations
#### II.3.1 Without particle-number projection (FTBCS1)
The gap equation (31) is remarkable as it shows that the QNF $\delta{\cal
N}_{j}^{2}$ renormalizes the pairing interaction $G$ to $\widetilde{G}_{j}$.
The conventional finite-temperature BCS (FTBCS) gap equation
$\Delta_{j}=\Delta$ is recovered from Eq. (31) when the following assumptions
simultaneously hold:
i) Independent quasiparticles: $n_{j}=n_{j}^{\rm FD}$, where $n_{j}^{\rm FD}$
is the Fermi-Dirac distribution of non-interacting fermions
$n_{j}^{\rm FD}=\frac{1}{e^{\beta E_{j}}+1}~{},$ (32)
ii) No quasiparticle number fluctuation: $\delta{\cal N}^{2}_{j}=$ 0 ,
iii) No screening factors: $\langle{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle=\langle{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle=$ 0 in Eq. (21).
These three assumptions guaranty a thermal quasiparticle mean field, in which
quasiparticles are moving independently without any perturbation caused by the
QNF and/or coupling to multiple quasiparticle configurations beyond the
quasiparticle mean field. Among these configurations, the simplest ones are
the small-amplitude vibrations (QRPA corrections). From these assumptions, one
can infer that releasing assumption ii) allows us to include the effect of
QNF, provided the quantal effect of coupling to QRPA vibrations is negligible,
i.e. assumption iii) still holds. In the present article, this approximation
scheme, for which i) and iii) hold, whereas $\delta{\cal N}_{j}^{2}\neq$ 0, is
referred to as the FTBCS1.
#### II.3.2 With Lipkin-Nogami particle-number projection (FTLN1)
The problem of particle-number violation within the BCS theory is usually
resolved in the simplest way by means of an approximated particle-number
projection (PNP) before variation called the Lipkin-Nogami (LN) method LN . In
Ref. SCQRPA this method has been applied to the BCS1 and the resulting
approach is called the LN1. For the case with $\Omega_{j}\neq$ 1 and level-
dependent gap $\Delta_{j}$ (29) at $T\neq$ 0, the corresponding finite-
temperature LN1 equations have the form
$\tilde{\Delta}_{j}=G\sum_{j^{\prime}}\Omega_{j^{\prime}}\tilde{\tau}_{jj^{\prime}}~{},\hskip
8.53581ptN=2\sum_{j}\Omega_{j}\tilde{\rho}_{j}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt\tilde{\epsilon}_{j}=\epsilon^{\prime}_{j}+(4\lambda_{2}-G){\tilde{v}_{j}}^{2}~{},\hskip
8.53581pt\lambda=\lambda_{1}+2\lambda_{2}(N+1)~{},$ (33)
where
$\tilde{\tau}_{jj^{\prime}}=\tau_{jj^{\prime}}+\frac{2}{\Omega_{j}}\frac{\delta{\cal
N}_{j}^{2}}{\langle{\cal
D}_{j}\rangle}\delta_{jj^{\prime}}\tilde{u}_{j^{\prime}}\tilde{v}_{j^{\prime}}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt\tau_{jj^{\prime}}=\langle{\cal
D}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle\tilde{u}_{j^{\prime}}\tilde{v}_{j^{\prime}}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt\tilde{\rho}_{j}=\tilde{v}_{j}^{2}\langle{\cal
D}_{j}\rangle+\frac{1}{2}(1-\langle{\cal D}_{j}\rangle)~{},$ (34)
$\tilde{u}_{j}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\frac{\tilde{\epsilon}_{j}-\lambda}{\tilde{E}_{j}}\right)~{},\hskip
14.22636pt\tilde{v}_{j}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{\tilde{\epsilon}_{j}-\lambda}{\tilde{E}_{j}}\right)~{},\hskip
14.22636pt\tilde{E}_{j}=\sqrt{(\tilde{\epsilon}_{j}-\lambda)^{2}+\tilde{\Delta}_{j}^{2}}~{}.$
(35)
The coefficient $\lambda_{2}$ is given as SCQRPA
$\lambda_{2}=\frac{G}{4}\frac{\sum_{j}\Omega_{j}(1-\tilde{\rho}_{j})\tau_{j}\sum_{j^{\prime}}\Omega_{j^{\prime}}\tilde{\rho}_{j^{\prime}}\tau_{j^{\prime}}-\sum_{j}\Omega_{j}(1-\tilde{\rho}_{j})^{2}\tilde{\rho}_{j}^{2}}{\left[\sum_{j}\Omega_{j}\tilde{\rho}_{j}(1-\tilde{\rho}_{j})\right]^{2}-\sum_{j}\Omega_{j}(1-\tilde{\rho}_{j})^{2}\tilde{\rho}_{j}^{2}}~{},$
(36)
where $\tau_{j}\equiv\tau_{jj}$. This FTBCS1 including the approximated PNP
within the LN method is referred to as FTLN1 in the present article. It is
worth pointing out that, being an approximated projection that corrects for
the quantal fluctuations of particle number within the BCS theory, the LN
method in the present formulation is not sufficient to account for the thermal
fluctuations (QNF) around the phase transition point $T\sim T_{\rm c}$ as well
as at high $T$. Another well-known defect of the LN method is that it produces
a large pairing gap (pairing correlation energy) even in closed-shell nuclei,
where there should be no pairing gap. The source of this pathological behavior
is assigned to the fast change of $\lambda_{2}$ at the shell closure, which
invalidates the truncation of the expansion at second order patho . In Ref.
MBCS4 , it has been demonstrated within the MBCS theory that the projection-
after-variation (PAV) method offers much better results, which are closer to
the exact solutions. The PAV at $T\neq$ 0, however, is much more complicated
than the LN method. Therefore, we prefer to devote a separate study to its
application to the BCS1.
### II.4 Finite-temperature BCS with quasiparticle-number fluctuation and
dynamic coupling to SCQRPA vibrations (FTBCS1+SCQRPA and FTLN1+SCQRPA)
As has been mentioned in the preceding section, within the quasiparticle mean
field, the expectation values $\langle{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle$ and $\langle{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$ at the right-hand side of Eq. (21) are always zero
[Assumption iii)]. They cannot be factorized into the products of expectation
values of quasiparticle-number operators within the thermal quasiparticle mean
field because such crude contraction is tantamount to artificially breaking
the pair correlators (5) (See the Appendix A). Therefore, to account for the
correlations beyond the quasiparticle mean field, these screening factors
should be estimated, at least, within the SCQRPA, where they can be expressed
below in terms of the forward- and backward going amplitudes, ${\cal
X}^{\mu}_{j}$ and ${\cal Y}^{\mu}_{j}$, of the SCQRPA operators (phonons) as
SCQRPA 222In general, operator ${\cal Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}(JM)$ at $T\neq$ 0
also contains the terms $\sim
B_{jj^{\prime}}^{\dagger}(JM)\equiv[\alpha_{j}^{\dagger}\otimes\alpha_{j^{\prime}}]^{J}_{M}$
and $B_{jj^{\prime}}(JM)$ apart from those with ${\cal
A}_{jj^{\prime}}^{\dagger}(JM)$ and ${\cal A}_{jj^{\prime}}(JM)$ because of
the relation
$\langle[B_{jj^{\prime}}(JM),B_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}^{\dagger}(J^{\prime}M^{\prime})]\rangle=\delta_{JJ^{\prime}}\delta_{MM^{\prime}}\delta_{jj_{1}}\delta_{j^{\prime}j_{1}^{\prime}}(n_{j}-n_{j^{\prime}})\neq$
0 for $j\neq j^{\prime}$ Somer ; DangJP . In the present article, where $J=M=$
0, and hence $j=j^{\prime}$, this relation vanishes.
${\cal Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}=\sum_{j}\bigg{(}\frac{{\cal
X}_{j}^{\mu}}{\sqrt{\langle{\cal D}_{j}\rangle}}{\cal
A}_{j}^{\dagger}-\frac{{\cal Y}_{j}^{\mu}}{\sqrt{\langle{\cal
D}_{j}\rangle}}{\cal A}_{j}\bigg{)}~{},\hskip 14.22636pt{\cal Q}_{\mu}=[{\cal
Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}]^{\dagger}~{}.$ (37)
The renormalization factor $\sqrt{\langle{\cal D}_{j}\rangle}$ is introduced
in Eq. (37) to ensure that the SCQRPA operators ${\cal Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}$ and
${\cal Q}_{\mu}$ remain bosons within the thermal average (16), preserving the
exact commutation relation (6). This leads to the orthogonality relation for
the ${\cal X}_{j}^{\mu}$ and ${\cal Y}_{j}^{\mu}$ amplitudes in the
conventional form as
$\sum_{j}\big{(}{\cal X}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal X}_{j}^{\mu^{\prime}}-{\cal
Y}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal Y}_{j}^{\mu^{\prime}}\big{)}=\delta_{\mu\mu^{\prime}}~{},$
(38)
which can be easily verified by calculating $\langle[{\cal Q}_{\mu},{\cal
Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}^{\dagger}]\rangle$ and requiring that the result to be equal
to $\delta_{\mu\mu^{\prime}}$. The inverse transformation of Eq. (37) reads
${\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}=\sqrt{\langle{\cal
D}_{j}}\rangle\sum_{\mu}\big{(}{\cal X}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal
Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}+{\cal Y}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal Q}_{\mu}\big{)}~{},$ (39)
provided the following conventional closure relations hold
$\sum_{\mu}\big{(}{\cal X}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal X}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}-{\cal
Y}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal Y}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}\big{)}=\delta_{jj^{\prime}}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt\sum_{\mu}\big{(}{\cal X}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal Y}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}-{\cal
Y}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal X}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}\big{)}=0~{},$ (40)
#### II.4.1 Screening factors
Using the inverse transformation (39), we obtain the expectation values
$\langle{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle$ and
$\langle{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$ at $T\neq$ 0 in
the form
$x_{jj^{\prime}}\equiv\frac{\langle{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle}{\sqrt{\langle{\cal D}_{j}\rangle\langle{\cal
D}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle}}=\sum_{\mu}{\cal Y}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal
Y}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}+\sum_{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\bigg{(}U_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\langle{\cal
Q}^{\dagger}_{\mu}{\cal
Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}\rangle+Z_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\langle{\cal
Q}^{\dagger}_{\mu}{\cal Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle\bigg{)}~{},$ (41)
$y_{jj^{\prime}}\equiv\frac{\langle{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle}{\sqrt{\langle{\cal D}_{j}\rangle\langle{\cal
D}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle}}=\sum_{\mu}{\cal Y}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal
X}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}+\sum_{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\bigg{(}U_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\langle{\cal
Q}^{\dagger}_{\mu}{\cal
Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle+Z_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\langle{\cal
Q}^{\dagger}_{\mu}{\cal Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}\rangle\bigg{)}~{},$ (42)
where the following shorthand notations are used
${U}_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}={\cal X}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal
X}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu^{\prime}}+{\cal Y}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}{\cal
Y}_{j}^{\mu^{\prime}}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt{Z}_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}={\cal X}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal
Y}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu^{\prime}}+{\cal Y}_{j}^{\mu^{\prime}}{\cal
X}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}~{}.$ (43)
taking into account the symmetry property $\langle{\cal
Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}{\cal Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle=\langle{\cal
Q}_{\mu}{\cal Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}\rangle$. Using now the definition (37), we
express the expectation values $\langle{\cal Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}{\cal
Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}\rangle$ and $\langle{\cal Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}{\cal
Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle$ in terms of $x_{jj^{\prime}}$ (i.e.
$\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$),
$y_{jj^{\prime}}$ (i.e. $\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle$), and amplitudes ${\cal X}_{j}^{\mu}$ and
${\cal Y}_{j}^{\mu}$ as
$\langle{\cal Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}{\cal Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}\rangle=\sum_{j}{\cal
Y}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal
Y}_{j}^{\mu^{\prime}}+\sum_{jj^{\prime}}(U_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}x_{jj^{\prime}}-W_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}y_{jj^{\prime}})~{},$
(44) $\langle{\cal Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}{\cal
Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle=-\sum_{j}{\cal Y}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal
X}_{j}^{\mu^{\prime}}+\sum_{jj^{\prime}}(U_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}y_{jj^{\prime}}-W_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}x_{jj^{\prime}})~{},$
(45)
where
$W^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}_{jj^{\prime}}={\cal X}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal
Y}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu^{\prime}}+{\cal Y}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}{\cal
X}_{j}^{\mu^{\prime}}~{}.$ (46)
Inserting Eqs. (44) and (45) into the right-hand sides of Eqs. (41) and (42),
after some simple algebras, we obtain the following set of exact equations for
the screening factors (41) and (42)
$\sum_{j_{1}j^{\prime}_{1}}\bigg{[}\delta_{jj_{1}}\delta_{j^{\prime}j_{1}^{\prime}}-\sum_{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\big{(}U_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}U_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}-Z_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}W_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\big{)}\bigg{]}x_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}+\sum_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}\mu\mu^{\prime}}\big{(}U_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}W_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}-Z_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}U_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\big{)}y_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}$
$=\sum_{\mu}{\cal Y}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal
Y}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}+\sum_{j^{\prime\prime}\mu\mu^{\prime}}{\cal
Y}_{j^{\prime\prime}}^{\mu}\big{(}U_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}{\cal
Y}_{j^{\prime\prime}}^{\mu^{\prime}}-Z_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}{\cal
X}_{j^{\prime\prime}}^{\mu^{\prime}}\big{)}~{},$ (47)
$\sum_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}\mu\mu^{\prime}}\big{(}U_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}W_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}-Z_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}U_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\big{)}x_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}+\sum_{j_{1}j^{\prime}_{1}}\bigg{[}\delta_{jj_{1}}\delta_{j^{\prime}j_{1}^{\prime}}-\sum_{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\big{(}U_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}U_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}-Z_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}W_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\big{)}\bigg{]}y_{j_{1}j_{1}^{\prime}}$
$=\sum_{\mu}{\cal Y}_{j}^{\mu}{\cal
X}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}+\sum_{j^{\prime\prime}\mu\mu^{\prime}}{\cal
Y}_{j^{\prime\prime}}^{\mu}\big{(}Z_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}{\cal
Y}_{j^{\prime\prime}}^{\mu^{\prime}}-U_{jj^{\prime}}^{\mu\mu^{\prime}}{\cal
X}_{j^{\prime\prime}}^{\mu^{\prime}}\big{)}~{}.$ (48)
The derivation of the SCQRPA equations at finite temperature is proceeded in
the same way as has been done at $T=$ 0, and is formally identical to Eqs.
(46), (56), and (57) of Ref. SCQRPA so we do not repeat them here. Notice
that the expectation values $\langle{\cal D}_{j}{\cal D}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$
in the submatrices A and B in Eqs. (56) and (57) of Ref. SCQRPA are now
calculated by using Eqs. (26) and (27). The approach that solves the number
and gap equations (25), (29) – (27), as well as equations for the screening
factors (47) and (48) selfconsistently with the SCQRPA ones at $T\neq$ 0,
where all the assumptions i) – iii) cease to hold, is called the FTBCS1+SCQRPA
in the present article. The corresponding approach that includes also PNP
within the LN method is called as FTLN1+SCQRPA.
#### II.4.2 Quasiparticle occupation number
To complete the set of FTBCS1+SCQRPA equations we still need an equation for
the quasiparticle occupation number $n_{j}$ defined in Eq. (28). Here comes
the principal difference of the FTBCS1+SCQRPA compared to the zero-temperature
SCQRPA since $n_{j}$ should be calculated selfconsistently from the SCQRPA
taking into account dynamic coupling between quasiparticles and SCQRPA phonons
at $T\neq$ 0 in an infinite hierarchy of algebraic equations. The
quasiparticle propagator found as the formal solution of this hierarchy of
equations is different from that for free quasiparticles by the mass operator,
which reflects the effects of coupling to complex configurations. Since the
latter cannot be treated exactly, approximations have to be made to close the
hierarchy. Following the same line as in Ref. DaTa , we derive in this section
a set of equations for the quasiparticle propagator and quasiparticle
occupation number $n_{j}$ at $T\neq$ 0 by using the method of double-time
Green’s functions Bogo ; Zubarev . To close the hierarchy of equations, we
lower the order of double-time Green’s functions by applying the standard
decoupling approximation introduced by Bogoliubov and Tyablikov Bogo ; Zubarev
.
By noticing that the only term in the quasiparticle Hamiltonian (3) that
cannot be taken into account within either the BCS theory or the SCQRPA is the
sum containing $g_{j}(j^{\prime})$ functionals, we effectively rewrite
Hamiltonian ${\cal H}$ in Eq. (15) as
${\cal H}_{eff}=\sum_{j}(b^{\prime}_{j}+\sum_{j^{\prime}}q_{jj^{\prime}}{\cal
N}_{j^{\prime}}){\cal N}_{j}+\sum_{\mu}\omega_{\mu}{\cal
Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}{\cal Q}_{\mu}+\sum_{j\mu}V_{j}^{\mu}{\cal N}_{j}({\cal
Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}+{\cal Q}_{\mu})~{}.$ (49)
The first sum at the right-hand side of this representation describes the part
of the quasiparticle Hamiltonian (3), which cannot be expressed in terms of
phonon operators (37). Within the BCS theory, where the part containing
$q_{jj^{\prime}}$ does not contribute whereas the term $\sim Gv_{j}^{4}$ and
the QNF are neglected, one obtains $b^{\prime}_{j}=E_{j}$. In this case, this
sum corresponds to the quasiparticle mean field. The second sum describes the
SCQRPA Hamiltonian after solving the SCQRPA equations, which give the
amplitudes ${\cal X}_{j}^{\mu}$, ${\cal Y}^{\mu}_{j}$, and the SCQRPA energies
$\omega_{\mu}$. The last sum represents the coupling between the quasiparticle
and phonon fields, which is left out from the BCS (FTBCS1) and the QRPA
(SCQRPA). This sum is rewritten here in terms of ${\cal N}_{j}$ and SCQRPA
operators by using the inverse transformation (39). The vertex $V_{j}^{\mu}$
obtained after this transformation has the form
$V_{j}^{\mu}=\sum_{j^{\prime}}g_{j}(j^{\prime})\sqrt{\langle{\cal
D}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle}({\cal X}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}+{\cal
Y}_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu})~{}.$ (50)
Given that ${\cal N}_{j}$ commutes with ${\cal Q}^{\dagger}_{\mu}$ within the
SCQRPA, such effective representation of the quasiparticle Hamiltonian causes
no double counting between the first two sums at the right-hand side of Eq.
(49), but becomes convenient for the derivation of the quasiparticle Green’s
function, which includes the coupling to SCQRPA modes, because the first sum
is activated only in the quasiparticle space, whereas the second sum functions
only in the phonon space.
Following closely the procedure described in Section 8.1 of Ref. Zubarev , we
introduce the double-time retarded Green’s functions, which describe
a) The quasiparticle propagation:
$G_{j}(t-t^{\prime})=\langle\langle\alpha_{j}(t);\alpha^{\dagger}_{j}(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle~{},$
(51)
b) Quasiparticle-phonon coupling:
${\Gamma}_{j\mu}^{-}(t-t^{\prime})=\langle\langle\alpha_{j}(t){\cal
Q}_{\mu}(t);\alpha^{\dagger}_{j}(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle~{},\hskip
14.22636pt{\Gamma}_{j\mu}^{+}(t-t^{\prime})=\langle\langle\alpha_{j}(t){\cal
Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}(t);\alpha^{\dagger}_{j}(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle~{}.$ (52)
The magnetic quantum number $m$ in $\alpha_{jm}^{\dagger}$ and $\alpha_{jm}$
is omitted hereafter for simplicity as the results below do not depend on $m$.
The definitions (51) and (52) use the standard notation
$G_{r}(t-t^{\prime})=\langle\langle
A(t);B(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle\equiv-i\theta(t-t^{\prime})\langle[A(t),B(t^{\prime})]\rangle$
for the double-time retarded Green’s function $G_{r}(t-t^{\prime})$ built from
operators $A(t)$ at time $t$ and $B(t^{\prime})$ at time $t^{\prime}$. The
advantage of using the double-time retarded Green’s function is that this type
of Green’s function can be analytically continued into the complex energy
plane. The imaginary part of the mass operator in this analytic continuation
corresponds to the quasiparticle damping caused by the quasiparticle-phonon
coupling. This method is free from any constraints of perturbation theory.
Applying the standard method of deriving the equation of motion for the
double-time Green’s function, namely
$i\frac{\partial G_{r}(t-t^{\prime})}{\partial
t}=\delta(t-t^{\prime})\langle[A(t),B(t)]_{\pm}\rangle+\langle\langle[A(t),H(t)];B(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle~{},$
(53)
to the Green’s functions (51) and (52) with the effective Hamiltonian (49), we
find for them a set of three exact equations
$i\frac{\partial G_{j}(t-t^{\prime})}{\partial
t}=\delta(t-t^{\prime})+\widetilde{E_{j}}G_{j}(t-t^{\prime})+\sum_{\mu}V_{j}^{\mu}\big{[}\Gamma_{j\mu}^{-}(t-t^{\prime})+\Gamma_{j\mu}^{+}(t-t^{\prime})\big{]}~{},$
(54) $i\frac{\partial\Gamma_{j\mu}^{-}(t-t^{\prime})}{\partial
t}=(\widetilde{E}_{j}+\omega_{\mu})\Gamma_{j\mu}^{-}(t-t^{\prime})+\sum_{\mu^{\prime}}V_{j}^{\mu^{\prime}}\langle\langle\alpha_{j}(t)\big{[}{\cal
Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}^{\dagger}(t)+{\cal Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}(t)\big{]}{\cal
Q}_{\mu}(t);\alpha^{\dagger}_{j}(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle$
$+\sum_{j^{\prime}}V_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}\langle\langle\alpha_{j}(t){\cal
N}_{j^{\prime}}(t);\alpha^{\dagger}(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle~{},$ (55)
$i\frac{\partial\Gamma_{j\mu}^{+}(t-t^{\prime})}{\partial
t}=(\widetilde{E}_{j}-\omega_{\mu})\Gamma_{j\mu}^{+}(t-t^{\prime})+\sum_{\mu^{\prime}}V_{j}^{\mu^{\prime}}\langle\langle\alpha_{j}(t)\big{[}{\cal
Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}^{\dagger}(t)+{\cal Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}(t)\big{]}{\cal
Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}(t);\alpha^{\dagger}_{j}(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle$
$-\sum_{j^{\prime}}V_{j^{\prime}}^{\mu}\langle\langle\alpha_{j}(t){\cal
N}_{j^{\prime}}(t);\alpha^{\dagger}(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle~{},$ (56)
where
$\widetilde{E}_{j}=b^{\prime}_{j}+q_{jj}~{}.$ (57)
The last two equations, Eqs. (55) and (56), from this set contain higher-order
Green’s functions, which should be decoupled so that the set can be closed.
Following the method proposed by Bogoliubov and Tyablikov Bogo , we decouple
the higher-order Green’s functions at the right-hand side of Eqs. (55) and
(56) by pairing off operators referring to the same time, namely
$\langle\langle\alpha_{j}(t)\big{[}{\cal Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}^{\dagger}(t)+{\cal
Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}(t)\big{]}{\cal
Q}_{\mu}(t);\alpha^{\dagger}_{j}(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle\simeq\delta_{\mu\mu^{\prime}}\nu_{\mu}G_{j}(t-t^{\prime})~{},$
$\langle\langle\alpha_{j}(t)\big{[}{\cal Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}^{\dagger}(t)+{\cal
Q}_{\mu^{\prime}}(t)\big{]}{\cal
Q}_{\mu}^{\dagger}(t);\alpha^{\dagger}_{j}(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle\simeq\delta_{\mu\mu^{\prime}}(1+\nu_{\mu})G_{j}(t-t^{\prime})~{},$
(58) $\langle\langle\alpha_{j}(t){\cal
N}_{j^{\prime}}(t);\alpha^{\dagger}(t^{\prime})\rangle\rangle\simeq\delta_{jj^{\prime}}(1-n_{j})G_{j}(t-t^{\prime})~{}.$
As the result of this decoupling, Eqs. (55) and (56) become
$i\frac{\partial\Gamma_{j\mu}^{-}(t-t^{\prime})}{\partial
t}=(\widetilde{E}_{j}+\omega_{\mu})\Gamma_{j\mu}^{-}(t-t^{\prime})+V_{j}^{\mu}(1-n_{j}+\nu_{\mu})G_{j}(t-t^{\prime})~{},$
(59) $i\frac{\partial\Gamma_{j\mu}^{+}(t-t^{\prime})}{\partial
t}=(\widetilde{E}_{j}-\omega_{\mu})\Gamma_{j\mu}^{+}(t-t^{\prime})+V_{j}^{\mu}(n_{j}+\nu_{\mu})G_{j}(t-t^{\prime})~{},$
(60)
Taking the the Fourier transforms of Eqs. (54), (59), and (60) into the
(complex) energy variable $E$, one obtains three equations for three Green’s
functions $G_{j}(E)$, $\Gamma^{-}_{j\mu}(E)$, and $\Gamma^{+}_{j\mu}(E)$.
Eliminating two functions $\Gamma^{\pm}_{j\mu}(E)$ by expressing them in terms
of $G_{j}(E)$ and inserting the results obtained into the equation for
$G_{j}(E)$, we find the final equation for the quasiparticle Green’s function
$G_{j}(E)$ in the form
$G_{j}(E)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{1}{E-\widetilde{E}_{j}-M_{j}(E)}~{},$ (61)
where the mass operator $M_{j}(E)$ is given as
$M_{j}(E)=\sum_{\mu}(V_{j}^{\mu})^{2}\bigg{[}\frac{1-n_{j}+\nu_{\mu}}{E-\widetilde{E}_{j}-\omega_{\mu}}+\frac{n_{j}+\nu_{\mu}}{E-\widetilde{E}_{j}+\omega_{\mu}}\bigg{]}~{}.$
(62)
In the complex energy plane $E=\omega\pm i\varepsilon$ ($\omega$ real), the
mass operator (62) can be written as
$M_{j}(\omega\pm i\varepsilon)=M_{j}(\omega)\mp i\gamma_{j}(\omega)~{},$ (63)
where
$M_{j}(\omega)=\sum_{\mu}(V_{j}^{\mu})^{2}\bigg{[}\frac{(1-n_{j}+\nu_{\mu})(\omega-\widetilde{E}_{j}-\omega_{\mu})}{(\omega-\widetilde{E}_{j}-\omega_{\mu})^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}}+\frac{(n_{j}+\nu_{\mu})(\omega-\widetilde{E}_{j}+\omega_{\mu})}{(\omega-\widetilde{E}_{j}+\omega_{\mu})^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}}\bigg{]}~{},$
(64)
$\gamma_{j}(\omega)=\varepsilon\sum_{\mu}(V_{j}^{\mu})^{2}\bigg{[}\frac{1-n_{j}+\nu_{\mu}}{(\omega-\widetilde{E}_{j}-\omega_{\mu})^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}}+\frac{n_{j}+\nu_{\mu}}{(\omega-\widetilde{E}_{j}+\omega_{\mu})^{2}+\varepsilon^{2}}\bigg{]}~{}.$
(65)
The spectral intensity $J_{j}(\omega)$ of quasiparticles is found from the
relation
$G_{j}(\omega+i\varepsilon)-G_{j}(\omega-i\varepsilon)=-iJ_{j}(\omega)(e^{\beta\omega}+1)~{},$
(66)
and has the final form as Bogo ; Zubarev
$J_{j}(\omega)=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{\gamma_{j}(\omega)(e^{\beta\omega}+1)^{-1}}{[\omega-\widetilde{E}_{j}-M_{j}(\omega)]^{2}+\gamma_{j}^{2}(\omega)}~{}.$
(67)
Using Eq. (67), we find the quasiparticle occupation number $n_{j}$ as the
limit $t=t^{\prime}$ of the correlation function
$\langle\alpha_{j}^{\dagger}(t^{\prime})\alpha_{j}(t)\rangle=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}J_{j}(\omega)e^{-i\omega(t-t^{\prime})}dt~{}.$
(68)
The final result reads
$n_{j}=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\gamma_{j}(\omega)(e^{\beta\omega}+1)^{-1}}{[\omega-\widetilde{E}_{j}-M_{j}(\omega)]^{2}+\gamma_{j}^{2}(\omega)}d\omega~{}.$
(69)
In the limit of small quasiparticle damping $\gamma_{j}(\omega)\rightarrow$ 0,
the spectral intensity $J_{j}(\omega)$ becomes a $\delta$-function, and
$n_{j}$ can be approximated with the Fermi-Dirac distribution
$[\exp(\beta{E}_{j}^{\prime})+1]^{-1}$ at
$\gamma_{j}({E}_{j}^{\prime})\rightarrow 0$ , where $E_{j}^{\prime}$ is the
solution of the equation for the pole of the quasiparticle Green’s function
$G_{j}(\omega)$, namely
$E^{\prime}_{j}-\widetilde{E}_{j}-M_{j}(E^{\prime}_{j})=0~{}$, whereas the
quasiparticle damping at $\omega=E^{\prime}_{j}$ due to quasiparticle-phonon
coupling is given by $\gamma_{j}(E^{\prime}_{j})$.
We have derived a closed set of Eqs. (64), (65), and (69) for the energy shift
$M_{j}$, damping $\gamma_{j}$, and occupation number $n_{j}$ of
quasiparticles. which should be solved self-consistently with the SCQRPA
equations at $T\neq$ 0 with the screening factors calculated from Eqs. (47)
and (48). The quasiparticle occupation number $n_{j}$ obtained in this way is
used to determine the pairing gap from Eq. (29). These equations form the
complete set of the FTBCS1+SCQRPA equations for the pairing Hamiltonian (1),
where the dynamic effect of quasiparticle-phonon coupling is self-consistently
taken into account in the calculation of quasiparticle occupation numbers.
## III ANALYSIS OF NUMERICAL RESULTS
### III.1 Ingredients of calculations
We test the developed approach by carrying out numerical calculations within a
schematic model as well as realistic single-particle spectra. For the
schematic model, we employ the Richardson model having $\Omega$ doubly-folded
equidistant levels with the number $\Omega$ of levels equal to that of
particles, $N$. This particle-hole symmetric case is called the half-filled
one as in the absence of the pairing interaction ($G=$ 0), all the lowest
$\Omega/2$ levels are occupied by $N$ particles with 2 particles on each
level. The level distance is taken to be 1 MeV to have the single particle
energies $\epsilon_{j}=j$ MeV with $j=1,\ldots,\Omega$. The results of
calculations carried out within the FTBCS1, FTLN1, FTBCS1+SCQRPA, and
FTLN1+SCQRPA at various $N$ and $G$ will be analyzed. As this model can be
solved exactly Volya , for the sake of an illustrative example, we will
compare the predictions by these approximations with the exact results
obtained for $N=$ 10 and $G=$ 0.4 MeV after extending the latter to finite
temperature. Such extension is carried out by averaging the exact eigenvalues
over the canonical ensemble of $N$ particles MBCS3 .
For the test in realistic nuclei, 56Fe and 120Sn, the neutron single-particle
spectra for the bound states are obtained within the Woods-Saxon potentials at
$T=$ 0, and kept unchanged as $T$ varies. The parameters of the Woods-Saxon
potential for 120Sn take the following values: $V=$ -42.5 MeV, $V_{\rm ls}=$
16.7 MeV, $a=a_{\rm ls}=$ 0.7 fm, $R=$ 6.64 fm, and $R_{\rm ls}=$ 6.46 fm. The
full neutron spectrum for 120Sn spans an energy interval from around $-$37 to
7.5 MeV for 120Sn. From this spectrum the calculations use all 22 bound
orbitals with the top bound orbital, $1i_{13/2}$, at energy of $-$0.478. For
56Fe, as we would like to compare the results of our approach with the
predictions by the finite-temperature quantum Monte Carlo (FTQMC) method
reported in Ref. QMC , the same single-particle energies from Table 1 of Ref.
QMC for 56Fe and the same values for G therein are used in calculations.
Given the large number of results reported in Ref. QMC , we choose to show
here only one illustrative example for the $pf$ shell.
The main quantities under study in the numerical analysis are the level-
weighted gap
$\overline{\Delta}=\frac{\sum_{j}\Omega_{j}\Delta_{j}}{\Omega_{j}}~{},$ (70)
total energy ${\cal E}=\langle{H}\rangle$, and heat capacity $C=\partial{\cal
E}/\partial{T}$. By using PNP within the LN method, the internal energy has an
additional term due to particle-number fluctuations $\Delta N^{2}$ LN , namely
${\cal E}^{\rm LN1}=\langle H\rangle-\lambda_{2}\Delta N^{2}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt\Delta N^{2}=\langle\hat{N}^{2}\rangle-N^{2}~{}.$ (71)
Within the FTLN1, the particle-number fluctuations $\Delta N^{2}$ consist of
the quantal fluctuation, $\Delta N^{2}_{\rm QF}$, and statistical one, $\Delta
N^{2}_{\rm SF}$, which are calculated following Eqs. (16) and (17) in Ref.
DangZ , respectively. Within the FTLN1+SCQRPA, a term $\delta N_{\rm SC}$ due
to the screening factors should be added, so that
${\Delta N^{2}}=\Delta N^{2}_{\rm QF}+\Delta N^{2}_{\rm SF}+\delta N_{\rm
SC}~{},\hskip 14.22636pt\delta N_{\rm
SC}=8\sum_{jj^{\prime}}\sqrt{\Omega_{j}\Omega_{j^{\prime}}}u_{j}v_{j}u_{j^{\prime}}v_{j^{\prime}}\big{[}\langle{\cal
A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle+\langle{\cal
A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle\big{]}~{}.$ (72)
The integration in Eq. (69) is carried out within the energy interval
$-\omega_{\rm L}\leq\omega\leq\omega_{\rm L}$ with $\omega_{\rm L}=$ 100 MeV
and a mesh point $\Delta\omega\leq$ 0.02 MeV. Since the integration limit is
finite, the integral (69) is normalized by $\int_{-\omega_{\rm
L}}^{\omega_{\rm L}}J_{j}(\omega)[{\rm exp}(\beta\omega)+1]d\omega$. The
results obtained within the FTBCS1+SCQRPA (FTLN1+SCQRPA) by using a smearing
parameter $\varepsilon\leq$ 0.2 MeV [in calculating the mass operator (64) and
quasiparticle damping (65)] are analyzed. They remain practically the same
with varying $\varepsilon$ up to around 0.5 MeV.
### III.2 Results within Richardson model
#### III.2.1 Effect of quasiparticle-number fluctuation
Figure 1: (Color on line) Level-weighted pairing gaps $\overline{\Delta}$
obtained within the FTBCS1 as functions of temperature $T$ at various values
of pairing parameter $G$ (in MeV) indicated by the figures near the lines for
several values of particle number $N$. Open circles on the axes of abscissas
in panels (a) and (b) mark the values $T_{1}$ of temperature, where the FTBCS1
gap turns finite at low $G$. Full circles denote temperature
$\widetilde{T}_{\rm c}$, where the gap vanishes, and $T_{2}$, where it
reappears.
It is well known that, below a critical value $G_{\rm c}$ of the pairing
interaction parameter, the conventional BCS theory has only a trivial solution
($\Delta=$ 0). At $G>G_{\rm c}$, the FTBCS gap decreases with increasing $T$
up to a critical value of $T=T_{\rm c}$, where it collapses, and the system
undergoes a sharp SN-phase transition. The behavior of the pairing gap within
the FTBCS1 theory can be inferred from Eq. (31). As a matter of fact, the
increase of the QNF $\delta{\cal N}^{2}_{j}$ with $T$ leads to an increase of
$\widetilde{G}_{j}$, whose consequences are qualitatively different depending
on the magnitude of $G$ and particle number $N$. These features can be seen in
Fig. 1, where the level-weighted pairing gaps $\overline{\Delta}$ obtained
within the FTBCS1 theory at various values of the pairing interaction
parameter $G$ for several particle numbers are displayed as functions of
temperature $T$. They can be classified in three regions below.
In the region of strong coupling, $G\gg G_{\rm c}$, where the BCS equations
have non-trivial solutions at $T=0$, and $\delta{\cal N}^{2}_{j}$ is
sufficiently large so that $\widetilde{G}_{j}\gg G$, the gap $\Delta_{j}$ in
Eq. (31) never collapses since whenever $T$ reaches the value $T_{\rm c}$
where the BCS gap obtained with parameter $G$ collapses, the gap $\Delta_{j}$
is always positive given $\widetilde{G}_{j}\gg G$ with a renormalized critical
temperature $\widetilde{T}_{\rm c}\gg T_{\rm c}$. In this way, the sharp SN-
phase transition never occurs as $\Delta_{j}$ remains always finite at $T_{\rm
c}\leq T\ll\widetilde{T}_{\rm c}$ with $\widetilde{T}_{\rm c}$ continuously
becoming larger with $T$. If $G$ is sufficiently large the QNF may become so
large at high $T$ that the level-dependent part $\delta\Delta_{j}$ in Eqs.
(29) and (30) starts to dominate and the total gap $\Delta_{j}$ will even
increase with $T$. This effect is stronger when the particle number is
smaller. As seen in Fig. 1, in contrast to the FTBCS gap, which collapses at
$T_{\rm c}$, the FTBCS1 gaps shown as the thick solid lines are always finite.
For $N\geq$ 6, the gaps decrease monotonously as $T$ increases up to $T=$ 4
MeV. This feature qualitatively agrees with the findings within alternative
approaches to thermal fluctuations mentioned in the Introduction.
In the region of weak coupling, $G\leq G_{\rm c}$, where the pairing gap is
zero at $T=$ 0, the increase of $\widetilde{G}_{j}$ with $T$ makes it becomes
significantly greater than $G_{\rm c}$ at a certain $T=T_{\rm 1}$, allowing a
non-trivial solution of the gap equation. This feature is demonstrated by the
dotted lines in Figs. 1 (a) and 1 (b), where $T_{1}$ ($>$ 2 MeV) is marked by
an open circle. Since the difference between the FTBCS1 gap $\Delta_{j}$ and
the conventional FTBCS one, $\Delta$, is the gap $\delta\Delta_{j}$ in Eqs.
(29) and (30), which arises because of the QNF $\delta{\cal N}^{2}_{j}$, it is
obvious that the finite gap at $T\geq T_{1}$ is assisted by the QNF.
In the transitional region, where $G$ is slightly larger than $G_{\rm c}$, it
may happens that, although $\delta{\cal N}_{j}^{2}$ increases with $T$, it is
still too small so that $\widetilde{G}_{j}$ is only slightly larger than $G$,
and so is $\widetilde{T}_{\rm c}$ compared to $T_{\rm c}$. As a result, the
gap collapses at $T=\widetilde{T}_{\rm c}$ which is slightly larger than
$T_{\rm c}$. As $T$ increases further, the mechanism of the weak-coupling
region is in effect, which leads to the reappearance of the gap at
$T=T_{2}>\widetilde{T}_{\rm c}$. In Fig. 1, these values $\widetilde{T}_{\rm
c}$ and $T_{2}$ are denoted by full circles on the axes of absiccas for the
cases with $N=$ 6, 10, 20, 50 with $G=$ 0.6, 0.4, 0.3, and 0.24 MeV,
respectively. With increasing $G$, it is seen that $\widetilde{T}_{\rm c}$
increases whereas $T_{2}$ decreases so that at a certain $G$ these two
temperatures coalesce. The value $G_{\rm M}$ where $\widetilde{T}_{\rm
c}=T_{2}=T_{\rm M}$ is found to be 0.651, 0.51815, 0.40205 and 0.3095 MeV for
$N=$ 6, 10, 20 and 50, respectively, i.e. decreases with increasing $N$. The
gap obtained with $G=G_{\rm M}$ is seen decreasing with increasing $T$ from 0
to $T_{\rm M}$, where it becomes zero. Starting from $T_{\rm M}$ the gap
increases again with $T$. The value $T_{\rm M}$ is found increasing with $T$
from $T_{\rm M}\simeq$ 1.2 MeV for $N=$ 6 to $T_{\rm M}\simeq$ 1.7 MeV for
$N=$ 50\. At $G>G_{\rm M}$ the gap remains finite at any value of $T$. For
small $N$, the strong QNF even leads to an increase of the gap with $T$ at
high $T$ as seen in the cases with $N=$ 6, and $G_{\rm M}<G\leq$ 1.2 MeV. With
increasing $N$ the high-$T$ tail of the gap gets depleted, showing how the QNF
weakens at large $N$.
The curious behavior of the level-weighted gap at weak coupling, where it
appears at a certain $T=T_{1}$, and in the transitional region, where it
collapses at $\widetilde{T}_{\rm c}$ and reappears at $T_{2}$, may have been
caused by the well-known inadequacy of the BCS approximation (and BCS-based
approaches) for weak pairing Ring . Even at $T=$ 0, Ref. Volya has shown
that, whereas the exact solution predicts a condensation energy of almost 2
MeV in the doubly-closed shell 48Ca, the BCS gives a normal Fermi-gas solution
with zero pairing energy. It is expected that a proper PNP such as the number-
projected HFB approach in Ref. Sheikh , if it can be practically extended to
$T\neq$ 0, will eventually smooth out the transition points $T_{1}$ as well as
$\tilde{T}_{\rm c}$ and $T_{2}$ in Fig. 1.
Figure 2: (Color on line) Level-dependent pairing gap $\Delta_{j}$ (29) and
level-weighted pairing gap $\overline{\Delta}$ (70) obtained within the FTBCS1
as functions of temperature $T$ for $N=$ 20 and $G=$ 0.44 MeV. Thick solid
lines represent the level-weighted gaps $\overline{\Delta}$. Thin solid lines
denote the level-dependent gaps $\Delta_{j}$ corresponding to the $j$-th
orbitals, whose level numbers $j$ are marked at the lines. Dashed and dotted
lines stand for the level-independent part (quantal component), $\Delta$, and
the level-dependent one (thermal component), $\delta\Delta_{j}$, of the FTBCS1
gap $\Delta_{j}$ (29), respectively.
To have an insight into the source that causes the high-$T$ tail of the FTBCS1
gap we plot in Fig. 2 the examples for the level-weighted gaps
$\overline{\Delta}$ (70) along with the level-dependent gaps $\Delta_{j}$
(29), which are obtained for $N=$ 20 and $G=$ 0.44 MeV. It is seen from this
figure that the level-independent part (quantal component) $\Delta$ of the gap
[dashed lines in Fig. 2 (b)] also has a high-$T$ tail although it is much
depleted compared to the total gap $\Delta_{j}$, which includes the level-
dependent part $\delta\Delta_{j}$. This figure also reveals that the QNF has
the strongest effect on the levels closest to the Fermi surface, which are the
10th and 11th levels. In this figure, the results for the 11th level are not
showed as they coincide with those for the 10th one due to the particle-hole
symmetry, which is well preserved within the FTBCS1. For the rest of levels,
the effect of QNF is much weaker. With increasing the particle number $N$, the
number of levels away from the Fermi surface becomes larger, whose
contribution in the gap $\overline{\Delta}$ outweighs that of the levels
closest to the Fermi surface. This explains why the high-$T$ tail of the
level-weighted gap $\overline{\Delta}$ is depleted at large $N$. When $N$
becomes very large, this tail practically vanishes as the total effect of QNF
becomes negligible. In this limit, the temperature dependence of the pairing
gap approaches that predicted by the standard BCS theory, which is well valid
for infinite systems.
#### III.2.2 Corrections due to particle-number projection and SCQRPA
Figure 3: (Color on line) Level-weighted pairing gaps (a, d), total energies
(b, e), and heat capacities (c, f) as functions of temperature $T$, obtained
for $N=$ 10 [(a) – (c)], and $N=$ 50 [(d) – (f)]. The dotted, thin solid,
thick solid lines show the FTBCS, FTBCS1, and FTBCS1+SCQRPA results,
respectively. The predictions by the FTLN1 and FTLN1+SCQRPA are presented by
the thin and thick dashed lines, respectively. The dash-dotted lines in (a) –
(c) denote the exact results. The calculations of the mass operator and
quasiparticle damping within the SCQRPA were performed using $\varepsilon=$
0.05 MeV.
Show in Fig. 3 are the level-weighted pairing gaps $\overline{\Delta}$, total
energies ${\cal E}$, and heat capacities $C$, obtained within the FTBCS,
FTBCS1, FTLN1, FTBCS1+SCQRPA, and FTLN1+SCQRPA for the systems with $N=$ 10
($G=$ 0.4 MeV) and $N=$ 50 ($G=$ 0.3 MeV). As we want to see the effect of QNF
for the case with small $\Delta(T=0)$ without any phase transition points at
$\widetilde{T}_{\rm c}$ and $T_{2}$, we choose to neglect, for this particular
test, the self-energy term $-Gv_{j}^{2}$ in the single-particle energy. For
$N=$ 10 e.g., this increases the gap at $T=$ 0 by around 14$\%$, to around 0.8
MeV, but the change in the total energy is found to be negligible. Different
from the common practice, which usually neglects the terms
$\sim-G\sum_{j}\Omega_{j}v_{j}^{4}$ in calculating the total energy ${\cal
E}$, the latter is calculated in the present article by averaging the complete
pairing Hamiltonian (3). For $N=$ 10 and $G=$ 0.4 MeV e.g., this causes a
shift of total energy down by around 2 MeV ($\sim 8\%$) and 1 MeV ($\sim
10.4\%$) at $T=$ 0 and 4 MeV, respectively.
As has been discussed in Sec. II.3.2, Fig. 3 demonstrates that, although the
LN method significantly improves the agreement between the predictions by the
FTBCS1 theory with the exact results for the pairing gap and total energy at
low $T$, it fails to do so at $T\geq T_{\rm c}$, where all approximated
results for the pairing gap coalesce and clearly differ from the exact result
(for $N=$ 10). The reason is partly due to the fact that, strictly speaking,
there is no pairing gap in the exact solution MBCS3 . The dash-dotted line,
representing the exact result in Fig. 3 (a) is the effective gap (canonical
gap) extracted from the pairing energy. The latter is the difference between
the exact total energy and the that of the single-particle mean field (Hartre-
Fock) energies. The canonical gap includes correlations caused by the
fluctuations of the order parameter, only a part of which is taken into
account within the FTBCS1 in terms of QNF. It reduces to the BCS pairing gap
only within the mean field approximation and the grand canonical ensemble
The corrections caused by the SCQRPA are found to be significant for small $N$
($N=$ 10), in particular for the pairing gap in the region $T_{\rm c}<T<$ 1.5
MeV [Fig. 3 (a)]. At $T<T_{\rm c}$, the predictions by the FTLN1+SCQRPA are
closer to the exact results than those by the FTBCS1+SCQRPA. At $T>T_{\rm c}$
both approximations offer nearly the same results. They produce the total
energies and heat capacities, which are much closer to the exact values as
compared to the FTBCS1 and FTLN1 results, as shown in Figs. 3 (b) and 3 (c).
What remarkable here is that the SCQRPA correction indeed smears out all the
trace of the SN phase transition in the pairing gap as well as energy and heat
capacity.
For large $N$ ($N=$ 50), the effect of SCQRPA corrections is much smaller,
although still visible. It depletes the spike, which is the signature of the
SN phase transition around $T_{\rm c}$ in the heat capacity, leaving only a
broad bump between 0 $<T<$ 2 MeV [Fig. 3 (f)]. The exact results are not
available because, for large particle numbers, one faces technical problems of
diagonalizing matrices of huge dimension, all the eigenvalues of which should
be included in the partition function to describe correctly the total energy
and heat capacity.
### III.3 Results by using realistic single-particle spectra
Figure 4: (Color on line) Level-weighted pairing gaps, total energies, and
heat capacities for 10 neutrons in the $1f_{7/2}2p_{3/2}2p_{1/2}1f_{5/2}$
shell of 56Fe and all neutron bound states of 120Sn as functions of $T$
($\varepsilon=$ 0.1 MeV). Notations are as in Fig. 3. In (b) and (c), the
predictions by the finite-temperature quantum Monte Carlo method QMC are
shown as boxes and crosses with error bars connected by dash-dotted lines.
The level-weighted gaps, total energies, and heat capacities, obtained for
neutrons in 56Fe and 120Sn within the same approximations are displayed as
functions of $T$ in Fig. 4. The results of calculations for 10 neutrons in the
$1f_{7/2}2p_{3/2}2p_{1/2}1f_{5/2}$ shell using $G=$ 25/26 MeV are plotted in
Figs. 4 (a) – 4 (c) as functions of $T$ within the same temperature interval
as that in Ref. QMC . They clearly show that the SCQRPA corrections bring the
FTBCS1 (FTLN1)+SCQRPA results closer to the predictions by the FTQMC method
for the total energy and heat capacity (No results for the pairing gap are
available within the FTQMC method in Ref. QMC ). In heavy nuclei, such as
120Sn, the effects caused by the SCQRPA corrections are rather small on the
pairing gap and total energy. In both nuclei, the pairing gaps do not collapse
at $T=T_{\rm c}$, but monotonously decrease with increasing $T$, and the
signature of the sharp SN-phase transition seen as a spike at $T=T_{\rm c}$ in
the heat capacities is strongly smoothed out within the FTBCS1+SCQRPA.
### III.4 Self-consistent and statistical treatments of quasiparticle
occupation numbers
Figure 5: (Color on line) Quasiparticle occupation numbers for $N=$ 10 with
$G=$ 0.4 MeV (a, b) and 120Sn with $G=$ 0.137 MeV (c) as functions of $T$. In
(a) and (b) the solid lines are predictions within FTBCS1+SCQRPA for the
levels numerated by the numbers in the circles starting from the lowest ones.
The dashed lines, numerated by the italic numbers, show the corresponding
results obtained within the FTBCS1. In (c) predictions for the neutron
orbitals of the (50 - 82) shell in 120Sn, obtained within the FTBCS1 and
FTBCS1+SCQRPA, are shown as the dashed and solid lines, respectively.
The quasiparticle occupation numbers $n_{j}$ as predicted by the FTBCS1 and
FTBCS1+SCQRPA for all quasiparticle levels in the system with $N=$ 10, $G=$
0.4 MeV, and for the orbitals within the (50 - 82) shell in 120Sn ($G=$ 0.137
MeV) are shown in Fig. 5 as functions of $T$. While the $ph$ symmetry is
preserved within the FTBCS1 ($n_{j}=n_{j}^{\rm FD}$) in the sense that the
values for $n_{j}^{\rm FD}$ are identical for the single-particle levels
located symmetrically from the Fermi level [Compare the dashed lines in Figs.
5 (a) and 5 (b)], it is no longer the case after taking into account dynamic
coupling to SCQRPA vibrations. This is particularly clear in light systems
[See the solid lines in Figs. 5 (a) and 5 (b)]. This deviation of $n_{j}$ from
the Fermi-Dirac distribution of free quasiparticles, however, turns out to be
quite small in realistic heavy nuclei, such as 120Sn, as shown in Fig. 5 (c).
### III.5 Comparison between FTBCS1 and MBCS
In Refs. MBCS1 ; MBCS2 ; MBCS3 ; MBCS4 the MBCS theory has been developed,
which also produces a nonvanishing pairing gap at high $T$. Therefore, it is
worthwhile to draw a comparison between the MBCS theory and the present one.
Both approaches include the same QNF (27) as the microscopic source, which
smoothes out the sharp SN-phase transition and leads to the high-$T$ tail of
the pairing gap. This high-$T$ tail has been shown to be sensitive to the size
of the configuration space in either approach. However, due to different
assumptions in these two approaches, the functional dependences of
$\delta\Delta_{j}$ on the QNF $\delta{\cal N}_{j}^{2}$ are different. As a
result, the FTBCS1 gap is level-dependent, whereas the MBCS one is not. The
most important advantage of the FTBCS1 over the MBCS theory is that the
solution of the FTBCS1 gap equation (29) is never negative. Moreover, at
moderate and strong couplings, where the FTBCS1 gap is finite, its behavior as
a function of temperature bears no singularities in any configuration spaces
for any value of $N\geq$ 2\. The MBCS gap, on the other hand, is free from
singularities only up to a certain temperature $T_{\rm M}$, which is around
1.75 – 2.3 MeV within the Richardson model with $\Omega=N=$ 10 and increases
almost linearly with $N$ to reach $T_{\rm M}\simeq$ 24 MeV for $\Omega=N=$ 100
MBCS3 (For detail discussions see Refs. MBCS3 ; MBCS4 and references
therein). However, the mean-field contraction used to factorize the QNF within
the FTBCS1 to the form (27) may have left out some higher-order fluctuations,
which can enhance the total effect of the QNF. It might also be the reason
that causes the phase transition temperatures $T_{1}$, $\widetilde{T}_{\rm c}$
and $T_{2}$ at weak coupling and in the transitional region, discussed in Sec.
III.2.1. Meanwhile, the MBCS theory is based on the strict requirement of
restoring the unitarity relation for the generalized single-particle density
matrix MHFB , which brings in the QNF $\delta{\cal N}_{j}^{2}$ (27) without
the need of using a mean-field contraction. As a result, the effect of QNF
within the MBCS theory is stronger than that predicted within the FTBCS1
and/or FTBCS1+SCQRPA, which can be clearly seen by comparing, e.g., Fig. 4 (d)
above and Fig. 4 of Ref. MHFB . Whether this means that the secondary
Bogoliubov’s transformation properly includes or exaggerates the effect of
coupling to configurations beyond the quasiparticle mean field within the MBCS
theory remains to be investigated. Another question is also open on whether
the MBCS theory can be improved by coupling the modified quasiparticles to the
modified QRPA vibrations. The answer to these issues may be a subject for
future study.
## IV CONCLUSIONS
The present work extends the BCS1+SCQRPA theory, derived in Ref. SCQRPA for a
multilevel pairing model, to finite temperature. The resulting FTBCS1+SCQRPA
theory includes the effect of QNF as well as dynamic coupling of
quasiparticles to pairing vibrations. This theory also incorporates the
corrections caused by the particle-number projection within the LN method.
We have carried out a thorough test of the developed approach within the
Richardson model as well as two realistic nuclei, 56Fe and 120Sn. The analysis
of the obtained pairing gaps, total energies, and heat capacities leads to the
following conclusions:
1) The FTBCS1 (with or without SCQRPA corrections) microscopically confirms
that, in the region of moderate and strong couplings, the quasiparticle-number
fluctuation smoothes out the sharp SN phase transition, predicted by the FTBCS
theory. As a result, the gap does not collapse at $T=T_{\rm c}$, but has a
tail, which extends to high temperature $T$.
2) The correction due to the particle-number projection within the LN method
to the pairing gap is significant at $T\ll T_{\rm c}$, which leads to a
steeper temperature dependence of the pairing gap in the region around $T_{\rm
c}$. At the same time, the SCQRPA correction smears out the signature of a
sharp SN phase transition even in heavy realistic nuclei such as 120Sn.
3) The dynamic coupling to SCQRPA vibrations causes the deviation of the
quasiparticle occupation number from the Fermi-Dirac distribution for non-
interacting fermions. However, for a realistic heavy nucleus such as 120Sn,
this deviation is negligible. Consequently, in these nuclei, the FTBCS1 and
FTBCS1+SCQRPA predict similar results for the pairing gap and total energy. At
the same time, for light systems, this deviation is stronger, therefore, the
FTBCS1+SCQRPA offers a better approximation than the FTBCS1 in the study of
thermal pairing properties of these nuclei.
The fact that the total energies and heat capacities obtained within the
FTBCS1+SCQRPA predictions agree reasonably well with the exact results for
$N=$ 10 as well as those obtained within the finite-temperature quantum Monte
Carlo method for 56Fe shows that the FTBCS1+SCQRPA can be applied in further
study of thermal properties of finite systems such as nuclei, where pairing
plays an important role. Compared to existing methods, the merit of the
present approach lies in its fully microscopic derivation and simplicity when
it is applied to heavy nuclei with strong pairing, where the effect of
coupling to SCQRPA is negligible so that the solution of the SCQRPA can be
avoided. In this case, thermal pairing can be determined solely by solving the
FTBCS1 gap equation, which is technically as simple as the FTBCS one, whereas
the exact diagonalization is impracticable (at $T\neq$ 0).
As the next step in improving the developed approach, we will include the
effect of angular momentum in this approach. This study is now underway and
the results will be reported in a forthcoming article Hung .
###### Acknowledgements.
The authors thank Vuong Kim Au of Texas A&M University for valuable
assistance. NQH is a RIKEN Asian Program Associate. The numerical calculations
were carried out using the FORTRAN IMSL Library by Visual Numerics on the
RIKEN Super Combined Cluster (RSCC) system.
## Appendix A Factorization of $\langle{\cal A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$
The factorization of the screening factor $\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$ is not unique as it can be carried out in at least two
ways, which lead to different results. In the first way, one can perform the
mean-field contraction by using the Wick’s theorem (WT) to obtain
$\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle^{\rm
WT}\simeq\delta_{jj^{\prime}}n_{j}^{2}~{}.$ (73)
In the second way, one uses the Holstein-Primakoff’s (HP) boson representation
HP
${\cal
A}_{j}^{\dagger}=b_{j}^{\dagger}\sqrt{1-\frac{b_{j}^{\dagger}b_{j}}{\Omega_{j}}}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt{\cal
A}_{j}=\sqrt{1-\frac{b_{j}^{\dagger}b_{j}}{\Omega_{j}}}b_{j}~{},\hskip
14.22636pt{\cal N}_{j}=2b_{j}^{\dagger}b_{j}~{},$ (74)
with boson operators $b_{j}^{\dagger}$ and $b_{j}$ to obtain
$\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle^{\rm
HP}\simeq\delta_{jj^{\prime}}\Omega_{j}n_{j}(1-2n_{j})~{}.$ (75)
The lowest order of the HP boson representation implies that operators ${\cal
A}_{j}^{\dagger}$ and ${\cal A}_{j}$ are ideal bosons $b_{j}^{\dagger}$ and
$b_{j}$, respectively, i.e. setting ${\cal D}_{j}=$ 1 in Eq. (6). It is in
fact the well-known quasiboson approximation (QBA), which is widely used in
the derivation of the QRPA equations. The QBA leads to
$\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle^{\rm
QBA}\simeq\frac{1}{2}\delta_{jj^{\prime}}\langle{\cal
N}_{j}\rangle=\delta_{jj^{\prime}}\Omega_{j}n_{j}~{}.$ (76)
As for the screening factor $\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{j}{\cal
A}_{j^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle$, it vanishes in these approximations.
Using these results, we obtain the same form of Eq. (29) for the pairing gap,
except that now $\epsilon_{j}^{\prime}=\epsilon_{j}$, and the level-dependent
part $\delta\Delta_{j}$ from Eq. (30) becomes
$\delta\Delta_{j}^{\rm WT}\simeq 2Gu_{j}v_{j}n_{j}~{},$ (77)
$\delta\Delta_{j}^{\rm HP}\simeq
2Gu_{j}v_{j}\frac{n_{j}[1-\Omega_{j}+(2\Omega_{j}-1)n_{j}]}{1-2n_{j}}~{},$
(78) $\delta\Delta_{j}^{\rm QBA}\simeq
2Gu_{j}v_{j}\frac{n_{j}(1-\Omega_{j}-n_{j})}{1-2n_{j}}~{},$ (79)
which correspond to the approximations using the Wick’s theorem, HP
representation, and the QBA, respectively.
Figure 6: (Color on line) Level-weighted gaps for $N=$ 10 with $G=$ 0.4 MeV as
predicted by the WT (dashed), HP (dash-dotted), and QBA (thin dotted)
approximations in comparison with the FTBCS (thick dotted), FTBCS1 (thin
solid), and FTBCS1+SCQRPA (thick solid) results.
The level-weighted gaps $\overline{\Delta}$ obtained for $N=$ 10 and $G=$ 0.4
MeV within these approximations are compared with the FTBCS, FTBCS1 and
FTBCS1+SCQRPA results in Fig. 6. At $T<$ 1 MeV, all three approximations, WT,
HP, and QBA, predict the gaps close to the FTBCS one, but collapse at
different $T_{\rm c}$, namely $T_{\rm c}^{\rm QBA}<T_{\rm c}^{\rm
FTBCS}<T_{\rm c}^{\rm HP}<T_{\rm c}^{\rm WT}$. At $T\simeq$ 1.2 MeV the HP gap
reappears and increases with $T$ to reach the values comparable with those
predicted by the FTBCS1 and FTBCS1+SCQRPA at $T>$ 2 MeV. From this comparison,
one can see that the mean-field contraction (73) for $\langle{\cal
A}_{j}^{\dagger}{\cal A}_{j^{\prime}}\rangle$ includes only a tiny fraction of
the QNF because it produces a finite gap at $T>T_{\rm c}^{\rm FTBCS}\simeq$
0.5 MeV, but this gap collapses again at $T_{\rm c}^{\rm WT}\simeq$ 0.6 MeV.
The HP boson representation, on the other hand, is able to take into account
the effect of QNF at hight $T$ leading to a finite gap at $T>$ 1.38 MeV, but
fails to account for this effect at intermediate temperatures 0.55 $\leq
T\leq$ 1.38 MeV. The QBA produces essentially the same result as that of the
conventional FTBCS at low $T$ with a slightly lower critical temperature
$T_{\rm c}^{\rm QBA}\simeq$ 0.43 MeV. However, it causes a negative
$\overline{\Delta}$ at $T>$ 1.9 MeV.
## References
* (1) J. Bardeen, L. Cooper, and J. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)
* (2) V. J. Emery, and A. M. Sessler, Phys. Rev. 119 248 (1960)
* (3) L.D. Landau and E.M. Lifshitz, Course of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 5: Statistical Physics (Moscow, Nauka, 1964) pp. 297, 308.
* (4) L.G. Moretto, Phys. Lett. B 40, 1 (1972).
* (5) A.L. Goodman, Nucl. Phys. A 352, 30 (1981).
* (6) A.L. Goodman, Phys. Rev. C 29, 1887 (1984).
* (7) R. Rossignoli, P. Ring, and N.D. Dang, Phys. Lett. B 297, 9 (1992); N.D. Dang, P. Ring, and R. Rossignoli, Phys. Rev. C 47, 606 (1993).
* (8) V. Zelevinsky, B.A. Brown, N. Frazier, and M. Horoi, Phys. Rep. 276, 85 (1996).
* (9) D.J. Dean et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2909 (1995).
* (10) S. Frauendorf, N.K. Kuzmenko, V.M. Mikhajlov, and J.A. Sheikh, Phys. Rev. B 68, 024518 (2003); J.A. Sheikh, R. Palit, and S. Frauendorf, Phys. Rev. C 72, 041301(R) (2005).
* (11) N.D. Dang and A. Arima, Phys. Rev. C 68, 014318 (2003).
* (12) N. Dinh Dang and V. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rev. C 64, 064319 (2001).
* (13) N. Dinh Dang and A. Arima, Phys. Rev. C 67, 014304 (2003).
* (14) N. Dinh Dang, Nucl. Phys. A 784, 147 (2007).
* (15) N.D. Dang, Phys. Rev. C 76, 064320 (2007).
* (16) K. Kaneko and M. Hasegawa, Phys. Rev. C 72, 024307 (2005).
* (17) N.D. Dang and K. Tanabe, Phys. Rev. C 74, 034326 (2006).
* (18) N.Q. Hung and N.D. Dang, Phys. Rev. C 76, 054302 (2007), Ibid. 77, 029905(E) (2008).
* (19) R.W. Richardson, Phys. Lett. 3, 277 (1963), Phys. Lett. 5, 82 (1963), Phys. Lett. 14, 325 (1965).
* (20) J. Dukelsky and P. Schuck, Phys. Lett. B 464, 164 (1999).
* (21) J. Dukelsky and P. Schuck, Nucl. Phys. A 512, 466 (1990); A. Rabhi, R. Bennaceur, G. Chanfray, and P. Schuck, Phys. Rev. C 66, 064315 (2002).
* (22) M. Sambataro and N. Dinh Dang, Phys. Rev. C 59, 1422 (1999).
* (23) H.C. Pradhan, Y. Nogami, and J. Law, Nucl. Phys. A 201, 357 (1973).
* (24) M. Anguiano, J.L. Egido, and L.M. Robledo, Phys. Lett. B 545, 62 (2002).
* (25) H.M. Sommermann, Ann. Phys. (NY) 151, 163 (1983).
* (26) N. D. Dang, J. Phys. G 11, L125 (1985).
* (27) N.N. Bogolyubov and S.V. Tyablikov, Soviet Phys.-Doklady 4, 60 (1959) [Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 126, 53 (1959)].
* (28) D.N. Zubarev, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 3, 320 (1960) [Usp. Fiz. Nauk 71, 71 (1960)].
* (29) A. Volya, B. A. Brown, V. Zelevinsky, Phys. Lett. B 509, 37 (2001).
* (30) S. Rombouts, K. Heyde, and N. Jachowicz, Phys. Rev. C 58, 3295 (1998).
* (31) N. Dinh Dang, Z. Phys. A 335, 253 (1990).
* (32) P. Ring and P. Schuck, The Nuclear Many-Body Problem (Springer-Verlag, NY, 1980).
* (33) J.A. Sheikh, P. Ring, E. Lopes, and R. Rossignoli, Phys. Rev. C 66, 044318 (2002).
* (34) N. Quang Hung and N. Dinh Dang, in preparation.
* (35) T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Phys. Rev. 58, 1098 (1940).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-30T09:21:40 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.037519 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "N. Dinh Dang and N. Quang Hung",
"submitter": "Nguyen Quang Hung",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4702"
} |
0805.4796 | BABAR-PUB-08/007
SLAC-PUB-12516
††thanks: Deceased††thanks: Deceased††thanks: Deceased
The BABAR Collaboration
# A Measurement of $C\\!P$ Asymmetry in $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ using a Sum of
Exclusive Final States
B. Aubert M. Bona Y. Karyotakis J. P. Lees V. Poireau X. Prudent V.
Tisserand A. Zghiche Laboratoire de Physique des Particules, IN2P3/CNRS et
Université de Savoie, F-74941 Annecy-Le-Vieux, France J. Garra Tico E.
Grauges Universitat de Barcelona, Facultat de Fisica, Departament ECM,
E-08028 Barcelona, Spain L. Lopez A. Palano M. Pappagallo Università di
Bari, Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, I-70126 Bari, Italy G. Eigen B. Stugu
L. Sun University of Bergen, Institute of Physics, N-5007 Bergen, Norway G.
S. Abrams M. Battaglia D. N. Brown J. Button-Shafer R. N. Cahn R. G.
Jacobsen J. A. Kadyk L. T. Kerth Yu. G. Kolomensky G. Kukartsev G. Lynch
I. L. Osipenkov M. T. Ronan K. Tackmann T. Tanabe W. A. Wenzel Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Berkeley,
California 94720, USA C. M. Hawkes N. Soni A. T. Watson University of
Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom H. Koch T. Schroeder Ruhr
Universität Bochum, Institut für Experimentalphysik 1, D-44780 Bochum, Germany
D. Walker University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TL, United Kingdom D. J.
Asgeirsson T. Cuhadar-Donszelmann B. G. Fulsom C. Hearty T. S. Mattison
J. A. McKenna University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia,
Canada V6T 1Z1 M. Barrett A. Khan M. Saleem L. Teodorescu Brunel
University, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, United Kingdom V. E. Blinov A. D.
Bukin A. R. Buzykaev V. P. Druzhinin V. B. Golubev A. P. Onuchin S. I.
Serednyakov Yu. I. Skovpen E. P. Solodov K. Yu. Todyshev Budker Institute
of Nuclear Physics, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia M. Bondioli S. Curry I.
Eschrich D. Kirkby A. J. Lankford P. Lund M. Mandelkern E. C. Martin D.
P. Stoker University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California 92697, USA
S. Abachi C. Buchanan University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles,
California 90024, USA J. W. Gary F. Liu O. Long B. C. Shen G. M. Vitug
Z. Yasin L. Zhang University of California at Riverside, Riverside,
California 92521, USA H. P. Paar S. Rahatlou V. Sharma University of
California at San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093, USA C. Campagnari T. M.
Hong D. Kovalskyi M. A. Mazur J. D. Richman University of California at
Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA T. W. Beck A. M. Eisner
C. J. Flacco C. A. Heusch J. Kroseberg W. S. Lockman T. Schalk B. A.
Schumm A. Seiden M. G. Wilson L. O. Winstrom University of California at
Santa Cruz, Institute for Particle Physics, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA
E. Chen C. H. Cheng D. A. Doll B. Echenard F. Fang D. G. Hitlin I.
Narsky T. Piatenko F. C. Porter California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, California 91125, USA R. Andreassen G. Mancinelli B. T. Meadows
K. Mishra M. D. Sokoloff University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio 45221,
USA F. Blanc P. C. Bloom W. T. Ford J. F. Hirschauer A. Kreisel M. Nagel
U. Nauenberg A. Olivas J. G. Smith K. A. Ulmer S. R. Wagner University of
Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA R. Ayad Now at Temple University,
Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA A. M. Gabareen A. Soffer Now at Tel Aviv
University, Tel Aviv, 69978, Israel W. H. Toki R. J. Wilson Colorado State
University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA D. D. Altenburg E. Feltresi
A. Hauke H. Jasper M. Karbach J. Merkel A. Petzold B. Spaan K. Wacker
Universität Dortmund, Institut für Physik, D-44221 Dortmund, Germany V. Klose
M. J. Kobel H. M. Lacker W. F. Mader R. Nogowski J. Schubert K. R.
Schubert R. Schwierz J. E. Sundermann A. Volk Technische Universität
Dresden, Institut für Kern- und Teilchenphysik, D-01062 Dresden, Germany D.
Bernard G. R. Bonneaud E. Latour Ch. Thiebaux M. Verderi Laboratoire
Leprince-Ringuet, CNRS/IN2P3, Ecole Polytechnique, F-91128 Palaiseau, France
P. J. Clark W. Gradl S. Playfer A. I. Robertson J. E. Watson University
of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom M. Andreotti D. Bettoni C.
Bozzi R. Calabrese A. Cecchi G. Cibinetto P. Franchini E. Luppi M.
Negrini A. Petrella L. Piemontese E. Prencipe V. Santoro Università di
Ferrara, Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy F. Anulli
R. Baldini-Ferroli A. Calcaterra R. de Sangro G. Finocchiaro S. Pacetti
P. Patteri I. M. Peruzzi Also with Università di Perugia, Dipartimento di
Fisica, Perugia, Italy M. Piccolo M. Rama A. Zallo Laboratori Nazionali di
Frascati dell’INFN, I-00044 Frascati, Italy A. Buzzo R. Contri M. Lo Vetere
M. M. Macri M. R. Monge S. Passaggio C. Patrignani E. Robutti A. Santroni
S. Tosi Università di Genova, Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, I-16146
Genova, Italy K. S. Chaisanguanthum M. Morii Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02138, USA R. S. Dubitzky J. Marks S. Schenk U. Uwer
Universität Heidelberg, Physikalisches Institut, Philosophenweg 12, D-69120
Heidelberg, Germany D. J. Bard P. D. Dauncey J. A. Nash W. Panduro Vazquez
M. Tibbetts Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom P. K.
Behera X. Chai M. J. Charles U. Mallik University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
52242, USA J. Cochran H. B. Crawley L. Dong V. Eyges W. T. Meyer S.
Prell E. I. Rosenberg A. E. Rubin Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
50011-3160, USA Y. Y. Gao A. V. Gritsan Z. J. Guo C. K. Lae Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA A. G. Denig M. Fritsch G. Schott
Universität Karlsruhe, Institut für Experimentelle Kernphysik, D-76021
Karlsruhe, Germany N. Arnaud J. Béquilleux A. D’Orazio M. Davier J.
Firmino da Costa G. Grosdidier A. Höcker V. Lepeltier F. Le Diberder A.
M. Lutz S. Pruvot P. Roudeau M. H. Schune J. Serrano V. Sordini A.
Stocchi W. F. Wang G. Wormser Laboratoire de l’Accélérateur Linéaire,
IN2P3/CNRS et Université Paris-Sud 11, Centre Scientifique d’Orsay, B. P. 34,
F-91898 ORSAY Cedex, France D. J. Lange D. M. Wright Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Livermore, California 94550, USA I. Bingham J. P. Burke
C. A. Chavez J. R. Fry E. Gabathuler R. Gamet D. E. Hutchcroft D. J.
Payne C. Touramanis University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZE, United
Kingdom A. J. Bevan K. A. George F. Di Lodovico R. Sacco M. Sigamani
Queen Mary, University of London, E1 4NS, United Kingdom G. Cowan H. U.
Flaecher D. A. Hopkins S. Paramesvaran F. Salvatore A. C. Wren University
of London, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX,
United Kingdom D. N. Brown C. L. Davis University of Louisville,
Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA K. E. Alwyn N. R. Barlow R. J. Barlow Y.
M. Chia C. L. Edgar G. D. Lafferty T. J. West J. I. Yi University of
Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom J. Anderson C. Chen A.
Jawahery D. A. Roberts G. Simi J. M. Tuggle University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland 20742, USA C. Dallapiccola S. S. Hertzbach X. Li E.
Salvati S. Saremi University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts 01003,
USA R. Cowan D. Dujmic P. H. Fisher K. Koeneke G. Sciolla M. Spitznagel
F. Taylor R. K. Yamamoto M. Zhao Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA S. E.
Mclachlin P. M. Patel S. H. Robertson McGill University, Montréal, Québec,
Canada H3A 2T8 A. Lazzaro V. Lombardo F. Palombo Università di Milano,
Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, I-20133 Milano, Italy J. M. Bauer L.
Cremaldi V. Eschenburg R. Godang R. Kroeger D. A. Sanders D. J. Summers
H. W. Zhao University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA S.
Brunet D. Côté M. Simard P. Taras F. B. Viaud Université de Montréal,
Physique des Particules, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 3J7 H. Nicholson Mount
Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts 01075, USA G. De Nardo L. Lista
D. Monorchio C. Sciacca Università di Napoli Federico II, Dipartimento di
Scienze Fisiche and INFN, I-80126, Napoli, Italy M. A. Baak G. Raven H. L.
Snoek NIKHEF, National Institute for Nuclear Physics and High Energy Physics,
NL-1009 DB Amsterdam, The Netherlands C. P. Jessop K. J. Knoepfel J. M.
LoSecco University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, USA G. Benelli
L. A. Corwin K. Honscheid H. Kagan R. Kass J. P. Morris A. M. Rahimi J.
J. Regensburger S. J. Sekula Q. K. Wong Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio 43210, USA N. L. Blount J. Brau R. Frey O. Igonkina J. A. Kolb M.
Lu R. Rahmat N. B. Sinev D. Strom J. Strube E. Torrence University of
Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA G. Castelli N. Gagliardi A. Gaz M.
Margoni M. Morandin M. Posocco M. Rotondo F. Simonetto R. Stroili C.
Voci Università di Padova, Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, I-35131 Padova,
Italy P. del Amo Sanchez E. Ben-Haim H. Briand G. Calderini J. Chauveau
P. David L. Del Buono O. Hamon Ph. Leruste J. Malclès J. Ocariz A. Perez
J. Prendki Laboratoire de Physique Nucléaire et de Hautes Energies,
IN2P3/CNRS, Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris6, Université Denis Diderot-
Paris7, F-75252 Paris, France L. Gladney University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA M. Biasini R. Covarelli E. Manoni
Università di Perugia, Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, I-06100 Perugia, Italy
C. Angelini G. Batignani S. Bettarini M. Carpinelli Also with Università
di Sassari, Sassari, Italy A. Cervelli F. Forti M. A. Giorgi A. Lusiani
G. Marchiori M. Morganti N. Neri E. Paoloni G. Rizzo J. J. Walsh
Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Fisica, Scuola Normale Superiore and INFN,
I-56127 Pisa, Italy J. Biesiada Y. P. Lau D. Lopes Pegna C. Lu J. Olsen
A. J. S. Smith A. V. Telnov Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
08544, USA E. Baracchini G. Cavoto D. del Re E. Di Marco R. Faccini F.
Ferrarotto F. Ferroni M. Gaspero P. D. Jackson M. A. Mazzoni S. Morganti
G. Piredda F. Polci F. Renga C. Voena Università di Roma La Sapienza,
Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, I-00185 Roma, Italy M. Ebert T. Hartmann
H. Schröder R. Waldi Universität Rostock, D-18051 Rostock, Germany T. Adye
B. Franek E. O. Olaiya W. Roethel F. F. Wilson Rutherford Appleton
Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, United Kingdom S. Emery M.
Escalier A. Gaidot S. F. Ganzhur G. Hamel de Monchenault W. Kozanecki G.
Vasseur Ch. Yèche M. Zito DSM/Dapnia, CEA/Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette,
France X. R. Chen H. Liu W. Park M. V. Purohit R. M. White J. R. Wilson
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA M. T. Allen
D. Aston R. Bartoldus P. Bechtle J. F. Benitez R. Cenci J. P. Coleman M.
R. Convery J. C. Dingfelder J. Dorfan G. P. Dubois-Felsmann W. Dunwoodie
R. C. Field T. Glanzman S. J. Gowdy M. T. Graham P. Grenier C. Hast W.
R. Innes J. Kaminski M. H. Kelsey H. Kim P. Kim M. L. Kocian D. W. G. S.
Leith S. Li B. Lindquist S. Luitz V. Luth H. L. Lynch D. B. MacFarlane
H. Marsiske R. Messner D. R. Muller H. Neal S. Nelson C. P. O’Grady I.
Ofte A. Perazzo M. Perl B. N. Ratcliff A. Roodman A. A. Salnikov R. H.
Schindler J. Schwiening A. Snyder D. Su M. K. Sullivan K. Suzuki S. K.
Swain J. M. Thompson J. Va’vra A. P. Wagner M. Weaver W. J. Wisniewski
M. Wittgen D. H. Wright H. W. Wulsin A. K. Yarritu K. Yi C. C. Young V.
Ziegler Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford, California 94309, USA
P. R. Burchat A. J. Edwards S. A. Majewski T. S. Miyashita B. A. Petersen
L. Wilden Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-4060, USA S. Ahmed
M. S. Alam R. Bula J. A. Ernst B. Pan M. A. Saeed S. B. Zain State
University of New York, Albany, New York 12222, USA S. M. Spanier B. J.
Wogsland University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996, USA R. Eckmann
J. L. Ritchie A. M. Ruland C. J. Schilling R. F. Schwitters University of
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712, USA J. M. Izen X. C. Lou S. Ye
University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75083, USA F. Bianchi D.
Gamba M. Pelliccioni Università di Torino, Dipartimento di Fisica
Sperimentale and INFN, I-10125 Torino, Italy M. Bomben L. Bosisio C.
Cartaro F. Cossutti G. Della Ricca L. Lanceri L. Vitale Università di
Trieste, Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, I-34127 Trieste, Italy V. Azzolini
N. Lopez-March F. Martinez-Vidal D. A. Milanes A. Oyanguren IFIC,
Universitat de Valencia-CSIC, E-46071 Valencia, Spain J. Albert Sw. Banerjee
B. Bhuyan K. Hamano R. Kowalewski I. M. Nugent J. M. Roney R. J. Sobie
University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada V8W 3P6 T. J.
Gershon P. F. Harrison J. Ilic T. E. Latham G. B. Mohanty Department of
Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom H. R. Band
X. Chen S. Dasu K. T. Flood P. E. Kutter Y. Pan M. Pierini R. Prepost
C. O. Vuosalo S. L. Wu University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706,
USA
###### Abstract
We perform a measurement of the $C\\!P$ asymmetry in $b\rightarrow s\gamma$
decays using a sample of $383\times 10^{6}$ $B\kern
1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ events collected by the BABAR detector
at the PEP-II asymmetric $B$ factory. We reconstruct sixteen flavor-specific
$B$ decay modes containing a high-energy photon and a hadronic system $X_{s}$
containing an $s$ quark. We measure the $C\\!P$ asymmetry to be $-0.011\pm
0.030\mathrm{(stat)}\pm 0.014\mathrm{(syst)}$ for a hadronic system mass
between 0.6 and 2.8 ${\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$.
###### pacs:
13.20.-v, 13.25.Hw
The decay $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ is a flavor-changing neutral current process
described by a radiative penguin diagram in the Standard Model (SM). It is
sensitive to new physics which can appear in branching fraction or $C\\!P$
asymmetry measurements. Measurements of the branching fraction BABAR
Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. (2005a, 2006) are in good agreement with the
SM (Misiak et al., 2007) predictions.
A $C\\!P$ asymmetry between $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ and
$\bar{b}\rightarrow\bar{s}\gamma$ decays is predicted by the SM to be $\leq
1\%$ Kagan and Neubert (1998) but could be enhanced up to 15% Wolfenstein and
Wu (1994); Asatrian and Ioannisian (1996); Ciuchini et al. (1996) in models of
physics beyond the SM. Existing measurements are consistent with zero $C\\!P$
asymmetry with a precision of 5% BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. (2004);
Belle Collaboration, S. Nishida et al. (2004). The increased precision
obtained in this work allows us to better discriminate between various
theoretical models Hurth et al. (2005).
We use a sample of $383\times 10^{6}$ $B\kern
1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ pairs collected at the $\mathchar
28935\relax{(4S)}$ resonance by the BABAR detector (BABAR Collaboration, B.
Aubert et al., 2002a) at the PEP-II $e^{+}e^{-}$ $B$ factory. In addition, we
use $36.3\mbox{\,fb}^{-1}\ $ collected 40 $\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV}$
below the $\mathchar 28935\relax{(4S)}$ resonance to study backgrounds from
non-$B$ decays.
We reconstruct 16 exclusive $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ final states:
$\displaystyle B^{-}$ $\displaystyle\rightarrow$ $\displaystyle
K^{0}_{\scriptscriptstyle
S}\pi^{-}\gamma,K^{-}\pi^{0}\gamma,K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\gamma,K^{0}_{\scriptscriptstyle
S}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}\gamma,$ $\displaystyle
K^{-}\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma,K^{0}_{\scriptscriptstyle
S}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{-}\gamma,K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}\gamma,$
$\displaystyle K^{0}_{\scriptscriptstyle
S}\pi^{-}\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma,K^{-}\eta\gamma,K^{+}K^{-}K^{-}\gamma,$
$\displaystyle\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}^{0}$
$\displaystyle\rightarrow$ $\displaystyle
K^{-}\pi^{+}\gamma,K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{0}\gamma,K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{+}\gamma,K^{-}\pi^{+}\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\gamma,$
$\displaystyle K^{-}\pi^{+}\eta\gamma,K^{+}K^{-}K^{-}\pi^{+}\gamma,$
and measure the yield asymmetry with respect to their charge conjugate decays
$\bar{b}\rightarrow\bar{s}\gamma$ . These modes are selected because the
particles in the final state identify the flavor of the $B$ meson and they can
be reconstructed with high statistical significance.
The high-energy photon from the $B$ decay is reconstructed from an isolated
energy cluster in the calorimeter, with a shape consistent with the
electromagnetic shower produced by a single photon, and an energy
$E_{\gamma}^{*}>1.6$ $\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV}$ in the $\mathchar
28935\relax{(4S)}$ center-of-mass (CM) frame.
The hadronic system $X_{s}$, formed from the kaons and pions, is required to
have an invariant mass $M_{X_{s}}$ between 0.6 and 2.8
${\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$, corresponding to a photon energy
threshold $E_{\gamma}>$ 1.9 $\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV}$ in the $B$ meson
rest frame.
Charged kaons are identified by combining information from the Cherenkov
detector and the energy-loss measurements from the tracking system. The
remaining tracks are assumed to be charged pions. The
$K^{0}_{\scriptscriptstyle S}$ candidates are reconstructed by combining two
oppositely charged pions with an invariant mass within 9
${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$ of the nominal
$K^{0}_{\scriptscriptstyle S}$ mass Yao et al. (2006) and a minimum flight
distance of $2{\rm\,mm}$ from the primary event vertex. Both charged and
neutral kaons are required to have laboratory momenta $\geq
0.8{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c}$.
Neutral pions and $\eta$ candidates are reconstructed from pairs of photons
with energies above 50 $\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV}$ in the laboratory frame
and a lateral moment Drescher et al. (1985) less than 0.8. The lateral moment
measures the spread of a shower in the calorimeter and provides good
separation between electromagnetic and hadronic showers. The invariant mass of
the pair of photons is required to be between 115 and 150
${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$ for $\pi^{0}$ candidates and
between 470 and 620 ${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$ for $\eta$
candidates
Monte Carlo (MC) samples based on EvtGen Lange (2001) and GEANT4 GEANT4
Collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al. (2003) are used to simulate the signal
and background processes and the detector response. The $b\rightarrow s\gamma$
signal sample is generated with a photon spectrum derived from Ref.Kagan and
Neubert (1998) assuming $m_{b}=4.65{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$.
The fragmentation of the $X_{s}$ system is modeled using JETSETSjostrand
(1994) corrected to fit the BABAR data as described later.
The background to the $B$ reconstruction is dominated by continuum processes
($e^{+}e^{-}\rightarrow q\bar{q}$, with $q=u,d,s,c$) that produce a high-
energy photon either by initial-state radiation or from the decay of $\pi^{0}$
and $\eta$ mesons. Continuum events tend to be less isotropic than $B$-decay
events since they result from hadronic fragmentation of high-momentum quarks
back-to-back in the CM frame. High-energy photons in these events tend to be
collinear with the thrust axis formed from the rest of the event (ROE),
defined as those particles not used in reconstructing the signal $B$
candidate. We reject such backgrounds by requiring that the cosine of the
angle between the photon and the thrust axis of the ROE (in the CM frame) be
less than 0.85. We further reject the continuum events by requiring the ratio
of the second ($L_{2}$) and zeroth ($L_{0}$) Legendre moments for the ROE
particles with respect to the $B$ flight direction to be smaller than 0.46.
Continuum events with high-energy photons from $\pi^{0}$ and $\eta$ decays are
major backgrounds. To veto these events, we associate each high-energy photon
candidate $\gamma$ with another photon candidate $\gamma^{\prime}$ in the
event. For multiple $\gamma^{\prime}$ candidate in an event, we choose the
$\gamma\gamma^{\prime}$ pairs whose invariant mass, determined from adding the
four vectors, is closest to the nominal $\pi^{0}$ mass (or $\eta$ mass in case
of $\eta$ veto). Events are rejected if the photon pairs are consistent with
$\pi^{0}$ or $\eta$ decays based on the output of a boosted decision tree
(BDT) Freund and Schapire constructed from the energy of the less energetic
photon $\gamma^{\prime}$ and $m_{\gamma\gamma^{\prime}}$.
We reject the remaining continuum events by constructing an additional BDT
that combines information from a number of variables related to the event
shape, the kinematic properties of the $B$ meson, and the flavor-tagging BABAR
Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. (2002b) properties of the other $B$ meson in
the event. Examples of these variables are the Fox-Wolfram moments Fox and
Wolfram (1978), and the cosine of the $B$ flight direction computed in the CM
frame with respect to the beam axis. Optimization of the selection criteria of
the $\pi^{0}$ veto, $\eta$ veto, and event selection BDTs is performed using
an iterative method which maximizes the statistical signal significance. After
the final event selection, we reject 97% of the continuum background while
retaining 55% of the signal events.
Fully reconstructed $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ decays are characterized by two
kinematic variables: the beam-energy substituted mass $\mbox{$m_{\rm
ES}$}=\sqrt{s/4-{p_{B}^{*}}^{2}}$, and the energy difference between the $B$
candidate and the beam energy $\Delta E=E_{B}^{*}-\sqrt{s}/2$, where
$E_{B}^{*}$ and $p_{B}^{*}$ are the energy and momentum of the $B$ candidate
in the $e^{+}e^{-}$ CM frame, and $\sqrt{s}$ is the total CM frame energy.
Signal events are expected to have a $\Delta E$ distribution centered near
zero and a $m_{\rm ES}$ distribution centered at the mass of the $B$ meson.
For events with multiple $B$ candidates, we select the one with the smallest
$|\Delta E|$.
We perform a one-dimensional fit of $m_{\rm ES}$ to the data in the entire
$M_{X_{s}}$ region ([0.6, 2.8] ${\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$) as
well as in five different regions of $M_{X_{s}}$ ([0.6, 1.1], [1.1, 1.5],
[1.5, 2.0] and [2.0, 2.8] ${\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$) to study
whether the asymmetry has significant mass dependence. Only candidates in the
range $|\Delta E|<0.10\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV}$ and $5.22<\mbox{$m_{\rm
ES}$}<5.29{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$ are considered.
Probability density functions (PDFs) are constructed for both signal and
background in the five $M_{X_{s}}$ regions. We use the charge of the
reconstructed final state ($B^{-}$/$B^{+}$) or the charge of the kaon ($\kern
1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}^{0}$/$B^{0}$) to define two flavor
categories, and perform a simultaneous fit for the flavor asymmetry in each
$M_{X_{s}}$ region.
The signal events are described by a function $f(\mbox{$m_{\rm
ES}$})=\exp[-(\mbox{$m_{\rm
ES}$}-\mu_{0})^{2}/(2\sigma_{L,R}^{2}+\alpha_{L,R}(\mbox{$m_{\rm
ES}$}-\mu_{0})^{2})]$ where the parameters are determined by an unbinned fit
to the signal MC. In the above function, $\mu_{0}$ is the peak position of the
distribution, $\sigma_{L,R}$ are the widths on the left and right of the peak,
and $\alpha_{L,R}$ parameterize the tail on the left and right of the peak,
respectively.
Figure 1: Fits to the $m_{\rm ES}$ distribution in data for $b\rightarrow
s\gamma$ events in $M_{X_{s}}$ region (a) [0.6, 1.1], (b) [1.1, 1.5], (c)
[1.5, 2.0], (d) [2.0, 2.8], and $\bar{b}\rightarrow\bar{s}\gamma$ events in
$M_{X_{s}}$ region (e) [0.6, 1.1], (f) [1.1, 1.5], (g) [1.5, 2.0], (h) [2.0,
2.8], The dashed line shows the shape of the continuum, dotted-dashed line
shows the fitted signal shape and the dotted line shows the $B\kern
1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ and cross-feed shape.
The background surviving the final selection can be attributed to one of three
sources: continuum events, $B\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$
events other than $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ decays (referred to as generic
$B\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$), and “cross-feed events”,
defined as events containing a $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ decay, but in which the
true decay was not correctly reconstructed. The shape of the cross-feed and
$B\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ background is described by a
binned PDF, determined from MC with 1
${\mathrm{\,Me\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$ binning.
The continuum background is described by an ARGUS function ARGUS
Collaboration, H. Albrecht el al. (1987) determined from a fit to the off-
resonance data. In this fit, the $m_{\rm ES}$ distribution is shifted to have
the same end-point as that of the on-resonance data.
Figure 2: Fits to the $m_{\rm ES}$ distribution in data for (a) $b\rightarrow
s\gamma$ events and (b) $\bar{b}\rightarrow\bar{s}\gamma$ events in the entire
$M_{X_{s}}$ region. The dashed line shows the shape of the continuum, the
dotted-dashed line shows the fitted signal shape, and the dotted line shows
the $B\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ and cross-feed shape.
In the maximum-likelihood fit, all parameters are fixed with the exception of
the normalizations of the various components as well as $\mu_{0}$, which is
determined from fitting the data, since the peak position is not well modeled
in the MC simulation. The signal, $B\kern
1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ and cross-feed shapes are constrained
by the MC, while the continuum background shape is fixed to that of off-
resonance data. The shapes of the distributions are assumed to be the same for
$B$ and $\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ candidates, with the
exception of the $B\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ and cross-
feed background, which are allowed to vary between $b$ and $\overline{b}$ in
order to eliminate the possibility of a false $C\\!P$ asymmetry. In Figure 1
we present the final fits to the $m_{\rm ES}$ distributions for $b\rightarrow
s\gamma$ and $\bar{b}\rightarrow\bar{s}\gamma$ events for the four $M_{X_{s}}$
sub-regions. As expected, the signal to background ratio decreases from lower
to higher $M_{X_{s}}$ regions. In Figure 2, we present the final fits to the
$m_{\rm ES}$ distribution for $b\rightarrow s\gamma$ and
$\bar{b}\rightarrow\bar{s}\gamma$ events for the entire $M_{X_{s}}$ region.
$M_{Xs}$ | $\frac{N_{b}-N_{\overline{b}}}{N_{b}+N_{\overline{b}}}$ | $A_{det}$ | $B\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ and cross-feed | Continuum | $A_{CP}$
---|---|---|---|---|---
(${\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$) | model syst | model syst
0.6–1.1 | $\phantom{-}0.015\pm 0.029$ | $\phantom{-}0.005\pm 0.014$ | 0.002 | 0.004 | $\phantom{-}0.010\pm 0.029\pm 0.015$
1.1–1.5 | $-0.003\pm 0.049$ | $-0.003\pm 0.015$ | 0.003 | 0.004 | $\phantom{-}0.000\pm 0.049\pm 0.016$
1.5–2.0 | $-0.064\pm 0.077$ | $-0.017\pm 0.010$ | 0.010 | 0.002 | $-0.047\pm 0.077\pm 0.014$
2.0–2.8 | $-0.097\pm 0.180$ | $-0.002\pm 0.005$ | 0.070 | 0.168 | $-0.077\pm 0.180\pm 0.182$
0.6–2.8 | $-0.018\pm 0.030$ | $-0.007\pm 0.005$ | 0.012 | 0.006 | $-0.011\pm 0.030\pm 0.014$
Table 1: For each $M_{X_{s}}$ bin, we present the fitted $C\\!P$ asymmetry:
$(N_{b}-N_{\overline{b}})/(N_{b}+N_{\overline{b}})$, the flavor-bias of the
detector: $A_{det}$, the systematic error arising from the $B\kern
1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ and cross-feed modeling and the
systematic error arising from the continuum background modeling. The last
column shows the final results for the $C\\!P$ asymmetries.
The direct $C\\!P$ asymmetry is calculated as
$A_{CP}=\frac{1}{\langle
D\rangle}\left(\frac{N_{b}-N_{\overline{b}}}{N_{b}+N_{\overline{b}}}-\Delta
D\right)-A_{det}$ (1)
where $N_{b}$ and $N_{\overline{b}}$ are the yields of the $b\rightarrow
s\gamma$ and $\bar{b}\rightarrow\bar{s}\gamma$ signals respectively.
$A_{det}$, described in details below, is the flavor bias caused by the
detector responses to positively and negatively charged particles. Table 1
presents the fitted values for
$(N_{b}-N_{\overline{b}})/(N_{b}+N_{\overline{b}})$.
$\Delta D=(\bar{\omega}-\omega)$ is the difference in the wrong-flavor
fraction between $b$ and $\overline{b}$ decays, and $\langle
D\rangle=1-(\bar{\omega}+\omega)$ is the dilution factor from the average
wrong-flavor fraction. The small wrong-flavor fraction $\bar{\omega}$
($\omega$), defined to be the fraction of $\overline{b}$ ($b$) reconstructed
as the opposite flavor, is due to charged pions misidentified as charged
kaons. Using the particle misidentification rate measured in control samples
in data we calculate $\Delta D=(5\pm 4)\times 10^{-5}$ and $1-\langle
D\rangle=(5.4\pm 0.1)\times 10^{-3}$.
The flavor bias of the detector $A_{det}$ is due to asymmetric $K^{+}$,
$K^{-}$ interaction cross-sections in the detector at low momenta. Such an
asymmetry could produce a false $C\\!P$ asymmetry in the signal events. We
perform a measurement of $A_{det}$ in data using two independent methods. The
first approach determines this asymmetry from events in the $m_{\rm ES}$
sideband, $5.22<\mbox{$m_{\rm
ES}$}<5.27{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$, which is dominated by
continuum background with no expected $C\\!P$ asymmetry. The second approach
uses a control sample where we replace the high-energy photon from the $B$
decay with a high-energy $\pi^{0}$ with $p_{CM}\geq$
1.6${\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c}$. The same selection criteria used in
the signal selection are applied, except for $\pi^{0}$ and $\eta$ veto
requirements, and the $C\\!P$ asymmetry in the $m_{\rm ES}$ sideband is
measured. In both control samples we apply appropriate weights to the events
to ensure that the fraction of each reconstructed final state is identical to
that in the signal sample. We find the $C\\!P$ asymmetry measured using both
of these approaches to be nearly identical, and average the two measurements
to obtain $A_{det}=-0.007\pm 0.005$. The mean value is used to shift the
$(N_{b}-N_{\overline{b}})/(N_{b}+N_{\overline{b}})$ mean value, while the
error contributes to the systematics. The values of $A_{det}$ computed in each
$X_{s}$ mass region are reported in Table 1.
The shape of the $B\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ and cross-
feed background, determined from MC, is also a potential source of flavor bias
in the fit to the data. This background peaks broadly in the signal region,
and a small shape difference as a function of flavor could create a false
$C\\!P$ asymmetry in the signal. We measure the size of this effect by
correcting the $B\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ and cross-feed
shapes separately. The high-energy $\pi^{0}$ control sample is used to study
the uncertainty of the $B\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$
background shape. We use the differences found between the data and MC $m_{\rm
ES}$ shapes in this control sample to correct the nominal $B\kern
1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ background shape built from the MC.
The biggest uncertainty in the cross-feed shape is due to the fact that JETSET
does not reproduce the observed fragmentation structure of data. We thus
correct the simulation shape using the fragmentation previously determined
from BABAR data BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. (2005b). We then
construct new $b$ and $\overline{b}$ binned PDFs using these corrected cross-
feed and $B\kern 1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ events and fit the
data a second time with them. The difference between the nominal $A_{CP}$ and
$A_{CP}$ from this fit, shown in Table 1, is used as the systematic error from
shape modeling of the $B$ background.
The systematic error arising from the continuum background modeling is
determined by varying the ARGUS shape parameters within the experimental
errors, and is found to be 0.006 for the combined $M_{X_{s}}$ region.
Systematic errors due to possible differences in the signal shape between $b$
and $\overline{b}$ events, $C\\!P$ content of the peaking background, and
possible contaminations from $b\rightarrow d\gamma$ decays are all found to be
negligible. Contributions from $\langle D\rangle$, $\Delta D$ and signal
modeling are neglected due to their small impact on $A_{CP}$. The dominant
systematic errors are therefore due to the uncertainties in the flavor bias of
the detector and the background shapes as described above.
The total systematic errors are calculated as the sum in quadrature of errors
on $A_{det}$, systematic errors arising from the continuum, $B\kern
1.79993pt\overline{\kern-1.79993ptB}{}$ and cross-feed shape modeling. The
results are shown in Table 1.
In summary, we measure the direct $C\\!P$ asymmetry in $b\rightarrow s\gamma$
to be $A_{CP}$= $-0.011\pm 0.030\pm 0.014$ in the region
$0.6<M_{X_{s}}<2.8{\mathrm{\,Ge\kern-1.00006ptV\\!/}c^{2}}$. This result
represents the most accurate measurement of this quantity to date. The
measurement is consistent with zero $C\\!P$ asymmetry and with the SM
prediction. The $C\\!P$ asymmetry in each $M_{X_{s}}$ region considered in our
study is also consistent with zero.
We are grateful for the excellent luminosity and machine conditions provided
by our PEP-II colleagues, and for the substantial dedicated effort from the
computing organizations that support BABAR. The collaborating institutions
wish to thank SLAC for its support and kind hospitality. This work is
supported by DOE and NSF (USA), NSERC (Canada), CEA and CNRS-IN2P3 (France),
BMBF and DFG (Germany), INFN (Italy), FOM (The Netherlands), NFR (Norway), MES
(Russia), MEC (Spain), and STFC (United Kingdom). Individuals have received
support from the Marie Curie EIF (European Union) and the A. P. Sloan
Foundation.
## References
* BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. (2005a) BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. D72, 052004 (2005a).
* BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. (2006) BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 171803 (2006).
* Misiak et al. (2007) M. Misiak et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 022002 (2007).
* Kagan and Neubert (1998) A. L. Kagan and M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. D58, 094012 (1998).
* Wolfenstein and Wu (1994) L. Wolfenstein and Y. L. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2809 (1994).
* Asatrian and Ioannisian (1996) H. M. Asatrian and A. N. Ioannisian, Phys. Rev. D54, 5642 (1996).
* Ciuchini et al. (1996) M. Ciuchini, E. Gabrielli, and G. F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. B388, 353 (1996).
* BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. (2004) BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 021804 (2004).
* Belle Collaboration, S. Nishida et al. (2004) Belle Collaboration, S. Nishida et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 031803 (2004).
* Hurth et al. (2005) T. Hurth, E. Lunghi, and W. Porod, Nucl. Phys. B704, 56 (2005).
* BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. (2002a) BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A479, 1 (2002a).
* Yao et al. (2006) W. M. Yao et al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G33, 1 (2006).
* Drescher et al. (1985) A. Drescher et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A237, 464 (1985).
* Lange (2001) D. J. Lange, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A462, 152 (2001).
* GEANT4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al. (2003) GEANT4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al., Nucl. Instrum. Methods A506, 250 (2003).
* Sjostrand (1994) T. Sjostrand, Computer Phys. Commun. 82, 74 (1994).
* (17) Y. Freund and R. Schapire (????).
* BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. (2002b) BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 201802 (2002b).
* Fox and Wolfram (1978) G. C. Fox and S. Wolfram, Phys. Rev. Lett. 41, 1581 (1978).
* ARGUS Collaboration, H. Albrecht el al. (1987) ARGUS Collaboration, H. Albrecht el al., Phys. Lett. B185, 218 (1987).
* BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al. (2005b) BABAR Collaboration, B. Aubert et al., Phys. Rev. D72, 052004 (2005b).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-30T15:43:55 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.046068 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "BABAR Collaboration: B. Aubert, et al",
"submitter": "Minliang Zhao",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4796"
} |
0806.0033 | # Fuzzy Signed Measure
Jun Tanaka University of California, Riverside, USA juntanaka@math.ucr.edu,
yonigeninnin@gmail.com, junextension@hotmail.com
(Date: January, 10, 2008)
###### Key words and phrases:
fuzzy measure, signed measure, Hahn decomposition, fuzzy sets
###### 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 28A12, 28E10
## 1\. Introduction
It is well known that one could obtain the Caratheodory Extension Theorem on
fuzzy measurable space. Now a fuzzy measure is defined on $\sigma$-algebras.
As one already saw, Fuzzy measure is a classical measure, provided that fuzzy
sets are restricted to classical sets. As the classical measure theory goes,
we will define a fuzzy signed measure on $\sigma$-algebras, as well as
positive and negative sets. Herein, we will show that the Fuzzy Hahn
Decomposition Theorem, which is a generalization of the classical Hahn
Decomposition Theorem, decompose any space X into a positive set A and a
negative set B such that A+B=X and the signed measure of $A\wedge B$ is 0.
## 2\. Preliminaries
In this section, we shall briefly review the well know facts about lattice
theory (e.g. Birkhoff [1], Iwamura), propose an extension lattice, and
investigate its properties. Later in this section, we shall review
Caratheodory Extension Theorem on fuzzy measurable sets. (L,$\wedge$,$\vee$)
or simply L, under closed operations $\wedge$ $\vee$, is called a lattice. If
it satisfies in addition to the distributive law is called a lattice. For two
lattices L and L’, a bijection from L to L’, which preserves lattice
operations are called a lattice isomorphism, or simply an isomorphism. If
there is an isomorphism from L to L’, then L is called lattice-isomorphic with
L’, and we write L $\cong$ L’. We write x $\leq$ y if x $\wedge$ y = x or,
equivalently, if x $\wedge$ y = y. L is called complete, if any subset A of L
includes the supremum $\vee$A, and infimum $\wedge$A, with respect to the
above order. A complete lattice L includes the maximum and minimum elements,
which are denoted by I and O, or 1 and 0, respectively [1].
###### Definition 1.
Unless otherwise stated, X is a space and $\mu_{\Box}$ is a membership
function of any fuzzy set $\Box$. If a family $\sigma$ of membership functions
on X satisfies the following conditions, then it is called fuzzy
$\sigma$-algebra;
(1) $\forall\alpha\in$ [0,1], $\alpha$ is constant; $\alpha\in\sigma$.
(2) $\forall\mu\in\sigma$, 1-$\mu\in\sigma$.
(3) if $(\mu_{n})_{n\in N}\in\sigma^{N}$, then $\sup\mu_{n}\in\sigma$.
###### Definition 2.
If m : $\sigma$ $\mapsto$ $\mathbb{R}\cup\\{\infty\\}$ satisfying the
following properties, then m is called a fuzzy measure.
(1) m $(\emptyset)$ = m $(0)$ = 0.
(2) $\forall\mu,\eta\in\sigma$ s.t. $m(\mu),m(\eta)\geq$ 0 : $\mu\leq\eta$
$\Rightarrow$ m $(\mu)\leq$ m $(\eta)$.
(3) $\forall\mu,\eta\in\sigma$ : m$(\mu\vee\eta)+$ m$(\mu\wedge\eta)=$
m$(\mu)+$ m$(\eta)$.
(4) $(\mu_{n})_{n\in N}$ $\subset\sigma^{N}$ such that
$\mu_{1}\leq\mu_{2}\leq\cdots\leq\mu_{n}\leq\cdots$ : $\sup\mu_{n}=\mu$
$\Rightarrow$ m$(\mu)=\lim$ m$(\mu_{n})$.
###### Definition 3.
By an outer fuzzy measure $m^{\ast}$, we mean an extended real-value set
function defined on [0,1]X, having the following properties:
(1) $m^{\ast}$(0) = 0
(2) $m^{\ast}$ $(\mu)\leq$ $m^{\ast}$ $(\eta)$ for $\mu\leq\eta$
(3) $m^{\ast}(\vee_{i=1}^{\infty}\mu_{E_{i}})$ $\leq$
$\vee_{i=1}^{\infty}m^{\ast}(\mu_{E_{i}})$.
###### Example 1.
Suppose
$m^{\ast}(\mu_{E})=\begin{cases}0\quad&\mu_{E}=0\\\ 1\quad&\mu_{E}\neq
0\end{cases}$
Then $m^{\ast}$ is an outer fuzzy measure which is not fuzzy measure on
[0,1]X, if X has at least two points.
###### proposition 1.
Let F be a class of fuzzy subsets of X containing empty set such that for
every $\mu_{A}\leq\mu_{X}$, there exists a sequence
$(\mu_{B_{n}})^{\infty}_{n=1}$, $\mu_{B_{n}}\in F$ such that $\mu_{A}\leq$
$\sup(\mu_{B_{n}})^{\infty}_{n=1}$. Let $\tau$ be an extended real-valued
function on F such that $\tau(0)$ = 0 and $\tau(\mu_{A})\geq$ 0 for
$\mu_{A}\in$ F. Then $m^{\ast}$ defined on [0,1]X by $m^{\ast}(\mu_{A})$ =
$\inf\\{\tau(\vee^{\infty}_{i=1}\mu_{B_{n}}):\mu_{B_{n}}\in F$ s.t.
$\mu_{A}\leq\vee^{\infty}_{i=1}\mu_{B_{n}}\\}$ is a outer fuzzy measure.
###### Proof.
Clearly, $m^{\ast}(\emptyset)$ = 0. Secondly, if $\mu_{A_{1}}\leq\mu_{A_{2}}$
and $\mu_{A_{2}}\leq\vee^{\infty}_{i=1}\mu_{B_{n}}$, then
$\mu_{A_{1}}\leq\vee^{\infty}_{i=1}\mu_{B_{n}}$. Thus
$m^{\ast}(\mu_{A_{1}})\leq m^{\ast}(\mu_{A_{2}})$.
Finally, let $\mu_{E_{n}}\leq\mu_{X}$ for each natural number n. Then
$m^{\ast}$($\mu_{E_{n}}$) = $\infty$ for some n,
$m^{\ast}$($\vee_{n=1}^{\infty}\mu_{E_{n}}$) $\leq$
$\vee_{n=1}^{\infty}m^{\ast}\mu_{E_{n}}$.
∎
The following theorem is an extension of the above proposition.
###### Theorem 2.
The class B of $m^{\ast}$-fuzzy measurable sets is a $\sigma$-algebra. Also
$\overline{m}$, the restriction of $m^{\ast}$ to B, is a measure.
###### Theorem 3.
Let m be a fuzzy measure on a $\sigma$-algebra $\sigma\subseteq$ [0,1]X.
Suppose for $\mu_{E}\leq\mu_{X}$
$m^{\ast}(\mu_{E})=\inf\\{m(\vee^{\infty}_{i=1}\mu_{E_{n}}):\mu_{E_{n}}\in\sigma
s.t.\mu_{E}\leq\vee^{\infty}_{i=1}\mu_{E_{n}}\\}$
Then the following properties hold:
(i) $m^{\ast}$ is an outer fuzzy measure.
(ii) $\mu_{E}\in\sigma$ implies m($\mu_{E}$) = $m^{\ast}$($\mu_{E}$)
(iii) $\mu_{E}\in\sigma$ implies $\mu_{E}$ is $m^{\ast}$-fuzzy measurable.
(iv) The restriction $\overline{m}$ of $m^{\ast}$ to the $m^{\ast}$-fuzzy
measurable sets in an extension of m to a fuzzy measure on a fuzzy
$\sigma$-algebra containing $\sigma$.
(v) If m is fuzzy $\sigma$-finite, then $\overline{m}$ is the only fuzzy
measure (on the smallest fuzzy $\sigma$-algebra containing $\sigma$) that is
an extension of m.
## 3\. Fuzzy Signed Measure
Let $m_{1}$ and $m_{2}$ be fuzzy measures defined on the same $\sigma$-algebra
$\sigma$. If one of them is finite, the set function
$m(\mu_{E})=m_{1}(\mu_{E})-m_{2}(\mu_{E})$ , $\mu_{E}\in\sigma$ is well
defined and countably additive on $\sigma$. However, it is not necessarily
nonnegative; it is called a signed measure.
###### Definition 4.
By a fuzzy signed measure on the fuzzy measurable space (X, $\sigma$) we mean
$\nu$ : $\sigma$ $\mapsto$ $\mathbb{R}\cup\\{\infty\\}$ or
$\mathbb{R}\cup\\{-\infty\\}$, satisfying the following property:
(1) $\nu(\emptyset)$ = $\nu(0)$ = 0.
(2) $\forall\mu,\eta\in\sigma$ s.t. $\nu(\mu),\nu(\eta)\geq$ 0 : $\mu\leq\eta$
$\Rightarrow$ $\nu(\mu)\leq\nu(\eta)$.
$\forall\mu,\eta\in\sigma$ s.t. $\nu(\mu),\nu(\eta)\leq$ 0 : $\mu\leq\eta$
$\Rightarrow$ $\nu(\eta)\leq\nu(\mu)$.
(3) $\forall\mu,\eta\in\sigma$ :
$\nu(\mu\vee\eta)+\nu(\mu\wedge\eta)=\nu(\mu)+\nu(\eta)$.
(4) $(\mu_{n})_{n\in N}$ $\subset\sigma^{N}$ such that
$\mu_{1}\leq\mu_{2}\leq\cdots\leq\mu_{n}\leq\cdots$ : $\sup\mu_{n}=\mu$
$\Rightarrow$ $\nu(\mu)=\lim\nu(\mu_{n})$.
This is meant in the sense that if the left-hand side is finite, the series on
the right-hand side is convergent, and if the left-hand side is $\pm\infty$,
then the series on the right-hand side diverges accordingly.
###### Remark 1.
The Fuzzy signed measure is a fuzzy measure when it takes only positive value.
Thus, the fuzzy signed measure is a generalization of fuzzy measure.
###### Definition 5.
A is a positive fuzzy set if for any fuzzy measurable set E in A,
$\nu(\mu_{E})\geq 0$. Similarly, B is a negative fuzzy set if for any fuzzy
measurable set E in B, $\nu(\mu_{E})\leq 0$.
###### Lemma 1.
Every fuzzy subset of a positive fuzzy set is a positive fuzzy set and any
countable union of positive fuzzy sets is a positive fuzzy set.
###### Proof.
The first claim is clear. Before we show the second claim, we need to show
that every union of positive sets is a positive set. Let A, B be fuzzy
positive sets and E $\leq$ A $\vee$ B be a fuzzy measurable set. By (2) in
Definition 4, 0 $\leq$ $\nu(\mu_{B}\wedge\mu_{E})$ \-
$\nu(\mu_{A}\wedge\mu_{B}\wedge\mu_{E})$. By (3), $\nu(\mu_{E})\geq$ 0\. Now
by induction, every finite union of fuzzy positive sets is a positive fuzzy
set. Let $A_{n}$ be a positive fuzzy set for all n and E $\leq$ $\vee$ $A_{n}$
be a fuzzy measurable set. Then $\mu_{E_{m}}$ :=
$\mu_{E}\wedge\vee_{n=1}^{m}\mu_{A_{n}}$ =
$\vee_{n=1}^{m}\mu_{E}\wedge\mu_{A_{n}}$. Then $E_{m}$ is a fuzzy measurable
set and a positive fuzzy set. In particular, $\mu_{E_{m}}\leq\mu_{E_{m+1}}$
for all n and $\mu_{E}$ = $\vee_{n=1}^{\infty}\mu_{E_{m}}$. Thus 0
$\leq\lim\nu(\mu_{E_{m}})$ = $\nu(\mu_{E})$. Therefore $\vee$ $A_{n}$ is a
positive set.
∎
###### Lemma 2.
Let E be a fuzzy measurable set such that 0 $<\nu(\mu_{E})<\infty$. Then there
is a positive fuzzy set A $\leq E$ with $\nu(\mu_{A})>$ 0.
###### Proof.
If E is a positive fuzzy set, we take A=E. Otherwise, E contains a set of
negative measure. Let $n_{1}$ be the smallest positive integer such that there
is a measurable set $E_{1}\subset$ E with $\nu(\mu_{E_{1}})<-\frac{1}{n_{1}}$.
Proceeding inductively, if E$\wedge\wedge_{j=1}^{k-1}E_{j}^{C}$ is not already
a positive set, let $n_{k}$ be the smallest positive integer for which there
is a fuzzy measurable set $E_{k}$ such that $E_{k}\leq
E\wedge\wedge_{j=1}^{k-1}E_{j}$ and $\nu(\mu_{E_{k}})<-\frac{1}{n_{k}}$.
Let A = $(\vee E_{k})^{C}$.
Then $\nu(\mu_{E})$ =
$\nu(\mu_{E}\wedge\mu_{A})+\nu(\mu_{E}\wedge\vee\mu_{E_{k}})$ =
$\nu(\mu_{E}\wedge\mu_{A})+\nu(\vee\mu_{E_{k}})$. Since $\nu(\mu_{E})$ is
finite, $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\nu(\vee^{n}\mu_{E_{k}})$ is finite and
$\nu(\vee\mu_{E_{k}})\leq$ 0\. Since $\nu(\mu_{E})>$ 0 and
$\nu(\vee\mu_{E_{k}})\leq$ 0, $\nu(\mu_{E}\wedge\mu_{A})>$ 0.
We will show that A is a positive set. Let $\epsilon>$ 0\. Since
$\frac{1}{n_{k}}\rightarrow$ 0, we may choose k such that
$-\frac{1}{n_{k}-1}$, which is greater than $-\epsilon$. Thus A contains no
fuzzy measurable sets of measure less than $-\epsilon$. Since $\epsilon$ was
arbitrary positive number, it follows that A can contain no sets of negative
measure and so must be a positive fuzzy set.
∎
## 4\. Fuzzy Hahn Decomposition
Without loss of generality, let’s omit + $\infty$ value of $\nu$. Let
$\lambda$ = $\sup\\{\nu(\mu_{A}):A$ is a fuzzy positive set $\\}$.
Then $\lambda\geq$ 0 since $\nu(\emptyset)$ = 0.
Let $A_{i}$ be a sequence of positive fuzzy sets such that $\lambda$ =
$\lim\nu(\mu_{A_{i}})$ and $\mu_{A}$ = $\vee\mu_{A_{i}}$. By Theorem 1, A is a
positive fuzzy set and $\lambda\geq\nu(\mu_{A})$.
$\vee^{n}\mu_{A_{i}}\leq$ $\mu_{A}$ for any n implies
$\nu(\vee^{n}\mu_{A_{i}})\geq$ 0 for any n. Thus $\lambda$ =
$\lim\nu(\mu_{A_{i}})$ = $\nu(\mu_{A})$ = 0.
Let $E\leq A^{C}$ be a positive set. Then $\nu(\mu_{E})\geq$ 0 and $A\vee E$
is a positive fuzzy set. Thus $\lambda\geq$
$\nu(\mu_{A}\vee\mu_{E})=\nu(\mu_{A})+\nu(\mu_{E})-\nu(\mu_{A}\wedge\mu_{E})$
= $\lambda+\nu(\mu_{E})-\nu(\mu_{A}\wedge\mu_{E})$. Thus
$\nu(\mu_{E})=\nu(\mu_{A}\wedge\mu_{E})$. $\nu(\mu_{E})$ = 0 since
$\mu_{A}\wedge\mu_{E}\leq\mu_{A}\wedge\mu_{A}^{C}$ and
$\nu(\mu_{A}\wedge\mu_{A}^{C})$ = 0.
Thus, $A^{C}$ contains no fuzzy positive subsets of positive measure and hence
no subsets of positive measure by Lemma 2. Consequently, $A^{C}$ is a negative
fuzzy set.
## 5\. conclusion
Let X be a space. Then by the previous theorem, we find such a positive fuzzy
set A and a negative fuzzy set B (= $A^{C}$). By the fuzzy measurability of
$\nu$, $\nu(\mu_{A}\wedge\mu_{A}^{C})$ = 0. $A+A^{C}$ = X in the sense that
$\mu_{A}+\mu_{A^{C}}$ = 1. These characteristics provides X = $A\cup B$ and
$A\cap B=\emptyset$ in the classical set sense.
## References
* [1] 1\. G. Birkhoff, Lattice Theory 3rd ed., AMS Colloquim Publications, Providence, RI, 1967
* [2] 2 T. Iwamura, Sokuran, Kyoritu Shuppan, Tokyo, 1966.
* [3] 3\. Z. Wang G.J. Klir, Fuzzy Measure Theory, Springer, 1993.
* [4] 4\. L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inform and Control 8 (1965), 338-353
* [5] 5\. L.A. Zadeh, Calculus of Fuzzy restrictions, Fuzzy Sets and their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes, L.A. Zadeh et al., eds., Academic Press, New York, 1975, pp. 1-39.
* [6]
| arxiv-papers | 2008-05-30T21:56:32 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.053676 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Jun Tanaka",
"submitter": "Jun Tanaka",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0033"
} |
0806.0269 | # Analysis of $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ decay with new physics
effects
U. O. Yilmaz
The J. Stefan Institute, Jamova 39, P. O. Box 300, 1001 Ljubljana, Slovenia
and
Physics Department, Mersin University 33343 Ciftlikkoy Mersin, Turkey
e-mail: uoyilmaz@mersin.edu.tr
The rare $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay is investigated by using
the most general model independent effective Hamiltonian for $\ell=\mu,\tau$.
The calculated $Br(B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-})=1.92\times 10^{-6}$ is
in consistent with the experimental upper bound. The dependencies of the
branching ratios and polarization asymmetries of leptons and combined lepton-
antilepton asymmetries on the new Wilson coefficients are presented. The
analysis shows that the branching ratios and the lepton polarization
asymmetries are very sensitive to the scalar and tensor type interactions. The
results obtained in this work will be very useful in searching new physics
beyond the standard model.
## 1 Introduction
In searching the new physics, the analysis of rare B decays induced by flavor
changing neutral current (FCNC) can play an important role. Since the
observation of exclusive $B\rightarrow K^{*}\gamma$ [1] decay, which
sitimulated the works in this area, there have been increasing number of
investigations of new physics both in theoretical and experimental side,
induced by FCNC $b\rightarrow s,d$ [2]-[3] transitions. These processes occur
at loop level in the SM and are very sensitive to the gauge structure and
various extensions of the SM so they can give useful information on parameters
of the SM, testing its predictions at loop level and also probing new physics.
The new physics effects in rare B meson decays can indicate itself through new
contributions to the Wilson coefficients that are already present in the SM,
and through the new operators in the effective Hamiltonian which are absent in
the SM. In this work we use a most general model-independent effective
Hamiltonian that combines both approaches and contains the scalar and tensor
type interactions as well as the vector types.
In this work we consider the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay
induced by FCNC $b\rightarrow s\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ transition at quark level.
This semileptonic decay is one of the suitable tools of investigating new
physics, via calculating many observables since it occurs only at loop level
in the SM. However, being an exclusive decay, its theoretical investigation
may be more difficult than that of corresponding inclusive decays, although
experimentally the situation is in contrary. This difficulty is because of
requiring additional knowledge on form factors, the matrix elements of the
Hamiltonian between initial and final meson states. This is related to the
nonperturbative sector of QCD and can be solved in the framework of
nonperturbative approaches. For $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay,
the matrix elements of the effective Hamiltonian between the initial and final
states have been calculated in the framework of different approaches, such as
light cone sum rules [4, 5, 6] and in different quark models; relativistic
constitute quark model [7], constituent quark model [8] and light front quark
model [9].
In establishing new physics beyond the SM, measurement of the lepton
polarization is an useful and efficient way. Besides different decay modes,
polarization properties of exclusive semileptonic decay modes have been
studied both in the SM [10]-[12] and beyond [13]-[18]. In this work we study
the branching ratio and lepton polarization asymmetries in the exclusive
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay using the model independent
general effective Hamiltonian. This decay has already been studied in the SM
[9], two Higgs doublet model [19] and in a universal extra dimension scenario
[20].
On the experimental side, the first limit on branching fraction was stated by
CDF Collaboration [21]. DO Collaboration [22] has reported an upper limit on
the branching ratio for $Br(B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-})<4.1\times
10^{-6}$ and recently, another upper bound
$Br(B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-})<6.0(5.0)\times 10^{-6}$ at $95(90)\%$
C.L. by CDF Collaboration [23]. At LHCb for a nominal year of data taking
($2fb^{-1}$) about $1340\pm 250$ annual yield of
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ is expected over $10^{12}$ $b\bar{b}$
events [24]-[25]. At Atlas Experiment, $\sim 600$
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$can be reconstructed over a three-year
period with $30fb^{-1}$. These experiments and also the running B factories
encourage the study of rare B meson decays, in our case
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay.
This work is organized as follows. In section 2, we drive the model
independent expressions for the longitudinal, transversal and normal
polarizations of leptons and combined lepton-antilepton polarizations starting
from the quark level process and using appropriate form factors for
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay. In section 3, we present our
numerical results and the dependence of branching ratios and polarizations on
new Wilson coefficients for $\mu,\tau$.
## 2 Effective Hamiltonian and lepton polarizations
The quark level transition of the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay
is described by $b\rightarrow s\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ in the standard effective
Hamiltonian approach, and can be written in term of twelve four–Fermi
interactions, including all possible terms calculated independent of any
models, as follows [26],
$\displaystyle{\cal H}_{eff}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{G\alpha}{\sqrt{2}\pi}V_{ts}V_{tb}^{\ast}\Bigg{\\{}C_{SL}\,\bar{s}i\sigma_{\mu\nu}\frac{q^{\nu}}{q^{2}}\,L\,b\,\bar{\ell}\gamma^{\mu}\ell+C_{BR}\,\bar{s}i\sigma_{\mu\nu}\frac{q^{\nu}}{q^{2}}\,R\,b\,\bar{\ell}\gamma^{\mu}\ell$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
C_{LL}^{tot}\,\bar{s}_{L}\gamma_{\mu}b_{L}\,\bar{\ell}_{L}\gamma^{\mu}\ell_{L}+C_{LR}^{tot}\,\bar{s}_{L}\gamma_{\mu}b_{L}\,\bar{\ell}_{R}\gamma^{\mu}\ell_{R}+C_{RL}\,\bar{s}_{R}\gamma_{\mu}b_{R}\,\bar{\ell}_{L}\gamma^{\mu}\ell_{L}$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
C_{RR}\,\bar{s}_{R}\gamma_{\mu}b_{R}\,\bar{\ell}_{R}\gamma^{\mu}\ell_{R}+C_{LRLR}\,\bar{s}_{L}b_{R}\,\bar{\ell}_{L}\ell_{R}+C_{RLLR}\,\bar{s}_{R}b_{L}\,\bar{\ell}_{L}\ell_{R}$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
C_{LRRL}\,\bar{s}_{L}b_{R}\,\bar{\ell}_{R}\ell_{L}+C_{RLRL}\,\bar{s}_{R}b_{L}\,\bar{\ell}_{R}\ell_{L}+C_{T}\,\bar{s}\sigma_{\mu\nu}b\,\bar{\ell}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\ell$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
iC_{TE}\,\epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\bar{s}\sigma_{\mu\nu}b\,\bar{\ell}\sigma_{\alpha\beta}\ell\Bigg{\\}}~{},$
where $L=1-\gamma_{5}/2$ and $R=1+\gamma_{5}/2$ are the chiral projection
operators and $C_{X}$ are the coefficients of the four–Fermi interactions. The
coefficients $C_{SL}$ and $C_{BR}$ are the nonlocal Fermi interactions and
their correspondence in the SM are $-2m_{s}C_{7}^{eff}$ and
$-2m_{b}C_{7}^{eff}$, respectively. The terms with coefficients $C_{LL}$,
$C_{LR}$, $C_{RL}$ and $C_{RR}$ are the vector interactions. Two of them are
written as $C_{LL}^{tot}=C_{9}^{eff}-C_{10}+C_{LL}$ and
$C_{LR}^{tot}=C_{9}^{eff}+C_{10}+C_{LR}$. So these terms describe the sum of
the contributions from the SM and the new physics. The terms with coefficients
$C_{LRLR}$, $C_{RLLR}$, $C_{LRRL}$ and $C_{RLRL}$ describe the scalar type and
$C_{T}$ and $C_{TE}$ describe the tensor type interactions.
Having given the general form of four–Fermi interaction for the $b\rightarrow
s\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ transition, we now need to calculate the matrix element for
the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay in order to calculate the
decay amplitude. These transition matrix elements can be written in terms of
invariant form factors over $B_{s}$ and $\phi$ in the following form [4]
together with [27],
$\displaystyle\left<\phi(p_{\phi},\varepsilon)\left|\bar{s}\gamma_{\mu}(1\pm\gamma_{5})b\right|B_{s}(p_{B_{s}})\right>=$
$\displaystyle-\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\varepsilon^{\ast\nu}p_{\phi}^{\alpha}q^{\beta}\frac{2V(q^{2})}{m_{B_{s}}+m_{\phi}}\pm
i\varepsilon_{\mu}^{\ast}(m_{B_{s}}+m_{\phi})A_{1}(q^{2})$ $\displaystyle\mp
i(p_{B_{s}}+p_{\phi})_{\mu}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)\frac{A_{2}(q^{2})}{m_{B_{s}}+m_{\phi}}\mp
iq_{\mu}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)\frac{2m_{\phi}}{q^{2}}[A_{3}(q^{2})-A_{0}(q^{2})]~{},$
$\displaystyle\left<\phi(p_{\phi},\varepsilon)\left|\bar{s}i\sigma_{\mu\nu}q^{\nu}(1\pm\gamma_{5})b\right|B_{s}(p_{B_{s}})\right>=$
$\displaystyle
2\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\varepsilon^{\ast\nu}p_{\phi}^{\alpha}q^{\beta}T_{1}(q^{2})\pm
i\left[\varepsilon_{\mu}^{\ast}(m_{B_{s}}^{2}-m_{\phi}^{2})-(p_{B_{s}}+p_{\phi})_{\mu}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)\right]T_{2}(q^{2})$
$\displaystyle\pm
i(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)\left[q_{\mu}-(p_{B_{s}}+p_{\phi})_{\mu}\frac{q^{2}}{m_{B_{s}}^{2}-m_{\phi}^{2}}\right]T_{3}(q^{2})~{},$
$\displaystyle\left<\phi(p_{\phi},\varepsilon)\left|\bar{s}\sigma_{\mu\nu}b\right|B_{s}(p_{B_{s}})\right>=$
$\displaystyle
i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Bigg{[}-T_{1}(q^{2}){\varepsilon^{\ast}}^{\alpha}(p_{B_{s}}+p_{\phi})^{\beta}+\frac{1}{q^{2}}(m_{B_{s}}^{2}-m_{\phi}^{2}){\varepsilon^{\ast}}^{\alpha}q^{\beta}[T_{1}(q^{2})-T_{2}(q^{2})]$
$\displaystyle-\frac{2}{q^{2}}\Bigg{(}T_{1}(q^{2})-T_{2}(q^{2})-\frac{q^{2}}{m_{B_{s}}^{2}-m_{\phi}^{2}}T_{3}(q^{2})\Bigg{)}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)p_{\phi}^{\alpha}q^{\beta}\Bigg{]}~{},$
and
$\displaystyle\left<\phi(p_{\phi},\varepsilon)\left|\bar{s}(1\pm\gamma_{5})b\right|B_{s}(p_{B_{s}})\right>$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{m_{b}}\Big{[}\mp
2im_{\phi}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)A_{0}(q^{2})\Big{]}~{},$ (5)
where $q=p_{B_{s}}-p_{\phi}$ is the momentum transfer and $\varepsilon$ is the
polarization vector of $\phi$ meson. The matrix element in (5) is calculated
by contracting both sides of (2) with $q^{\mu}$, using equation of motion and
the following relation [27]
$\displaystyle
A_{3}(q^{2})=\frac{m_{B_{s}}+m_{\phi}}{2m_{\phi}}A_{1}(q^{2})-\frac{m_{B_{s}}-m_{\phi}}{2m_{\phi}}A_{2}(q^{2}).$
In order to avoid kinematical singularity in the matrix element at $q^{2}=0$,
it is assumed that $A_{0}(0)=A_{3}(0)$ and $T_{1}(0)=T_{2}(0)$ [4].
After the definitions of the form factors, the matrix element of the
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay can be written by using (2)–(5)
as,
$\displaystyle{\cal
M}($$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$$)=\frac{G\alpha}{4\sqrt{2}\pi}V_{tb}V_{ts}^{\ast}$
(6)
$\displaystyle\times\Bigg{\\{}\bar{\ell}\gamma^{\mu}(1-\gamma_{5})\ell\,\Big{[}-2A_{1}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\varepsilon^{\ast\nu}p_{\phi}^{\alpha}q^{\beta}-iB_{1}\varepsilon_{\mu}^{\ast}+iB_{2}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)(p_{B_{s}}+p_{\phi})_{\mu}+iB_{3}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)q_{\mu}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+\bar{\ell}\gamma^{\mu}(1+\gamma_{5})\ell\,\Big{[}-2C_{1}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\varepsilon^{\ast\nu}p_{\phi}^{\alpha}q^{\beta}-iD_{1}\varepsilon_{\mu}^{\ast}+iD_{2}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)(p_{B_{s}}+p_{\phi})_{\mu}+iD_{3}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)q_{\mu}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+\bar{\ell}(1-\gamma_{5})\ell\Big{[}iB_{4}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)\Big{]}+\bar{\ell}(1+\gamma_{5})\ell\Big{[}iB_{5}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q)\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+4\bar{\ell}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\ell\Big{(}iC_{T}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Big{)}\Big{[}-2T_{1}{\varepsilon^{\ast}}^{\alpha}(p_{B_{s}}+p_{\phi})^{\beta}+B_{6}{\varepsilon^{\ast}}^{\alpha}q^{\beta}-B_{7}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q){p_{\phi}}^{\alpha}q^{\beta}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+16C_{TE}\bar{\ell}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\ell\Big{[}-2T_{1}{\varepsilon^{\ast}}^{\mu}(p_{B_{s}}+p_{\phi})^{\nu}+B_{6}{\varepsilon^{\ast}}^{\mu}q^{\nu}-B_{7}(\varepsilon^{\ast}q){p_{\phi}}^{\mu}q^{\nu}\Bigg{\\}}~{},$
where
$\displaystyle A_{1}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(C_{LL}^{tot}+C_{RL})\frac{V}{m_{B_{s}}+m_{\phi}}-(C_{BR}+C_{SL})\frac{T_{1}}{q^{2}}~{},$
$\displaystyle B_{1}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(C_{LL}^{tot}-C_{RL})(m_{B_{s}}-m_{\phi})A_{1}-(C_{BR}-C_{SL})(m_{B_{s}}^{2}-m_{\phi}^{2})\frac{T_{2}}{q^{2}}~{},$
$\displaystyle B_{2}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{C_{LL}^{tot}-C_{RL}}{m_{B_{s}}+m_{\phi}}A_{2}-(C_{BR}-C_{SL})\frac{1}{q^{2}}\Big{(}T_{2}+\frac{q^{2}}{m_{B_{s}}^{2}-m_{\phi}^{2}}T_{3}\Big{)}~{},$
$\displaystyle B_{3}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
2(C_{LL}^{tot}-C_{RL})\frac{m_{\phi}}{q^{2}}(A_{3}-A_{0})+(C_{BR}-C_{SL})\frac{T_{3}}{q^{2}}~{},$
$\displaystyle C_{1}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(C_{LR}^{tot}+C_{RR})\frac{V}{m_{B_{s}}+m_{\phi}}-(C_{BR}+C_{SL})\frac{T_{1}}{q^{2}}~{},$
$\displaystyle D_{1}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(C_{LR}^{tot}-C_{RR})(m_{B_{s}}-m_{\phi})A_{1}-(C_{BR}-C_{SL})(m_{B_{s}}^{2}-m_{\phi}^{2})\frac{T_{2}}{q^{2}}~{},$
$\displaystyle D_{2}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{C_{LR}^{tot}-C_{RR}}{m_{B_{s}}+m_{\phi}}A_{2}-(C_{BR}-C_{SL})\frac{1}{q^{2}}\Big{(}T_{2}+\frac{q^{2}}{m_{B_{s}}^{2}-m_{\phi}^{2}}T_{3}\Big{)}~{},$
$\displaystyle D_{3}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
2(C_{LR}^{tot}-C_{RR})\frac{m_{\phi}}{q^{2}}(A_{3}-A_{0})+(C_{BR}-C_{SL})\frac{T_{3}}{q^{2}}~{},$
$\displaystyle B_{4}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-2(C_{LRRL}-C_{RLRL})\frac{m_{\phi}}{m_{b}}A_{0}~{},$
$\displaystyle B_{5}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-2(C_{LRLR}-C_{RLLR})\frac{m_{\phi}}{m_{b}}A_{0}\,,$
$\displaystyle B_{6}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(m_{B_{s}}^{2}-m_{\phi}^{2})\frac{T_{1}-T_{2}}{q^{2}}\,,$
$\displaystyle B_{7}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{q^{2}}\Big{(}T_{1}-T_{2}-\frac{q^{2}}{m_{B_{s}}^{2}-m_{\phi}^{2}}T_{3}\Big{)}\,.$
(7)
At this point, we would like to calculate the final lepton polarizations for
the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay. In order to do this, we
define the orthogonal unit vector $S_{i}^{-\mu}$ in the rest frame of
$\ell^{-}$ and $S_{i}^{+\mu}$ in the rest frame of $\ell^{+}$, for the
polarization of the leptons along the longitudinal ($L$), transversal ($T$)
and normal ($N$) directions. Using the convention of [26, 28], we can write
$\displaystyle S_{L}^{-\mu}$ $\displaystyle\equiv$
$\displaystyle(0,{\bf{e}}_{L}^{\,-})=\left(0,\frac{\bf{p}_{-}}{\left|\bf{p}_{-}\right|}\right)~{},$
$\displaystyle S_{N}^{-\mu}$ $\displaystyle\equiv$
$\displaystyle(0,{\bf{e}}_{N}^{\,-})=\left(0,\frac{\bf{p}\times\bf{p}_{-}}{\left|\bf{p}\times\bf{p}_{-}\right|}\right)~{},$
$\displaystyle S_{T}^{-\mu}$ $\displaystyle\equiv$
$\displaystyle(0,{\bf{e}}_{T}^{\,-})=\left(0,{\bf{e}}_{N}^{\,-}\times{\bf{e}}_{L}^{\,-}\right)~{},$
$\displaystyle S_{L}^{+\mu}$ $\displaystyle\equiv$
$\displaystyle(0,{\bf{e}}_{L}^{\,+})=\left(0,\frac{\bf{p}_{+}}{\left|\bf{p}_{+}\right|}\right)~{},$
$\displaystyle S_{N}^{+\mu}$ $\displaystyle\equiv$
$\displaystyle(0,{\bf{e}}_{N}^{\,+})=\left(0,\frac{\bf{p}\times\bf{p}_{+}}{\left|\bf{p}\times\bf{p}_{+}\right|}\right)~{},$
$\displaystyle S_{T}^{+\mu}$ $\displaystyle\equiv$
$\displaystyle(0,{\bf{e}}_{T}^{\,+})=\left(0,{\bf{e}}_{N}^{\,+}\times{\bf{e}}_{L}^{\,+}\right)~{},$
(8)
where $\bf{p}_{\pm}$ and $\bf{p}$ are the three momenta of $\ell^{\pm}$ and
$\phi$ meson in the center of mass (CM) frame of the lepton pair system,
respectively. The longitudinal unit vectors $S_{L}^{\pm}$ are boosted to CM
frame of the lepton pair by Lorentz transformation,
$\displaystyle S^{-\mu}_{L,\,CM}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(\frac{\left|\bf{p}_{-}\right|}{m_{\ell}},\frac{E_{\ell}\,\bf{p}_{-}}{m_{\ell}\left|\bf{p}_{-}\right|}\right)~{},$
$\displaystyle S^{+\mu}_{L,\,CM}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(\frac{\left|\bf{p}_{-}\right|}{m_{\ell}},-\frac{E_{\ell}\,\bf{p}_{-}}{m_{\ell}\left|\bf{p}_{-}\right|}\right)~{},$
(9)
while vectors of perpendicular directions are not changed by the boost.
The differential decay rate of the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$can
be written in any spin direction, as $\bf{n}^{\pm}$ being any spin direction
of the $\ell^{\pm}$, in the rest frame of lepton pair, in the following form:
$\displaystyle\frac{d\Gamma(\bf{n}^{\pm})}{ds}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{d\Gamma}{ds}\right)_{0}\Bigg{[}1+\Bigg{(}P_{L}^{\pm}{\bf{e}}_{L}^{\,\pm}+P_{N}^{\pm}{\bf{e}}_{N}^{\,\pm}+P_{T}^{\pm}{\bf{e}}_{T}^{\,\pm}\Bigg{)}\cdot\bf{n}^{\pm}\Bigg{]}~{},$
(10)
where $s=q^{2}/m_{B_{s}}^{2}$, the superscripts + and - respectively
correspond to $\ell^{+}$ and $\ell^{-}$ cases and $(d\Gamma/ds)_{0}$
corresponds to the unpolarized decay rate,
$\displaystyle\left(\frac{d\Gamma}{ds}\right)_{0}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{G^{2}\alpha^{2}m_{B_{s}}}{2^{14}\pi^{5}}\left|V_{tb}V_{ts}^{\ast}\right|^{2}\sqrt{\lambda}v\Delta$
(11)
where $\Delta$ is given in Appendix A and $\lambda=1+r^{2}+s^{2}-2r-2s-2rs$
and lepton velocity is $v=\sqrt{1-{4m_{\ell}^{2}}/{sm_{B_{s}}^{2}}}$.
The polarizations $P^{\pm}_{L}$, $P^{\pm}_{T}$ and $P^{\pm}_{N}$ in (10) are
defined by the equation
$\displaystyle
P_{i}^{\pm}(s)=\frac{\displaystyle{\frac{d\Gamma}{ds}({\bf{n}}^{\pm}={\bf{e}}_{i}^{\,\pm})-\frac{d\Gamma}{ds}({\bf{n}}^{\pm}=-{\bf{e}}_{i}^{\,\pm})}}{\displaystyle{\frac{d\Gamma}{ds}({\bf{n}}^{\pm}={\bf{e}}_{i}^{\,\pm})+\frac{d\Gamma}{ds}({\bf{n}}^{\pm}=-{\bf{e}}_{i}^{\,\pm})}}~{},$
for $i=L,~{}N,~{}T$. Here, longitudinal and transversal asymmetries of the
charged leptons $\ell^{\pm}$ in the decay plane are $P^{\pm}_{L}$ and
$P^{\pm}_{T}$, respectively, and the normal component to both of them is
$P^{\pm}_{N}$.
The main contribution to $P^{-}_{L}$ and $P^{-}_{N}$ is due to tensor
interactions. In case of $P^{-}_{T}$, it also receives considerable scaler
contribution in additon to tensor effects. The expressions for the lepton
polarizations are given in the Appendix B.
From (B-1)-(B-5), it can be observed that for longitudinal and normal
polarizations, the difference between $\ell^{+}$ and $\ell^{-}$ lepton
asymmetries results from the scalar and tensor type interactions. Similar
situation takes place for transverse polarization asymmetries in the
$m_{\ell}\rightarrow 0$ limit. From this, we can conclude that their
experimental study may provide essential information about new physics.
In searching new physics, the combined analysis of the lepton and antilepton
polarizations can be another useful source, since in the SM
$P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}=0$, $P_{N}^{-}+P_{N}^{+}=0$ and
$P_{T}^{-}-P_{T}^{+}\approx 0$ [26]. Using (B-1) we obtain combined
longitudinal polarization, the combined transversal polarization which is the
difference of the lepton and antilepton polarizations, from (B-2) and (B-3)
and finally the combined normal polarization, from (B-4) and (B-5). The
explicit form of these asymmetries are also given in the Appendix B.
One should note from (B-6) that in $P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}$ the SM contribution
coming with $C_{BR}$, $C_{SL}$, $C^{tot}_{LL}$ and $C^{tot}_{LR}$ terms,
completely cancels. Any nonzero measurement of the value of
$P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}$ in future experiments, may be an evidence of the
discovery of new physics beyond the SM.
## 3 Numerical analysis and discussion
We will present our numerical analysis of the branching ratios and
polarizations and their dependencies on Wilson coefficients in a series of
figures, but before doing this, let us remark on a few points.
The expressions of the lepton polarizations depend on both $s$ and the new
Wilson coefficients. It may not be experimentally easy to study the
polarizations depending on both quantities. So, by taking the averaged forms
over the allowed kinematical region, we eliminate the dependency of the lepton
polarizations on $s$. The averaged lepton polarizations are defined by
$\displaystyle\left<P_{i}\right>=\frac{\displaystyle\int_{(2m_{\ell}/m_{B_{s}})^{2}}^{(1-m_{\phi}/m_{B_{s}})^{2}}P_{i}\frac{d{\cal
B}}{ds}ds}{\displaystyle\int_{(2m_{\ell}/m_{B_{s}})^{2}}^{(1-m_{\phi}/m_{B_{s}})^{2}}\frac{d{\cal
B}}{ds}ds}~{}.$ (12)
The input parameters we used in our numerical analysis are:
$\displaystyle
m_{B_{s}}=5.367\,GeV\,,\,m_{\phi}=1.019\,GeV\,\,\,m_{b}=4.8\,GeV\,,\,m_{\mu}=0.105\,GeV\,,\,m_{\tau}=1.77\,GeV\,,$
$\displaystyle|V_{tb}V^{*}_{ts}|=0.0385\,\,,\,\,\alpha^{-1}=129\,\,,G_{F}=1.17\times
10^{-5}\,GeV^{-2}\,,\tau_{B_{s}}=1.425\times 10^{-12}\,s\,.$
The values of the individual Wilson coefficients that appear in the SM at
$\mu\sim m_{b}$ are listed in Table (1) and the parameters that are not given
here are taken from [29].
$C_{1}$ | $C_{2}$ | $C_{3}$ | $C_{4}$ | $C_{5}$ | $C_{6}$ | $C_{7}^{\rm eff}$ | $C_{9}$ | $C_{10}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
$-0.248$ | $+1.107$ | $+0.011$ | $-0.026$ | $+0.007$ | $-0.031$ | $-0.313$ | $+4.344$ | $-4.624$
Table 1: Values of the SM Wilson coefficients at $\mu\sim m_{b}$ scale.
The given $C^{eff}_{9}$ value in Table (1) corresponds only to the short-
distance contributions, but it should be noted that $C^{eff}_{9}$ also
receives long-distance contributions due to conversion of the real $\bar{c}c$
into lepton pair $\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$ and are usually absorbed into a
redefinition of the short-distance Wilson coefficients:
$\displaystyle C_{9}^{eff}(\mu)=C_{9}(\mu)+Y(\mu)\,\,,$ (13)
where
$\displaystyle Y(\mu)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
Y_{reson}+h(y,s)[3C_{1}(\mu)+C_{2}(\mu)+3C_{3}(\mu)+C_{4}(\mu)+3C_{5}(\mu)+C_{6}(\mu)]$
(14) $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}h(1,s)\left(4C_{3}(\mu)+4C_{4}(\mu)+3C_{5}(\mu)+C_{6}(\mu)\right)$
$\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}h(0,s)\left[C_{3}(\mu)+3C_{4}(\mu)\right]$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{9}\left(3C_{3}(\mu)+C_{4}(\mu)+3C_{5}(\mu)+C_{6}(\mu)\right)\,\,,$
with $y=m_{c}/m_{b}$, and the functions $h(y,s)$ arises from the one loop
contributions of the four quark operators $O_{1}$,…,$O_{6}$. The explicit
forms of them can be found in [30]-[32]. Parametrization of the resonance
$\bar{c}c$ contribution, $Y_{reson}(s)$, given in (14) can be done by using a
Breit-Wigner shape with normalizations fixed by data given by [33]
$\displaystyle Y_{reson}(s)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\frac{3}{\alpha^{2}_{em}}\kappa\sum_{V_{i}=\psi_{i}}\frac{\pi\Gamma(V_{i}\rightarrow\ell^{+}\ell^{-})m_{V_{i}}}{sm^{2}_{B_{c}}-m_{V_{i}}+im_{V_{i}}\Gamma_{V_{i}}}$
(15) $\displaystyle\times$
$\displaystyle[3C_{1}(\mu)+C_{2}(\mu)+3C_{3}(\mu)+C_{4}(\mu)+3C_{5}(\mu)+C_{6}(\mu)]\,,$
where the phenomenological parameter $\kappa$ is taken as $2.3$.
The new Wilson coefficients are the free parameters in this work, but it is
possible to establish ranges out of experimentally measured branching ratios
of the semileptonic rare B-meson decays
$\displaystyle BR(B\rightarrow K\,\ell^{+}\ell^{-})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(4.8^{+1.0}_{-0.9}\pm 0.3)\times
10^{-7}\,\,\cite[cite]{[\@@bibref{}{Belle}{}{}]},$ $\displaystyle
BR(B\rightarrow K^{*}\,\mu^{+}\mu^{-})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(1.27^{+0.76}_{-0.61}\pm 0)\times
10^{-6}\,\,\cite[cite]{[\@@bibref{}{Babar}{}{}]},$
and also the upper bound of pure leptonic rare B-decays in the
$B^{0}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ mode [36]:
$\displaystyle BR(B^{0}\rightarrow\mu^{+}\mu^{-})$ $\displaystyle\leq$
$\displaystyle 1.5\times 10^{-7}\,\,.$
Compliant to this upper limit and the branching ratios for the semileptonic
rare B-decays, in this work we take all new Wilson coefficients as real and
varying in the region $-4\leq C_{X}\leq 4$.
The numerical values of the form factors that we used in this work are the
results of [4]. The form factors are calculated in light cone sum rule
approach and include the radiative and higher twist corrections and SU(3)
breaking effects. The $q^{2}$ dependencies of the form factors in three
parameter fit are given as
$\displaystyle F(q^{2})=\frac{F(0)}{1-as+bs^{2}}~{},$
where the values of parameters $F(0)$, $a$ and $b$ for the
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi$ decay are listed in Table 2.
$\begin{array}[]{|l|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline\cr&A_{0}&A_{1}&A_{2}&V&T_{1}&T_{2}&T_{3}\\\
\hline\cr F(0)&\phantom{-}0.382&0.296&0.255&0.433&0.348&0.348&0.254\\\
a&\phantom{-}1.77&0.87&1.55&1.75&1.820&0.70&1.52\\\
b&\phantom{-}0.856&-0.061&0.513&0.736&0.825&-0.315&0.377\\\
\hline\cr\end{array}$ Table 2: Light cone sum rule approach
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi$ meson decay form factors in a three parameters fit,
including radiative and higher twist corrections and SU(3) breaking effects.
Before discussing the figures including the results of our analysis, we would
like to give our SM predictions for the longitudinal, transverse and the
normal components of the lepton polarizations for
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay for the $\mu$ ($\tau$) channel for
reference:
$\displaystyle<P^{-}_{L}>$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
0.8373\,(0.4299)\,,$ $\displaystyle<P^{-}_{T}>$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle 0.0025\,(0.0498)\,,$ $\displaystyle<P^{-}_{N}>$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 0.0013\,(0.0214)\,.$
The $<P^{-}_{L}>$ value is in consistent with
$<P^{-}_{L}>_{\mu(\tau)}=-0.81(-0.49)$, respectively [9]. (The opposite sign
is caused by the definition of the form factors.)
In Figures (1) and (2), we give the dependence of the integrated branching
ratio (BR) on the new Wilson coefficients for the
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$and
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$decays, respectively. The SM predictions
for the integrated branching ratios, which are comparable with [8, 19], are
$\displaystyle BR(B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\mu^{+}\mu^{-})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle 1.92\times 10^{-6}\,,$ $\displaystyle
BR(B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\tau^{+}\tau^{-})$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
2.34\times 10^{-7}\,.$
The former one is also in the experimental range reported by [22]-[23].
In figures, the strong dependence of BR on the tensor interactions is clear.
There is a weak dependence on vector interactions $C_{LL}$ and $C_{RL}$, while
BR is completely insensitive to the scalar interactions for $\mu$ case,
negligibly sensitive for $\tau$ case. It can also be seen from these figures
that dependence of the BR on the new Wilson coefficients is symmetric with
respect to the zero point for the muon final state, but such a symmetry is not
observed for the tau final state for the tensor interactions.
In Figs. (3) and (4), we present the dependence of averaged longitudinal
polarization $<P_{L}^{-}>$ of $\ell^{-}$ and the combined averaged
$<P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}>$ for $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$decay on the
new Wilson coefficients. We observe that the contributions coming from all
types of interactions to $<P_{L}^{-}>$ are positive, and more sensitive to the
existence of the tensor interactions. It is an increasing (decreasing)
functions of both tensor interactions for their negative (positive) values and
it should also be noted that $<P_{L}^{-}>$ becomes substantially different
from the SM value (at $C_{X}=0$) as $C_{X}$ becomes different from zero. This
indicates that measurement of the longitudinal lepton polarization in
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$decay can be very useful to investigate
new physics beyond the SM. On the other hand, the contributions to the
combined average $<P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}>$ is a result of scalar and $C_{T}$
tensor interactions. Vector type interactions are cancelled when the
longitudinal polarization asymmetry of the lepton and antilepton are
considered together. This expected result is also tested here since there is
no vector contribution on $<P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}>$. Additionally,
$<P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}>$ becomes zero at $C_{X}=0$, which conforms the SM
results. So, any nonzero measurement can be the signal of new physics beyond
the SM. The dependence of $<P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}>$ on $C_{X}$ is symmetric with
respect to the zero value and is positive for all values of $C_{LRLR}$ and
$C_{RLLR}$, while it is negative for remaining scalar type interactions. A
last note on the $C_{T}$ interaction. The $C_{T}$ contribution is positive
(negative) for $C_{X}<0$ ($C_{X}>0$). This can also be useful.
Figures (5) and (6) are the same as Figs. (3) and (4), but for
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. Similar to the muon case,
$<P_{L}^{-}>$ is more sensitive to the tensor interactions than others.
Contributions to $<P_{L}^{-}>$ from all type of interactions are positive for
all values of $C_{X}$ except for $C_{T}$ and $C_{TE}$. In the region
$1.2\stackrel{{\scriptstyle<}}{{{}_{\sim}}}C_{T}<4$ and
$0.17\stackrel{{\scriptstyle<}}{{{}_{\sim}}}C_{TE}<4$, $<P_{L}^{-}>$ changes
the sign and becomes negative. For $<P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}>$, although their
values are bigger than that of the $\mu$ case, the scaler and $C_{TE}$ tensor
contributions become less important as comparing the dominance of $C_{TE}$.
$<P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}>$ changes sign as individual Wilson coefficient changes
its sign. Specifically speaking, the $<P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}>$ takes positive
(negative) values for negative (positive) value of $C_{T}$. Thus, one can
provide essential information about new physics by determining the sign and
the magnitude of $<P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}>$. In tau final state,
$<P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}>$ also becomes zero at $C_{X}=0$, a conforming result of
the SM.
In Figs. (7) and (8), we present the dependence of averaged transverse
polarization $<P_{T}^{-}>$ of $\ell^{-}$ and the combined averaged
$<P_{T}^{-}-P_{T}^{+}>$ for $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$decay on the
new Wilson coefficients. As seen from the figure, for $<P_{T}^{-}>$ the vector
contributions are negligible but there appears strong dependence on tensor and
scaler interactions. The scalar terms $C_{LRRL}$, $C_{LRLR}$ and $C_{RLRL}$,
$C_{RLLR}$ are approximately identical in pair. When the formers are positive
(negative), $<P_{T}^{-}>$ is negative (positive) while it is opposite for the
others. On the other hand, the $C_{LRLR}$ and $C_{RLRL}$ components of scaler
interactions become less important in $<P_{T}^{-}-P_{T}^{+}>$, as comparing
their effects in $<P_{T}^{-}>$.
Figures (9) and (10) are the same as Figs. (7) and (8), but for
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. We see from these figures that the
$<P_{T}^{-}>$ and $<P_{T}^{-}-P_{T}^{+}>$ are quite sensitive to all types of
interactions. The dependence of vector interactions are also more sizable
comparing with the muon final state case. Changes in sign of $<P_{T}^{-}>$ and
$<P_{T}^{-}-P_{T}^{+}>$ are observed depending on the change in the Wilson
coefficients, the measurement of which may be useful to search new physics.
In Figs. (11) and (12), we present the dependence of averaged normal
polarization $<P_{N}^{-}>$ of $\ell^{-}$ and the combined averaged
$<P_{N}^{-}+P_{N}^{+}>$ for $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$decay on the
new Wilson coefficients. We see from Fig. (11) that $<P_{N}^{-}>$ strongly
depends on the tensor and scaler interactions, the vector contribution is
negligible. The coefficients $C_{LRRL},C_{LRLR}$ and $C_{RLLR},C_{RLRL}$ are
identical in pairs. the behavior of $<P_{N}^{-}+P_{N}^{+}>$ is determined by
the tensor interactions only. We observe that $<P_{N}^{-}+P_{N}^{+}>$ is
negative (positive) when $C_{TE}<0$ ($C_{TE}>0$) while the behavior of $C_{T}$
is opposite with respect to $C_{TE}$. In addition, as expected in the SM,
$<P_{N}^{-}+P_{N}^{+}>$ becomes zero at $C_{X}=0$.
Figures (13) and (14) are the same as Figs. (11) and (12), but for
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$. In opposite to the muon final state
case, we should notice the dependence of $<P_{N}^{-}>$ on vector type
interactions, too. $<P_{N}^{-}+P_{N}^{+}>$, as in the muon case, depends only
on the tensor interactions and their behaviors are similar.
Finally, a few words on the detectibility of lepton polarization asymmetries
to have an idea of this possibility folowing [10]. Experimentally, the
required number of events are $N=n^{2}/(B<P_{i}>^{2}$ for a decay with the
branching ration B at $n\sigma$ level to be able to measure an asymmery
$<P_{i}>$. Using our SM predictions for lepton polarizations given in (3) we
simply find that to observe $<P_{L}^{-}>,<P_{T}^{-}>$ and $<P_{N}^{-}>$ in
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$at $1\sigma$ level we need
$N=(0.74;8.33\times 10^{4};3.08\times 10^{5})\times 10^{6}$ number of events,
respectively. For the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$, the required
number of events are $N=(2.31;1.72\times 10^{2};9.33\times 10^{2})\times
10^{7}$. The number of $b\bar{b}$ events expected, at least at LHC-b, is $\sim
10^{12}$. So, comparing these numbers we conclude that in principle
measurement of these values could be possible.
In conclusion, starting the general model independent form of the effective
Hamiltonian, we present the most general analysis of the lepton polarization
asymmetries in the rare $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\ell^{+}\ell^{-}$decay. The
dependence of the longitudinal, transversal and normal polarization
asymmetries of $\ell^{-}$ and their combined asymmetries on the new Wilson
coefficients are studied. The lepton polarization asymmetries are very
sensitive to the existence of the tensor type interactions and in some cases
effect of scaler type interactions should be considered. The tensor $C_{T}$
term plays a significant role throughout this work. Additionally, in the most
cases, the value of polarization asymmetries change sign as the new Wilson
coefficients vary in the region of interest, which is useful to determine the
sign in addition magnitude of new physics effect. In the SM, in the limit
$m_{\ell}\rightarrow 0$, the combined lepton polarizations are
$<P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}>=0$, $<P_{N}^{-}+P_{N}^{+}>=0$ and
$<P_{T}^{-}-P_{T}^{+}>\simeq 0$. Therefore, in the experimental searches, any
nonzero measurement will be an effective tool in looking for new physics
beyond the SM.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank S. Fajfer for valuable contributions and
critical comments, G. Turan for reading the manuscript and comments on it and
B. Golob for sharing experimental experience. This work was supported by The
Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) under
BIDEB-2219 program.
## Appendix A
$\displaystyle\Delta$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{3}m_{B_{s}}^{4}\lambda\Big{[}(m_{B_{s}}^{2}s-m_{\ell}^{2})\left(\left|A_{1}\right|^{2}+\left|C_{1}\right|^{2}\right)+6m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(A_{1}C_{1}^{\ast})\Big{]}$ (A-1) $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
96m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}D_{1}^{\ast})-\frac{4}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{4}^{\ast}-B_{5}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{8}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}\lambda\,\Big{(}\mbox{\rm
Re}[B_{1}(-B_{3}^{\ast}+D_{2}^{\ast}+D_{3}^{\ast})]+\mbox{\rm
Re}[D_{1}(B_{2}^{\ast}+B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]-\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{4}B_{5}^{\ast})\Big{)}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{4}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}(1-r)\lambda\,\Big{(}\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{4}^{\ast}-B_{5}^{\ast})]+2m_{\ell}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{8}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}^{2}\lambda(2+2r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{2}D_{2}^{\ast})+\frac{4}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}s\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(B_{4}^{\ast}-B_{5}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{4}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}^{2}s\lambda\,\left|B_{3}-D_{3}\right|^{2}+\frac{2}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}(m_{B_{s}}^{2}s-2m_{\ell}^{2})\lambda\,\left(\left|B_{4}\right|^{2}+\left|B_{5}\right|^{2}\right)$
$\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{8}{3rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}\lambda\,\Big{[}m_{\ell}^{2}(2-2r+s)+m_{B_{s}}^{2}s(1-r-s)\Big{]}\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}B_{2}^{\ast})+\mbox{\rm Re}(D_{1}D_{2}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{4}{3rs}\,\Big{[}2m_{\ell}^{2}(\lambda-6rs)+m_{B_{s}}^{2}s(\lambda+12rs)\Big{]}\left(\left|B_{1}\right|^{2}+\left|D_{1}\right|^{2}\right)$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{4}{3rs}m_{B_{s}}^{4}\lambda\,\Big{(}m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\lambda+m_{\ell}^{2}[2\lambda+3s(2+2r-s)]\Big{)}\left(\left|B_{2}\right|^{2}+\left|D_{2}\right|^{2}\right)$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{6}m_{\ell}\lambda^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}+D_{2})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}\lambda(1-r-s)\Big{(}\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]+2\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}+D_{2})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{64}{r}(\lambda+12rs)m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{256}{3rs}\left|T_{1}\right|^{2}\left|C_{T}\right|^{2}m_{B_{s}}^{2}\Big{(}4m_{\ell}^{2}\,[\lambda(8r-s)-12rs(2+2r-s)]$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,[\lambda(16r+s)+12rs(2+2r-s)]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1024}{3rs}\left|T_{1}\right|^{2}\left|C_{TE}\right|^{2}m_{B_{s}}^{2}\Big{(}8m_{\ell}^{2}\,[\lambda(4r+s)+12rs(2+2r-s)]$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,[\lambda(16r+s)+12rs(2+2r-s)]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{128}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\,[\lambda+12r(1-r)]\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{128}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}\lambda(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}+D_{2})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]+512m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(A_{1}+C_{1})(T_{1}C_{T})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}\Bigg{(}4(m_{B_{s}}^{2}s+8m_{\ell}^{2})\left|C_{TE}\right|^{2}+m_{B_{s}}^{2}sv^{2}\left|C_{T}\right|^{2}\Bigg{)}\times\Bigg{(}4(\lambda+12rs)\left|B_{6}\right|^{2}$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
m_{B_{s}}^{4}\lambda^{2}\left|B_{7}\right|^{2}-4m_{B_{s}}^{2}(1-r-s)\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{6}B_{7}^{\ast})-16\,[\lambda+12r(1-r)]\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(T_{1}B_{6}^{\ast})$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
8m_{B_{s}}^{2}(1+3r-s)\lambda\,\mbox{\rm Re}(T_{1}B_{7}^{\ast})\Bigg{)}~{},$
where $\lambda=1+r^{2}+s^{2}-2r-2s-2rs$, $r=m_{\phi}^{2}/m_{B_{s}}^{2}$ lepton
velocity is $v=\sqrt{1-{4m_{\ell}^{2}}/{sm_{B_{s}}^{2}}}$.
## Appendix B
The longitudinal polarization $P_{L}^{\pm}$ for the $\ell^{\pm}$;
$\displaystyle P_{L}^{\pm}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{4}{\Delta}m_{B_{s}}^{2}v\Bigg{\\{}\mp\frac{1}{3r}\lambda^{2}m_{B_{s}}^{4}\Big{[}\left|B_{2}\right|^{2}-\left|D_{2}\right|^{2}\Big{]}+\frac{1}{r}\lambda
m_{\ell}\,\mbox{\rm Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{4}^{\ast}+B_{5}^{\ast})]$ (B-1)
$\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1-r)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{4}^{\ast}+B_{5}^{\ast})]\mp\frac{8}{3}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{4}s\Big{[}\left|A_{1}\right|^{2}-\left|C_{1}\right|^{2}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{2r}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\Big{[}\left|B_{4}\right|^{2}-\left|B_{5}\right|^{2}\Big{]}-\frac{1}{r}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}s\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(B_{4}^{\ast}+B_{5}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle\pm$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{3r}\lambda m_{B_{s}}^{2}(1-r-s)\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}B_{2}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm
Re}(D_{1}D_{2}^{\ast})\Big{]}\mp\frac{1}{3r}(\lambda+12rs)\Big{[}\left|B_{1}\right|^{2}-\left|D_{1}\right|^{2}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle\mp$ $\displaystyle\frac{256}{3}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\,\Big{(}\mbox{\rm Re}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}\mp
C_{TE})T_{1}]-\mbox{\rm Re}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}\pm C_{TE})T_{1}]\Big{)}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{4}{3r}\lambda^{2}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}\Big{(}\mbox{\rm
Re}[B_{2}^{\ast}(C_{T}\mp 4C_{TE})B_{7}]+\mbox{\rm Re}[D_{2}^{\ast}(C_{T}\pm
4C_{TE})B_{7}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle\frac{8}{3r}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\Big{(}\mbox{\rm Re}[B_{2}^{\ast}(C_{T}\mp
4C_{TE})B_{6}]+\mbox{\rm Re}[D_{2}^{\ast}(C_{T}\pm 4C_{TE})B_{6}]\Big{)}$
$\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle\frac{4}{3r}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\Big{(}\mbox{\rm Re}[B_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}\mp
4C_{TE})B_{7}]+\mbox{\rm Re}[D_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}\pm 4C_{TE})B_{7}]\Big{)}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{8}{3r}(\lambda+12rs)m_{\ell}\Big{(}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[B_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}\mp 4C_{TE})B_{6}]+\mbox{\rm Re}[D_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}\pm
4C_{TE})B_{6}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{3r}m_{\ell}[\lambda+12r(1-r)]\Big{(}\mbox{\rm
Re}[B_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}\mp 4C_{TE})T_{1}]+\mbox{\rm Re}[D_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}\pm
4C_{TE})T_{1}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle\frac{16}{3r}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1+3r-s)\Big{(}\mbox{\rm Re}[B_{2}^{\ast}(C_{T}\mp
4C_{TE})T_{1}]+\mbox{\rm Re}[D_{2}^{\ast}(C_{T}\pm 4C_{TE})T_{1}]\Big{)}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{3r}\lambda^{2}m_{B_{s}}^{6}s\left|B_{7}\right|^{2}\mbox{\rm
Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})+\frac{64}{3r}(\lambda+12rs)m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\left|B_{6}\right|^{2}\mbox{\rm
Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})$ $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle\frac{64}{3r}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{4}s(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm Re}(B_{6}B_{7}^{\ast})\mbox{\rm
Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle\frac{128}{3r}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{4}s(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm Re}(B_{7}T_{1}{{}^{\ast})}\mbox{\rm
Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{256}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}s[\lambda+12r(1-r)]\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{6}T_{1}{{}^{\ast}})\mbox{\rm Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{256}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}[\lambda(4r+s)+12r(1-r)^{2}]\left|T_{1}\right|^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})\Bigg{\\}}~{},$
where $\Delta$ is given in (A-1).
The transverse polarization $P_{T}^{-}$ for $\ell^{-}$;
$\displaystyle P_{T}^{-}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{\Delta}m_{B_{s}}\sqrt{s\lambda}\Bigg{\\{}-8m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(A_{1}+C_{1})(B_{1}^{\ast}+D_{1}^{\ast})]$ (B-2) $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1+3r-s)\,\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}D_{2}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(B_{2}D_{1}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{rs}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\Big{[}\left|B_{1}\right|^{2}-\left|D_{1}\right|^{2}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{rs}(2m_{\ell}^{2}-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s)(1-r-s)\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}B_{5}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(D_{1}B_{4}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}\lambda\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{2}B_{5}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(D_{2}B_{4}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}(1-r)\lambda\Big{[}\left|B_{2}\right|^{2}-\left|D_{2}\right|^{2}\Big{]}+\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}+D_{2})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}[\lambda+(1-r-s)(1-r)]\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}B_{2}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(D_{1}D_{2}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{rs}(1-r-s)(2m_{\ell}^{2}-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s)\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}B_{4}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(D_{1}B_{5}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}\lambda(2m_{\ell}^{2}-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s)\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(D_{2}B_{5}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(B_{2}B_{4}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle\frac{16}{rs}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle\frac{16}{rs}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{8}{r}\lambda m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{4}-B_{5})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{r}\lambda m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{rs}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r)(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{4}-B_{5})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle
16m_{B_{s}}^{2}\Big{(}4m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})B_{6}]-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})B_{6}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
16m_{B_{s}}^{2}\Big{(}4m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})B_{6}]-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})B_{6}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{s}m_{B_{s}}^{2}(1-r)\Big{(}4m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})T_{1}]-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})T_{1}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{s}m_{B_{s}}^{2}(1-r)\Big{(}4m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})T_{1}]-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})T_{1}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{64}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r)(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{64}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{4}-B_{5})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{64}{rs}[m_{B_{s}}^{2}rs-m_{\ell}^{2}(1+7r-s)]\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{s}(4m_{\ell}^{2}+m_{B_{s}}^{2}s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(T_{1}C_{T})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle
2048m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\,\mbox{\rm Re}[(C_{T}T_{1})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{4096}{s}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1-r)\left|g\right|^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})\Bigg{\\}}~{},$
and $P_{T}^{+}$ for $\ell^{+}$
$\displaystyle P_{T}^{+}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{\Delta}m_{B_{s}}\sqrt{s\lambda}\Bigg{\\{}-8m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(A_{1}+C_{1})(B_{1}^{\ast}+D_{1}^{\ast})]$ (B-3) $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1+3r-s)\,\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}D_{2}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(B_{2}D_{1}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{rs}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\Big{[}\left|B_{1}\right|^{2}-\left|D_{1}\right|^{2}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{rs}(2m_{\ell}^{2}-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s)(1-r-s)\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}B_{5}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(D_{1}B_{4}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}\lambda(2m_{\ell}^{2}-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s)\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{2}B_{5}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(D_{2}B_{4}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}(1-r)\lambda\Big{[}\left|B_{2}\right|^{2}-\left|D_{2}\right|^{2}\Big{]}-\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}+D_{2})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}[\lambda+(1-r-s)(1-r)]\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}B_{2}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(D_{1}D_{2}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle\frac{2}{rs}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r-s)\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}B_{4}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(D_{1}B_{5}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}\lambda\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(D_{2}B_{5}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(B_{2}B_{4}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle\frac{16}{rs}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$
$\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle\frac{16}{rs}\lambda
m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{8}{r}\lambda m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{4}-B_{5})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{r}\lambda m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{rs}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r)(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{4}-B_{5})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
16m_{B_{s}}^{2}\Big{(}4m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})B_{6}]-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})B_{6}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle
16m_{B_{s}}^{2}\Big{(}4m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})B_{6}]-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})B_{6}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{s}m_{B_{s}}^{2}(1-r)\Big{(}4m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})T_{1}]-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})T_{1}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{s}m_{B_{s}}^{2}(1-r)\Big{(}4m_{\ell}^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})T_{1}]-m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})T_{1}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{64}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r)(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{64}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{4}-B_{5})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{64}{rs}[m_{B_{s}}^{2}rs-m_{\ell}^{2}(1+7r-s)]\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{s}(4m_{\ell}^{2}+m_{B_{s}}^{2}s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(T_{1}C_{T})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle
2048m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\,\mbox{\rm Re}[(C_{T}g)(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{4096}{s}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1-r)\left|T_{1}\right|^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})\Bigg{\\}}~{}.$
The normal polarization $P_{N}^{-}$ for $\ell^{-}$
$\displaystyle P_{N}^{-}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{\Delta}\pi
vm_{B_{s}}^{3}\sqrt{s\lambda}\Bigg{\\{}8m_{\ell}\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}^{\ast}C_{1})+(A_{1}^{\ast}D_{1})]$ (B-4) $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{2}^{\ast}B_{4})+(D_{2}^{\ast}B_{5})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{\ell}\,(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{2}^{\ast}-D_{2}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}^{\ast}B_{4})+(D_{1}^{\ast}B_{5})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{\ell}\,(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{8}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{4}+B_{5})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{r}m_{\ell}\,(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{4}+B_{5})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{r}m_{\ell}\,(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{4}+B_{5})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle
16m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\Big{(}\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})B_{6}]+\mbox{\rm
Im}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})B_{6}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
32m_{B_{s}}^{2}(1-r)\Big{(}\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})T_{1}]+\mbox{\rm
Im}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})T_{1}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
32\Big{(}\mbox{\rm Im}[B_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})T_{1}]-\mbox{\rm
Im}[D_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})T_{1}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
512m_{\ell}\,\left(\left|C_{T}\right|^{2}-4\left|C_{TE}\right|^{2}\right)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}(B_{6}^{\ast}T_{1})\Bigg{\\}}~{},$
and $P_{N}^{+}$ for $\ell^{+}$
$\displaystyle P_{N}^{+}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{\Delta}\pi
vm_{B_{s}}^{3}\sqrt{s\lambda}\Bigg{\\{}-8m_{\ell}\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}^{\ast}C_{1})+(A_{1}^{\ast}D_{1})]$ (B-5) $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{2}^{\ast}B_{4})+(D_{2}^{\ast}B_{5})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{\ell}\,(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{2}^{\ast}-D_{2}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}^{\ast}B_{5})+(D_{1}^{\ast}B_{4})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{\ell}\,(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{8}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{4}+B_{5})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{r}m_{\ell}\,(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{4}+B_{5})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{r}m_{\ell}\,(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{4}+B_{5})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle
16m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\Big{(}\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})B_{6}]+\mbox{\rm
Im}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})B_{6}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
32m_{B_{s}}^{2}(1-r)\Big{(}\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[A_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})T_{1}]+\mbox{\rm
Im}[C_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})T_{1}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle
32\Big{(}\mbox{\rm Im}[B_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}+2C_{TE})T_{1}]-\mbox{\rm
Im}[D_{1}^{\ast}(C_{T}-2C_{TE})T_{1}]\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
512m_{\ell}\,\left(\left|C_{T}\right|^{2}-4\left|C_{TE}\right|^{2}\right)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}(B_{6}^{\ast}T_{1})\Bigg{\\}}~{}.$
The combined longitudinal polarization $P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}$, from (B-1):
$\displaystyle P_{L}^{-}+P_{L}^{+}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{4}{\Delta}\,m_{B_{s}}^{2}v\,\Bigg{\\{}\frac{2}{r}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{4}^{\ast}+B_{5}^{\ast})]$ (B-6) $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\lambda(1-r)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{4}^{\ast}+B_{5}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\lambda\Big{(}\left|B_{4}\right|^{2}-\left|B_{5}\right|^{2}\Big{)}-\frac{2}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}s\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(B_{4}^{\ast}+B_{5}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{8}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}\lambda^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}+D_{2})(B_{7}C_{T})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{6}s\lambda^{2}\left|B_{7}\right|^{2}\mbox{\rm
Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{8}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\lambda(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(B_{7}C_{T})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\lambda(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}+D_{2})(B_{6}C_{T})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{128}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}s\lambda(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{6}B_{7}^{\ast})\,\mbox{\rm Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{3r}m_{\ell}(\lambda+12rs)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(B_{6}C_{T})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{128}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}s(\lambda+12rs)\,\left|B_{6}\right|^{2}\mbox{\rm
Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{512}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}\,[\lambda(4r+s)+12r(1-r)^{2}]\,\left|T_{1}\right|^{2}\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{512}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,[\lambda+12r(1-r)]\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(T_{1}B_{6}^{\ast})\,\mbox{\rm Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{256}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}s\lambda(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}(T_{1}B_{7}^{\ast})\,\mbox{\rm Re}(C_{T}C_{TE}^{\ast})$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{512}{3}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(A_{1}+C_{1})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{3r}m_{\ell}\,[\lambda+12r(1-r)]\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(T_{1}C_{T})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{3r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\lambda(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}+D_{2})(T_{1}C_{T})^{\ast}]\Bigg{\\}}~{}.$
The combined transversal polarization $P_{T}^{-}-P_{T}^{+}$, from (B-2) and
(B-3):
$\displaystyle P_{T}^{-}-P_{T}^{+}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{\Delta}m_{B_{s}}\sqrt{s\lambda}\Bigg{\\{}\frac{2}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}(1-r)\lambda\Big{[}\left|B_{2}\right|^{2}-\left|D_{2}\right|^{2}\Big{]}$
(B-7) $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}+D_{2})(B_{4}^{\ast}-B_{5}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}+D_{2})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1+3r-s)\,\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}D_{2}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(B_{2}D_{1}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{rs}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\Big{[}\left|B_{1}\right|^{2}-\left|D_{1}\right|^{2}\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}(1-r-s)\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(B_{4}^{\ast}-B_{5}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}[\lambda+(1-r)(1-r-s)]\Big{[}\mbox{\rm
Re}(B_{1}B_{2}^{\ast})-\mbox{\rm Re}(D_{1}D_{2}^{\ast})\Big{]}$
$\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}^{2}\lambda(1-r)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{16}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{4}-B_{5})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{4}m_{\ell}^{2}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(B_{7}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{64}{rs}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{64}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r)(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{32}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{4}-B_{5})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{64}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(B_{6}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
32m_{B_{s}}^{4}sv^{2}\,\mbox{\rm Re}[(A_{1}-C_{1})(B_{6}C_{T})^{\ast}]$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{64}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{4}-B_{5})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle
64m_{B_{s}}^{4}(1-r)v^{2}\,\mbox{\rm Re}[(A_{1}-C_{1})(T_{1}C_{T})^{\ast}]$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle\frac{128}{rs}[m_{B_{s}}^{2}rs-
m_{\ell}^{2}(1+7r-s)]\,\mbox{\rm Re}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{128}{rs}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1-r)(1+3r-s)\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{128}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}^{2}(1+3r-s)\mbox{\rm
Re}[(B_{3}-D_{3})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]\Bigg{\\}}$
The combined normal polarization $P_{N}^{-}+P_{N}^{+}$, from (B-4) and (B-5):
$\displaystyle P_{N}^{-}+P_{N}^{+}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{\Delta}\pi
vm_{B_{s}}^{3}\sqrt{s\lambda}\Bigg{\\{}-\frac{2}{r}m_{\ell}(1+3r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{2}^{\ast}-D_{2}^{\ast})]$ (B-8) $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{r}m_{\ell}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle-$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}(1-r-s)\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}-D_{1})(B_{4}^{\ast}-B_{5}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{2}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}m_{\ell}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{3}^{\ast}-D_{3}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{r}m_{B_{s}}^{2}\lambda\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{2}-D_{2})(B_{4}^{\ast}-B_{5}^{\ast})]$ $\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
32m_{B_{s}}^{2}s\,\mbox{\rm Im}[(A_{1}+C_{1})(B_{6}C_{T})^{\ast}]$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
1024m_{\ell}\Big{(}\left|C_{T}\right|^{2}-\left|4C_{TE}\right|^{2}\Big{)}\mbox{\rm
Im}(B_{6}^{\ast}T_{1})$ $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle
64m_{B_{s}}^{2}(1-r)\,\mbox{\rm Im}[(A_{1}+C_{1})(T_{1}C_{T})^{\ast}]$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle 128\,\mbox{\rm
Im}[(B_{1}+D_{1})(T_{1}C_{TE})^{\ast}]\Bigg{\\}}$
## References
* [1] CLEO Collaboration, M. S. Alam, et. al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2885 (1995)
* [2] M. Artuso, et. al. hep-ph/0801.1833v1
* [3] A. Ali, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A20 (2005) 5080.
* [4] P. Ball, W. M. Braun, Phys. Rev D58 (1998) 094016.
* [5] P. Ball, R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev D71 (2005) 014029.
* [6] Y. L. Wu, M. Zhong, Y.B. Zuo, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A21, (2006) 6125.
* [7] D. Melikhov, B. Stech, Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 014006.
* [8] A. Deandrea, A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rev D64 (2001) 074012.
* [9] C. Q. Geng, C. C. Liu, J. Phys. G29 (2003) 1103.
* [10] C. Q. Geng, C. P. Kao, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 5636.
* [11] D. Melikhov, N. Nikitin, S. Simula, Phys. Lett. B430 (1998) 332.
* [12] T. M. Aliev, M. Savci, Phys. Lett. B481 (2000) 275.
* [13] T. M. Aliev, M. K. Cakmak, A. Ozpineci, M. Savci, Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 055007.
* [14] T. M. Aliev, M. K. Cakmak, M. Savci, Phys. Nucl. Phys. B607 (2001) 3005.
* [15] S. Rai Choudhury, N. Gaur, N. Mahajan, Phys. Rev D66 (2002) 054003.
* [16] T. M. Aliev, A. Ozpineci, M. Savci, Phys. Rev D67 (2003) 035007
* [17] A. S. Cornell, N. Gaur, JHEP, 0502:005 (2005).
* [18] U. O. Yilmaz, G. Turan, Eur. Phys. J. C51, 63 (2007)
* [19] G. Erkol, G. Turan, Eur. Phys. J. C25 (2002) 575.
* [20] R. Mohanta, A. K. Giri, Phys. Rev D75 (2007) 035008.
* [21] CDF Collaboratio, D. Acosta, et. al., Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 111101.
* [22] DO Collaboration, V. M. Abazov, et. al., Phys. Rev. D74 (2006) 031107.
* [23] CDF Collaboration, T. Aaltonen, et. al., hep-ph/0804.3908v1.
* [24] A. Tayduganov, V. Egorychev, A. Golutvin, I. Belyaev, CERN-LHCb-2007-154.
* [25] M. P. Altarelli, F. Teubert, hep-ph/0802.1901.
* [26] S. Fukae, C. S. Kim, T. Yoshikawa, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 074015.
* [27] T. M. Aliev, V. Bashiry, M. Savci, JHEP, 0505:037 (2005).
* [28] F. Krüger, L. M. Sehgal, Phys. Lett. B380 (1996) 199.
* [29] W. -M. Yao, et. al. (Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G33 (2006) 1.
* [30] A. J. Buras, M. Münz, Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 186
* [31] M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys., B393 (1993) 23.
* [32] M. Misiak, Nucl. Phys. B439 (1995) 461 [Erratum].
* [33] A. Ali, T. Mannel, T. Morozumi, Phys. Lett. B273 (1991) 505;
* [34] BELLE Collaboration, A. Ishikawa, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 261601 (2003)
* [35] BaBar Collaboration, B. Aubert, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 221802 (2003)
* [36] CDF Collaboration, B. Abulencia, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 221805 (2005)
Figure 1: The dependence of the integrated branching ratio for the
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay on the new Wilson coefficients.
Figure 2: The dependence of the integrated branching ratio for the
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ decay on the new Wilson coefficients.
Figure 3: The dependence of the averaged longitudinal polarization
$<P^{-}_{L}>$ of $\ell^{-}$ for the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$
decay on the new Wilson coefficients. Figure 4: The dependence of the
combined averaged longitudinal lepton polarization $<P^{-}_{L}+P^{+}_{L}>$ for
the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay on the new Wilson
coefficients.
Figure 5: The same as Fig. (3), but for the
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ decay. Figure 6: The same as Fig.
(4), but for the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ decay.
Figure 7: The dependence of the averaged transverse polarization $<P^{-}_{T}>$
of $\ell^{-}$ for the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay on the new
Wilson coefficients. Figure 8: The dependence of the combined averaged
transverse lepton polarization $<P^{-}_{T}-P^{+}_{T}>$ for the
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay on the new Wilson coefficients.
Figure 9: The same as Fig. (7), but for the
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ decay. Figure 10: The same as Fig.
(8), but for the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ decay.
Figure 11: The dependence of the averaged normal polarization $<P^{-}_{N}>$ of
$\ell^{-}$ for the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay on the new
Wilson coefficients. Figure 12: The dependence of the combined averaged normal
lepton polarization $<P^{-}_{N}+P^{+}_{N}>$ for the
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\mu^{+}\mu^{-}$ decay on the new Wilson coefficients.
Figure 13: The same as Fig.(11), but for the
$B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ decay. Figure 14: The same as Fig.
(12), but for the $B_{s}\rightarrow\phi\,\tau^{+}\tau^{-}$ decay.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-02T13:04:46 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.060820 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "U. O. Yilmaz",
"submitter": "Umit Oktay Yilmaz",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0269"
} |
0806.0314 | # GuiLiner: A Configurable and Extensible Graphical User Interface for
Scientific Analysis and Simulation Software
Nicholas C. Manoukis22footnotemark: 2 Eric C. Anderson44footnotemark: 4
22footnotemark: 2 Section of Vector Biology Laboratory of Malaria and Vector
Research
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases National Institutes of
Health
12735 Twinbrook Parkway Bethesda MD 20892 USA
44footnotemark: 4 Fisheries Ecology Division Southwest Fisheries Science
Center
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
110 Shaffer Road Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA
(manoukisn@niaid.nih.gov Eric.Anderson@noaa.gov; manoukisn@niaid.nih.gov
Eric.Anderson@noaa.gov)
The computer programs most users interact with daily are driven by a graphical
user interface (GUI). However, many scientific applications are used with a
command line interface (CLI) for the ease of development and increased
flexibility this mode provides. Scientific application developers would
benefit from being able to provide a GUI easily for their CLI programs, thus
retaining the advantages of both modes of interaction. GuiLiner is a generic,
extensible and flexible front-end designed to “host” a wide variety of data
analysis or simulation programs. Scientific application developers who produce
a correctly formatted XML file describing their program’s options and some of
its documentation can immediately use GuiLiner to produce a carefully
implemented GUI for their analysis or simulation programs.
### Key-Words
: Graphical user interfaces, XML, Computer applications, Software interfaces
## 1 Introduction
Computer applications for scientific research generally receive user input
through a command line interface (CLI) or through a graphical user interface
(GUI). Each has advantages and shortcomings. For example, GUIs provide
immediate accessibility and a familiar mode of interaction for most users. On
the other hand, the CLI allows for batch processing, inclusion of the program
in shell scripts, and the retention of execution parameters. CLI programs also
require less development time and are more portable across different computer
operating systems.
In this paper we present guiLiner, an application designed to bridge the gap
between CLI and GUI modes for computer programs used in scientific research.
GuiLiner is a generic, extensible and flexible front-end designed to “host” a
wide variety of data analysis or simulation applications. It is geared
primarily toward the scientific application development community, which can
realize several unique benefits from its use, beginning with the elimination
of time spent writing code to generate a GUI.
The task of creating a generic GUI for biological scientific applications is
made simpler by the fact that most of them follow a simple interaction model:
1) the user provides data and parameters to the application 2) the algorithm
is executed on these and 3) the results of the analysis are returned. Each of
these steps is generally atomic.
Since step 1) can involve many options, it is here that CLI based applications
can become cumbersome to use or may be intimidating to inexperienced users.
GuiLiner focuses on this step and on step 2). Without modifying the original
CLI program, guiLiner provides a way for users to quickly see the available
program options, read documentation and set the value of each option, and then
execute the program, all from within a familiar “point-and-click” environment.
## 2 Implementation
GuiLiner is written in the Java programing language, and virtual machines
capable of executing it are available for current versions of Microsoft
Windows, Mac OS X and many types of UNIX based operating systems such as
GNU/Linux (for a full list, please see
http://www.java.com:80/en/download/manual.jsp). GuiLiner operates by parsing
an XML configuration file which contains information on the CLI-based
application being hosted, its options, documentation and some details about
how guiLiner itself should display this information (Figure 1). This scheme
allows almost unlimited extensibility, so that the feature-set of guiLiner can
be increased with later releases.
Figure 1: Schematic diagram showing how GuiLiner, the hosted analysis
application and the XML confiuration file are used together to present a
single GUI-driven application to the user.
The GUI provided by guiLiner features a rapid visual summary of which options
are required, set, or unset in a color-coded option tree; integrated display
of documentation specific to each program option; facilities for saving the
values of options used for a particular execution of the hosted application;
and the ability to view and save to disk program run-time output and/or
errors.
In addition to the rapid display of selected and required options, efficient
option information retrieval and runtime results, guiLiner’s layout is
designed to put commonly used functions within easy each. Besides the usual
menu bar (Figure 2 #1) containing a custom help browser and XML save-open
options among other settings, there is also a button bar for functions
commonly used during option setting (Figure 2 #2). These include functions to
preview the command line, rest all options, manipulate the option tree and run
the hosted program. Use of these is described in more detail in the next
section.
Figure 2: GuiLiner hosting a sample program, in Editing mode.
We have found few other efforts to create a generic user interface. Some of
these are not focused on the scientific computing community, and so aim to
accommodate a wider variety of CLI programs. These usually take the form of
widget sets that can be configured to create a GUI. While this approach is
more flexible it is usually also more time consuming and less extensible.
Other generic GUI programs use a “Wizard” interface, which is both flexible
and easy to deploy, but lack the visual summary and interactivity that
guiLiner offers. The advantage of guiLiner over either of these approaches is
that it is designed to represent a single mode of interaction that is common
in scientific computing, which allows it to be employed very quickly and at
the same time makes it very effective for hosting these types of programs. To
date we have not found any other applications which fill this exact niche.
## 3 Usage Overview
Most user interaction with guiLiner involves selecting options from the option
tree (Figure 2 #4) by clicking on them. When selected, an interface to
manipulate that option is displayed in the options pane (Figure 2 #3). The
exact interface will vary depending on which type of option is being
displayed: it may have a text box where a value can be input, a set of buttons
that allows the user to set the option to one of several given values, or a
dialog box for navigating the file directory to find an input file, etc. In
all cases the user is able to get more information on the option by clicking
the “Information” tab in the option pane.
The colors in the option tree give a quick visual guide to the run settings.
Red = option is required, value not yet specified; Black = option not
required, value not yet specified; Blue = a value for the option has been
specified and will be used for program execution.
Clicking the Preview button (Figure. 2 #2) causes the command line to be
assembled from the values currently specified by the user and prints it to the
console panel (Figure. 2 #5). This is particularly useful for “transitional”
users who are gaining familiarity with the command line environment, but are
not yet fully comfortable with it. Using this facility then saving the console
contents is an easy way to save run settings. An alternative method it to save
the entire XML file with the selected options already set. Though this is more
cumbersome to read, it does allow guiLiner to automatically load the settings
used in that particular execution.
When the RUN PROGRAM button (Figure. 2 #2) is clicked, guiLiner uses a system
call to execute the CLI program with the options assembled by the user in
guiLiner. Program output to stdout goes to the console panel from where it may
be viewed or saved to disk as a text file. Program output to stderr is
directed to the Errors panel and the user is notified of errors in the status
bar (Figure. 2 #6). Any program output directed to files goes to those files
specified either by an absolute path or by a path relative to the current
working directory (exactly as if the program were run from the CLI). guiLiner
is not designed for interactive display of program output, though future
versions could allow simple GUI-driven output display using developer provided
scripts and, for example, the R statistical computing environment [1].
For ease of distribution and installation to end-user machines guiLiner, the
XML configuration file and the CLI executable can be distributed as an
installer. There are several excellent installer platforms available which
could streamline this process, such as the platform independent IzPack
(available at http://izpack.org/).
Details on the XML file specification, option types, the application
executable and source code, and discussion forums are available at
http://guiliner.sourceforge.net. Also at this web site there are sample XML
configuration files for a variety of bioinformatic and population genetic
analysis programs including Exonerate [2], IM [3], Makesamples [4] and Spip
[5]. A Document Type Definition (DTD) file is distributed with guiLiner to
automate XML configuration file generation and to allow error checking.
We also distribute there a small C library for C or C++ programmers that
simplifies command-line parsing and error checking, and allows the
documentation for each option to be written and stored in the source code.
This documentation may be printed by the program in short-help format, long-
help format, UNIX man page format, and guiLiner XML format. The guiLiner XML
format can be read directly by guiLiner so that any updates to the program can
be immediately translated to the guiLiner GUI.
We encourage contributions to the source code or comments on guiLiner.
## 4 Conclusions
GuiLiner is an effective “wrapper” for a wide variety of biological analysis
and simulation software. Application developers will be able to offer a
functional and carefully implemented GUI to their CLI-driven software with
little effort. At the same time, guiLiner should make a wider variety of
applications immediately available for the analyses of researchers who are not
familiar with the CLI or are beginning to learn about it.
## 5 Acknowledgements
This research was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the
NIH, NIAID. The authors would like to thank J. Hey, R. Hudson and J Garza for
graciously permitting us to present their programs bundled with guiLiner to
serve as examples.
## References
* [1] R Development Core Team, _R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing_ , R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2007, ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
* [2] G. S. C. Slater and E. Birney, “Automated generation of heuristics for biological sequence comparison.” _BMC Bioinformatics_ , vol. 6, p. 31, 2005\.
* [3] J. Hey and R. Nielsen, “Multilocus methods for estimating population sizes, migration rates and divergence time, with applications to the divergence of _Drosophila pseudoobscura_ and _D. persimilis_.” _Genetics_ , vol. 167, no. 2, pp. 747–760, Jun 2004.
* [4] R. R. Hudson, “Generating samples under a wright-fisher neutral model of genetic variation.” _Bioinformatics_ , vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 337–338, Feb 2002\.
* [5] E. Anderson and K. Dunham, “spip 1.0: a program for simulating pedigrees and genetic data in age-structured populations,” _Molecular Ecology Notes_ , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 459–461, 2005.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-02T15:57:55 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.066637 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "N. C. Manoukis and E. C. Anderson",
"submitter": "Nicholas Manoukis",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0314"
} |
0806.0319 | # Disassembling the Galaxy with angle-action coordinates
Paul J. McMillan, and James J. Binney
Rudolf Peierls Centre for Theoretical Physics, 1 Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3NP,
UK E-mail: p.mcmillan1@physics.ox.ac.uk
###### Abstract
Angle-action coordinates are used to study the relic of an $N$-body simulation
of a self-gravitating satellite galaxy that was released on a short-period
orbit within the disc of the Galaxy. Satellite stars that lie within
$1.5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ of the Sun are confined to a grid of patches in action
space. As the relic phase-mixes for longer, the patches become smaller and
more numerous. These patches can be seen even when the angle-action
coordinates of an erroneous Galactic potential are used, but using the wrong
potential displaces them. Diagnostic quantities constructed from the angle
coordinates both allow the true potential to be identified, and the relic to
be dated. Hence when the full phase space coordinates of large numbers of
solar-neighbourhood stars are known, it should be possible to identify members
of particular relics from the distribution of stars in an approximate action
space. This would then open up the possibility of determining the time since
the relic was disrupted and gaining better knowledge of the Galactic
potential.
The availability of angle-action coordinates for arbitrary potentials is the
key to these developments. The paper includes a brief introduction to the
torus technique used to generate them.
###### keywords:
methods: numerical – Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics – Galaxy: structure –
solar neighbourhood
## 1 Introduction
Within the remarkably successful $\Lambda$CDM model, galaxy formation is a
hierarchical process. Large galaxies, such as the Milky Way, are built up in
mergers and the accretion of smaller building blocks (e.g. White & Rees, 1978;
Springel & Hernquist, 2003). The signatures of these processes should still be
visible today in the form of substructure such as streams in all components of
the Milky Way (e.g. Lynden-Bell & Lynden-Bell, 1995; Freeman & Bland-Hawthorn,
2002; Helmi et al., 2003; Abadi et al., 2003).
Evidence of the wealth of substructure in the stellar halo of the Milky Way
has increased dramatically over the past 15 years, most notably with
observations of the disrupting Sagittarius dwarf galaxy (Ibata et al., 1994),
and of the streams visible in the SDSS data (e.g. Belokurov et al., 2006).
Within the disc several substructures are known, as are several mechanisms
that might be responsible for them. Stars are born in clusters within the
disc, and over a period of several Galactic rotations these clusters evaporate
and the stars become phase mixed, spreading in space but retaining closely
related orbits. This is commonly referred to as a supercluster – it is likely
the Hyades-Pleiades supercluster formed this way (Famaey et al., 2005).
Substructure can also be created by dynamical interaction with spiral arms, or
a rotating bar component; for example the Hercules stream is thought to be
associated with the bar of the Milky Way (Dehnen, 1999, 2000; Fux, 2001). It
has been suggested that the Arcturus group (Eggen, 1971) is debris from a
merged satellite (Navarro et al., 2004).
Many methods exist for finding this substructure, often based on incomplete
phase space information about the stars. In the outer parts of the halo it is
possible to find substructure with only knowledge of stellar positions on the
sky, sometimes in conjunction with photometric data (e.g. Belokurov et al.,
2006), or radial velocity measurements (e.g. Lynden-Bell & Lynden-Bell, 1995;
Helmi & White, 1999). In the solar neighbourhood, approaches that look for
common proper motions have been widely used, (e.g. Chereul et al., 1999).
With the availability of full 6D phase space information for an increasing
number of stars in the solar neighbourhood, most notably the catalogues
resulting from the Geneva-Copenhagen and RAVE surveys (Nordström et al., 2004;
Steinmetz et al., 2006; Zwitter et al., 2008), and with the prospect of a
further increase by several orders of magnitude when Gaia data become
available (Perryman et al., 2001), it is appropriate to consider methods for
using these data in full.
As discussed in Helmi et al. (1999), the space of integrals of motion is a
very promising one for finding substructure such as superclusters or merger
debris. Stars with a single small progenitor (star cluster or small galaxy)
will have very similar values for the integrals, which will ensure they are
tightly bunched in integral space even after phase mixing has produced a
spatial distribution that is effectively featureless. There are additional
benefits to using quantities that are not only integrals but adiabatic
invariants, as these are more likely to remain constant as the Galactic
potential changes over time.
Previous work has focused on spaces defined by $L_{z}$ (which is an adiabatic
invariant in an axisymmetric potential), and other quantities that can be used
as approximate integrals of the motion, such as the total angular momentum
(only an integral of the motion in a spherically symmetric potential, Helmi et
al., 1999), or are not adiabatic invariants, such as the energy (Helmi & de
Zeeuw, 2000) or the apocentre and pericentre of an orbit (Helmi et al., 2006).
In this paper we demonstrate the use of angle-action coordinates to find
substructure in the solar neighbourhood. Actions are adiabatic invariants, and
their conjugate variables, the “angle coordinates”, increase linearly in time.
As Tremaine (1999) has pointed out, these properties make them exceptionally
useful for analysing tidal streams. The difficulty of determining the actions
of stars in non-spherical potentials has, however, severely restricted their
application to date. This is the first in a series of papers in which we show
how the concept of orbital tori (McGill & Binney, 1990; Kaasalainen & Binney,
1994) makes it possible to exploit the power of angle-action coordinates for
practical galactic problems.
In Sections 2 & 3 we briefly introduce angle-action coordinates, and explain
how we find them for stars with known phase space positions. In Section 4 we
apply them to simulated data of a satellite merger. We show that stars from
the satellite that are observed in the solar neighbourhood are confined to a
grid of patches in action space, even when rather a poor approximation to the
Galactic potential is used. We show further that a diagnostic defined in terms
of the angle coordinates enables the true potential to be distinguished from
the false one. Section 5 discusses minor modifications to the analysis that
are required to accommodate secular evolution of the Galactic potential over
the life of a relic.
## 2 Angle-action coordinates
Three actions $J_{i}$ and three conjugate angles coordinates $\theta_{i}$
provide canonical coordinates for six-dimensional phase space (e.g. Binney &
Tremaine, 2008, §3.5). The conventional phase space coordinates
$\mathbf{w}\equiv({\bf x},{\bf v})$ are $2\pi$-periodic in the angles. The
actions are conserved quantities for any orbit, and the angles increase
linearly with time:
$\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}(t)=\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}(0)+\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}(\mathbf{J})t,$
(1)
where the components of $\Omega$ are the orbital frequencies. Thus, in six-
dimensional $(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$},\mathbf{J})$ space, a bound orbit moves
only in the three $\theta_{i}$ directions, over a surface that is
topologically a three-dimensional torus. We generally refer to this model of
the orbit as “the torus”; it is labelled by the actions $\mathbf{J}$.
Angle-action coordinates exist for any time-independent, integrable
Hamiltonian. However, an analytic method of computing the transformations
between normal phase space coordinates and angle-action coordinates
$\mathbf{w}\leftrightarrow(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$},\mathbf{J})$ is only
practical for the Hamiltonian defined by the isochrone potential, which as
limiting cases includes the harmonic-oscillator and Kepler potentials (Binney
& Tremaine, 2008, §3.5.2).
The Hamiltonian corresponding to a more realistic galaxy potential is not
generally integrable. However, most orbits in an axisymmetric potential are
approximately ‘regular’ (non-chaotic), and thus admit three approximate
isolating integrals of motion. Consequently, it is possible to find angle-
action coordinates which describe motion on these orbits over all interesting
time-scales.
Methods for constructing angle-action tori for orbits in a general potential
have been in the literature for over a decade (McGill & Binney, 1990;
Kaasalainen & Binney, 1994), but have been little utilised, primarily because
of the technical challenges these methods present. It is, however, possible to
encapsulate these technicalities so that users are protected from them, and
once this has been done, it is nearly as easy to construct angle-action
coordinates for an orbit in an axisymmetric potential as it is to numerically
integrate the orbit with a Runge-Kutta routine, or similar.
### 2.1 The torus method
In our current implementation we restrict ourselves to orbits in axisymmetric
potentials. Conservation of angular momentum, $J_{\phi}$, about the system’s
symmetry axis then reduces the problem to that of motion in the $(R,z)$
meridional plane in the effective potential $\Phi_{\rm
eff}(R,z)\equiv\Phi(R,z)+J_{\phi}^{2}/2R^{2}$ (e.g. Binney & Tremaine, 2008,
§3.2). $J_{\phi}$ is the third action.
We start with with a ‘toy’ Hamiltonian, $H^{T}$, for which the relationship
$(R,z,p_{R},p_{z})\leftrightarrow(\theta_{R}^{T},\theta_{z}^{T},J_{R}^{T},J_{z}^{T})$
is known analytically,111In this paper we refer to variables such as the
angles and actions in the toy Hamiltonian as
$\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T},\mathbf{J}^{T}$, and those in the target
Hamiltonian as $\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$},\mathbf{J}$. This notation differs
from that of McGill & Binney (1990) and Kaasalainen & Binney (1994), in which
the _toy_ angles and actions are referred to as
$\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$},\mathbf{J}$, and those in the target potential as
$\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{\prime},\mathbf{J}^{\prime}$. We make this change
in notation as our focus is primarily on the _application_ of this machinery,
rather than on how it works. namely that of a generalised effective isochrone
potential
$\Phi_{\mathrm{eff}}^{T}(r,\vartheta)=\frac{-GM}{b+\sqrt{b^{2}+(r-r_{0})^{2}}}+\frac{L_{z}^{2}}{2\left[(r-r_{0})\sin\vartheta\right]^{2}},$
(2)
where $\vartheta$ is latitude (not to be confused with the dynamical angle
coordinates); $M$, $b$, $L_{z}$ and $r_{0}$ are free parameters of the toy
Hamiltonian.
As described in detail in McGill & Binney (1990), the toy torus
$\mathbf{J}^{T}=\hbox{constant}$ is distorted into the “target torus” that
approximates the orbit by the generating function
$S(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T},\mathbf{J})=\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T}\cdot\mathbf{J}+2\sum_{\mathbf{n}>0}S_{\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{J})\sin{(\mathbf{n}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T})},$
(3)
where $\mathbf{n}$ is a two-vector with integer components and the notation
$\mathbf{n}>0$ indicates that the sum runs over exactly half the plane, with
the origin excluded. The $S_{\mathbf{n}}$ are free parameters of the
generating function. The canonical transformation defined by this generating
function is
$\mathbf{J}^{T}=\frac{\partial
S(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T},\mathbf{J})}{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T}}\;\;;\;\;\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}=\frac{\partial
S(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T},\mathbf{J})}{\partial\mathbf{J}}.$ (4)
so
$\mathbf{J}^{T}=\mathbf{J}+2\sum_{\mathbf{n}>0}\mathbf{n}S_{\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{J})\cos{(\mathbf{n}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T})}$
(5)
$\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}=\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T}+2\sum_{\mathbf{n}>0}\frac{\partial
S_{\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{J})}{\partial\mathbf{J}}\sin{(\mathbf{n}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T})}.$
(6)
Since the transform is canonical for any values $S_{\mathbf{n}}$, and the toy
torus is “null” in the sense that Poincaré’s integral
$\int_{A}d\mathbf{p}\cdot d\mathbf{q}$ vanishes for any region $A$ of the
torus, the image of the toy torus under the canonical map (the target torus)
is also null. Note that $\mathbf{J}$ is constant on the target torus, so in
general $\mathbf{J}^{T}$ is a non-trivial function of
$\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T}$.
The values $S_{\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{J})$ (and the parameters of $H^{T}$)
corresponding to a given gravitational potential and $\mathbf{J}$ are found by
enforcing the condition that the Hamiltonian $H$ is constant on the target
torus. Remarkably this condition is sufficient to ensure that the torus
corresponds to an orbit in the given galaxy potential. In practice we enforce
this condition by using the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm (e.g. Press et al.,
1986) to minimize the statistic $\chi^{2}=\frac{1}{N_{\rm
p}}\sum(H-\overline{H})^{2}$, where the sum is over $N_{\rm p}$ points spread
evenly in $\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T}$ over the target torus. The
derivatives of $H$ with respect to the $S_{\mathbf{n}}$ and the parameters of
the toy Hamiltonian that the Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm requires can all be
found through the chain rule. We generally refer to this process as an “action
fit”.
This minimisation determines the functional dependence
$\mathbf{w}(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T},\mathbf{J})$. However, it does not
tell us how $\mathbf{w}$ depends on $\theta$: the $S_{\mathbf{n}}$ have been
determined for a single value of $\mathbf{J}$, so $\partial
S_{\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{J})/\partial\mathbf{J}$ is still undetermined. It is,
however, possible to find _approximate_ values for the frequencies, $\Omega$,
by performing an orbit integration over several periods in the target
potential, starting from a phase space point on the torus, and performing a
linear fit to the resulting values of $\theta_{i}^{T}(t)$.
To find more accurate frequencies and expressions for the angle coordinates,
we integrate small sections of the orbit, starting from a grid of points on
the torus, and use the equations (Kaasalainen & Binney, 1994)
$\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}(0)+\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}t=\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T}(t)+2\sum_{\mathbf{n}>0}\frac{\partial
S_{\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{J})}{\partial\mathbf{J}}\sin[\mathbf{n}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}^{T}(t)].$
(7)
Each integration for $M$ time-steps yields $3M$ such equations in which
$\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}(0)$, $\Omega$, and ${\partial
S_{\mathbf{n}}(\mathbf{J})}/{\partial\mathbf{J}}$ are unknowns. The equations
are linear in the unknowns and for $M\gg 1$ the number of available equations
increases much faster than the number of unknowns. We truncate the sum over
${\bf n}$ to ensure that the number of unknowns is significantly less than the
number of equations, and solve the equations using a least squares fit. We
refer to this process as an “angle fit”.
## 3 Fitting the data
Figure 1: Iterative procedure for determining $\mathbf{J}(\mathbf{w})$. We
start by evaluating the planar orbit with energy $E^{\parallel}$ (black dot).
From its radial action and vertical frequency we move to the open circle
$(J_{R}^{\parallel},J_{z}^{\prime})$. Further vertical moves are used to reach
the line on which the energy is that of the star. Then we move along that line
to the star, where the velocities of the orbit agree with those of the star.
The torus-fitting mechanism enables us to find
$\mathbf{w}(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$},\mathbf{J})$ for given values of
$\mathbf{J}$ rather than enabling us to determine
$(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$},\mathbf{J})$ given the coordinates $\mathbf{w}$ of
a star. We now explain how we go from $\mathbf{w}$ to
$(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$},\mathbf{J})$ by an iterative procedure, which is
somewhat ad-hoc, but converges quickly. We have the numerical value $L_{z}$ of
$J_{\phi}$, so the problem is to find a point in the slice through action
space $J_{\phi}=L_{z}$. Fig. 1 shows this slice. Several lines of constant $H$
are shown: the full line is the line that corresponds to the energy $E$ of the
given star. The dotted line is for the “planar energy”
$E^{\parallel}\equiv\frac{1}{2}v_{R}^{2}+\Phi_{\rm eff}(R,0)$ that the star
would have if it were confined to the Galactic plane. Simple one-dimensional
integrals enable us to find the action $J_{R}^{\parallel}$ and time-averaged
radius $\bar{R}$ of the orbit represented by the intersection of the dotted
line with the $J_{R}$ axis. Our iterations start at this point, as
$J_{R}^{\parallel}$ is typically a good estimate for the true value of
$J_{R}$.
From there we move vertically up towards the full line by an amount
$J_{z}^{\prime}$. Bearing in mind that $\Omega_{z}=\partial H/\partial J_{z}$,
we estimate $J_{z}^{\prime}$ from the first-order expression $E\simeq
H(J_{R}^{\parallel},J_{z})\simeq E^{\parallel}+\Omega_{z}J_{z}^{\prime}$. That
is, we take $J_{z}^{\prime}=(E-E^{\parallel})/\nu_{\bar{R}}$, where we have
approximated $\Omega_{z}$ by the vertical epicycle frequency $\nu$ at
$\bar{R}$.
We obtain the torus $(J_{R}^{\parallel},J_{z}^{\prime},L_{z})$ and using its
energy $E_{2}$ and frequency $\Omega_{z}$ we obtain an improved approximation
to $J_{z}$ by incrementing $J_{z}^{\prime}$ by $\Delta
J_{z}^{\prime}=(E-E_{2})/\Omega_{z}$. This step is repeated until the energy
of the current torus is sufficiently close to $E$.
Once we have converged onto the line $H=E$ in Fig. 1, we can move along it
with increments $\Delta\mathbf{J}$ to $\mathbf{J}$ that satisfy (to first
order) $\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}\cdot\Delta\mathbf{J}=0$ – in this process
only the $R$ and $z$ components of $\mathbf{J}$ are changing, so
$\Delta\mathbf{J}$ is determined by $\Delta J_{z}$.
If the orbit does not go through the location of the star, $\Delta J_{z}$ is
increased when the maximum height at the star’s radius is too small, and
decreased when the orbit does not reach the star’s radius. Once the orbit
reaches the star, $J_{z}$ is adjusted until the local value of $v_{z}$ agrees
with the observational value.
This procedure has converged for all values of $\mathbf{J}$ that we have
tried, (irrespective of, for example, whether $J_{z}$ is small) and typically
involves $\sim 20$ torus fits per star. With our current torus-finding code
(which we have not attempted to optimize for speed) the procedure requires
$\sim 15s$ per star, so even now actions could be found for tens of millions
of stars in of order a week on a cluster of 1000 processors.
After fitting a torus to the observations, we obtain the star’s angle
coordinates and more accurate frequency values by performing an angle fit.
Figure 2: Particle positions in the $x$-$y$ (Galactic) plane initially and
after $t=1.5,4.5$ and $7.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ (as labelled).
## 4 Application to simulation data
To illustrate what can be achieved with the torus method, we use it to examine
the debris of a self-gravitating satellite that was disrupted during an
$N$-body simulation in which the satellite moved in a fixed Galactic
potential. We focus on a case that is very similar to that described in
Section 3.2 of Helmi et al. (2006), which was designed to reproduce the
properties of the Arcturus group.
We represented the satellite by $5\times 10^{5}$ particles in a King sphere of
concentration $c=\log_{10}(r_{\rm t}/r_{\rm c})=1.25$, core radius
$0.39\,\mathrm{kpc}$, and total mass $3.75\times 10^{8}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$. It
was placed on an orbit in the plane of the Galaxy that has apocentre at
$9.3\,\mathrm{kpc}$, pericentre at $3.1\,\mathrm{kpc}$, and angular momentum
$970\,\mathrm{kpc}\,\mathrm{km\,s}^{-1}$. The satellite is initially placed at
apocentre and followed for $\sim 9\,\mathrm{Gyr}$.
The self-gravity of the satellite was found using gyrfalcon (Dehnen, 2002) and
the static Galaxy potential was that of Model 2 in Dehnen & Binney (1998).
This model is axisymmetric, and consists of somewhat flattened spheroids
representing the halo and bulge, and three exponential disc components to
represent the gas disc and the thin and thick stellar discs.
The particle positions in the $x$-$y$ plane are plotted in Figure 2 for the
initial conditions and at $t=1.5,4.5$ and $7.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$. After
$1.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ the satellite is spread over all azimuths and particles
are found over their entire radial range, but substructure is clearly visible.
After $4.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ phase mixing has progressed to the extent that this
structure is nearly undetectable from the physical positions alone.
We calculated angles, actions and frequencies for satellite particles using
both the true potential and a rather different potential – a Miyamoto-Nagai
potential (Section 4.3).
Figure 3: $\Omega_{\phi}$ (left) and $\Omega_{z}$ (right) plotted against
$\Omega_{R}$ for a random sample of particles from our simulation. The lines
shows the the rotational frequency of a circular orbit
$\Omega_{\mathrm{circ}}$ (left) and vertical frequency $\nu$ (right) plotted
against the epicycle frequency $\kappa$.
Figure 4: $\Omega_{\phi}t/2\pi$ (number of azimuthal periods) plotted against
$\Omega_{R}t/2\pi$ (number of radial periods) for particles within
$1.5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ of the “solar position” in our simulation after $1.5$,
$4.5$ and $7.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ (left to right). The particles are separated
into patches corresponding to those particles which have performed
(approximately) an integer number of rotations about the Galactic centre, and
are at the appropriate point in their radial oscillations.
### 4.1 The frequencies
Fig. 3 shows a random sample of satellite particles at $t=9\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ in
the $(\Omega_{\phi},\Omega_{R})$ plane (left) and the
$(\Omega_{z},\Omega_{R})$ plane (right) when the true potential is used. The
full lines show the relationship between the epicycle frequency
$\kappa\simeq\Omega_{R}$ and the circular frequency
$\Omega_{\mathrm{circ}}\simeq\Omega_{\phi}$ (left) or vertical frequency
$\nu\sim\Omega_{z}$ (right). These demonstrate that the strong correlation
between $\Omega_{R}$ and $\Omega_{\phi}$ arises because each frequency depends
strongly on energy and only much more weakly on either eccentricity or
inclination to the plane. The relationship between $\Omega_{z}$ and the other
frequencies is much broader, reflecting the strongly anharmonic nature of
vertical oscillations, which cause the vertical frequency to depend strongly
on vertical amplitude. Because the simulated satellite is on an orbit in the
Galactic plane, $\Omega_{z}$ is of little further interest in this study
(though it will be in other cases).
Consider now the frequencies of particles that lie in a given volume around
the Sun, as survey stars usually do. We place the Sun $8\,\mathrm{kpc}$ from
the Galactic centre along the line to the satellite’s initial location and
select particles that lie within $1.5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ of the Sun. Fig. 4 shows
these stars at $t=1.5,4.5$ and $7.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ in the plane spanned by
$\Omega_{\phi}t/2\pi$ and $\Omega_{R}t/2\pi$ – the number of rotations about
the galactic centre and the number of radial periods, respectively. Now we see
a clear substructure within the plot. Stars are found in patches at (close to)
integer intervals in $\Omega_{\phi}t/2\pi$, and regularly in
$\Omega_{R}t/2\pi$.
The reason for this clumping is simple: to be in the solar neighbourhood at
time $t$, having also all been near each other at an earlier point in time
(when part of a single satellite), these particles must all have moved a
certain amount in $\phi$, plus or minus an integer number of complete
rotations about the Galactic Centre. This is, in essence, a selection effect
caused by taking a window of finite size. Even after $7.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$, at
which point phase mixing has rendered the spatial distribution essentially
featureless (Figure 2), there is manifest clumping in the $\Omega$ plot. In
the case of $\Omega_{R}t/2\pi$ the patches occur more frequently than at
integer intervals because the orbits cross the radial range twice per radial
period. The non-zero size of the patches reflects the non-zero size of the
window, non-zero initial velocities of the particles relative to the satellite
motion and the non-negligible mass of the satellite, which causes orbits to
deviate from orbits in the Galactic potential at early times. There is also a
small spread due to any errors in the value of $\Omega$ found – this is
clearly a small effect as the patches are still distinct after
$7.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$. The spread in $\Omega_{z}$ among stars in these samples
is no narrower than that of all the satellite’s stars, and not separated into
patches, both because our window constrains $z$ only weakly, and because the
initial values of $\theta_{z}$ range from zero to $2\pi$ as a result of the
satellite starting from the plane with $v_{z}=0$.
The number of patches in $\Omega$-space increases approximately as $t^{2}$,
since the number of integers that lie in the full range of $\Omega_{R}t/2\pi$
or $\Omega_{\phi}t/2\pi$ is proportional to $t$ (since the range of $\Omega$
doesn’t change). The size of individual patches is, to a first approximation,
determined by the size of the window from which particles are chosen: if an
orbit lies within the window over a range $\Delta\theta_{R}$ (ignoring for
simplicity the dependence on $\theta_{z},\,\theta_{\phi}$), then in
$\Omega$-space (as opposed to $\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}t/2\pi$-space) each
individual patch will have width $\Delta\theta_{R}/t$. Therefore the size of
each patch in $\Omega$-space is proportional to $t^{-2}$, so the total area of
the patches is approximately time-independent. The other effects mentioned
above that cause the patches to have finite size have a similar effect on the
size of the patches with the exception of the error in measurements of
$\Omega$. Some of the patches are restricted in size because they meet the
edge of the envelope of available $\Omega$-values (the values found in the
satellite as a whole – Figure 3, left). This is probably most obvious in the
left panel of Figure 4, in which one patch (at $\Omega_{\phi}t/2\pi=8$) is far
larger than the others because it nowhere touches the envelope.
Figure 5: $J_{R}$ plotted against $J_{\phi}$ for a random sample of particles
at the beginning of the simulation (top) and after $9\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ of
evolution (bottom).
### 4.2 The actions
Figure 6: $J_{R}$ plotted against $J_{\phi}$ for particles within
$1.5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ of the “solar position” in our simulation after $1.5$,
$4.5$ and $7.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ (left to right). As in Figure 4, the particles
are divided into patches which increase in number and decrease in size as $t$
increase.
Helmi et al. (2006) sought to identify substructure in the disc by calculating
the locations of stars in “APL” space, which is the space spanned by
apocentre, pericentre and $J_{\phi}$ (which they refer to as $L_{z}$). Apo-
and pericentre can be considered to be integrals analogous to actions, so APL
space is a mapping of action space. Hence it is of interest to examine the
distribution of the satellite’s stars in action space for comparison with the
results of Helmi et al. (2006) although we shall find it less interesting than
the frequency and angle spaces.
Fig. 5 is a plot of $J_{R}$ against $J_{\phi}$ for a random set of particles
(reflecting the satellite as a whole) at the beginning of the simulation (top)
and at $t=9\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ (bottom). The particles remain in the same general
area of the $(J_{\phi},J_{R})$ plane, but at early times the actions are not
constant because the satellite is self-gravitating and the strong negative
correlation between $J_{R}$ and $J_{\phi}$ seen in the initial conditions is
replaced by a (rather weaker) positive correlation.222When the satellite’s
self-gravity is turned off, the actions prove to be constant as expected.
The strong negative correlation in the initial conditions arises because
initially the satellite is at apocentre. A particle that moves relative to the
centre of the satellite in the opposite direction to the satellite’s rotation
about the Galactic centre has less angular momentum than one that moves in the
opposite direction, and – in the absence of the satellite’s self-gravity –
would be on a more eccentric orbit, and thus have a higher value of $J_{R}$.
The weaker correlation between $J_{R}$ and $J_{\phi}$ seen at
$9\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ arises because the actions of a particle become constant
when the particle is stripped from the satellite and starts to feel the
latter’s gravity only weakly. This occurs at pericentre, when the effect of
combining motion within the satellite with the motion of the satellite is
precisely opposite of what it is at apocentre. The extent of the correlation
between $J_{R}$ and $J_{\phi}$ at $9\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ is comparable to that
shown in Fig. 5 of Helmi et al. (2006) for the locations in APL space of stars
that lie within $5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ of the Sun.
Figure 6 is a plot of $J_{R}$ against $J_{\phi}$ for particles that lie within
$1.5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ of the Sun at $t=1.5,4.5$ and $7.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ (left to
right). The actions of the particles found in the solar neighbourhood cover
almost the entire range in $\mathbf{J}$ found in the satellite as a whole, but
are separated into distinct patches that decrease in size and increase in
number over time. The number of patches increases slightly faster than the
area of each patch decreases with the result that by $7.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ the
patches are starting to merge into bands. Fig. 5 of Helmi et al. (2006) shows
such a series of bands in APL space for stars that lie within
$1.5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ of the Sun.
Figure 7: A projection in $\mathbf{J}$ space of the actions of particles
within $1.5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ of the “solar position” in the simulation after
$7.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ (the same particles plotted in Figure 6, right). In this
projection it is clearer that the stars are separated into individual clumps
in $\mathbf{J}$ space.
Since $\Omega$ is a smooth function of $\mathbf{J}$, our study of the
distribution of particles in frequency space explains their distribution in
action space: the “allowed” values of $\mathbf{J}$ correspond to “allowed”
values of $\Omega$, which are confined to patches. While the constraints on
$\Omega$ do not involve $\Omega_{z}$, the constraints on $\mathbf{J}$ _do_
depend on $J_{z}$, because both $\Omega_{R}$ and $\Omega_{\phi}$ depend on
$J_{z}$. Consequently, the positions of stars in $\mathbf{J}$-space form a
relatively regular lattice, but the principal directions of that lattice are
not parallel to the $J_{i}$ axes. Therefore, the tendency of patches to run
together in the extreme right-hand panel of Fig. 6 can be eliminated by
plotting a different projection of action space. For example, Figure 7 is a
plot of $0.507J_{R}+0.862J_{z}$ against $J_{\phi}$ – a projection chosen by
eye from a 3D visualisation of the distribution in $\mathbf{J}$-space – and in
this plot the patches are all distinct. In general, the patches will be most
cleanly separated when the lattice is projected along one of it principal
directions, since then points with the same $\Omega_{R}$ and $\Omega_{\phi}$
but differing in $\Omega_{z}$ are projected on top of one another. The optimum
projection depends both on the potential and on the region of
$\mathbf{J}$-space occupied by the stars, but it can be straightforwardly
identified for any set of data because $\Omega$ is found at the same time as
$\mathbf{J}$.
Figure 8: $\Omega_{\phi}t/2\pi$ (number of azimuthal periods) plotted against
$\Omega_{R}t/2\pi$ (top), and $J_{R}$ against $J_{\phi}$ (bottom) for
particles found within $1.5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ of the “solar position” in our
simulation after $4.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ as determined in the Miyamoto-Nagai
potential described in Section 4.3 (for comparison see the middle panels of
Figures 4 & 6).
### 4.3 Working with incomplete knowledge
In reality we do not know the Galaxy’s potential a priori. In this subsection
we show that satellite particles can be identified using even a poor
approximation to the potential, and then the true potential identified from
structure within the sample of satellite particles.
We repeated the above analysis using orbital tori in the Hamiltonian for a
Miyamoto-Nagai potential
$\Phi_{\rm MN}(R,z)=-\frac{GM}{\sqrt{R^{2}+(a+\sqrt{z^{2}+b^{2}})^{2}}},$ (8)
with mass $M=1.8\times 10^{11}\,{\rm M}_{\odot}$, scale length
$a=6\,\mathrm{kpc}$ and scale height $b=0.3\,\mathrm{kpc}$. This is a crude
approximation to the true potential and one expects to be able to start from a
better approximation to the Galaxy’s potential. It is chosen such that the
circular speed at the Solar radius is approximately the same as in the true
potential, and the scale height is similar to that of the true disc. We chose
a scale length that is much greater than that of the true thin disc (which
dominates the forces in the solar neighbourhood) as the Miyamoto-Nagai
potential falls off quickly with radius, and we want to avoid any risk of
having particles at or above the escape speed (at least one action diverges as
a particle’s speed tends to the escape speed).
Fig. 8 shows plots of $\Omega_{R}$ against $\Omega_{\phi}$ (top) and $J_{R}$
against $J_{\phi}$ (bottom). While the clear separation of particles into
clumps in both $\Omega$ and $\mathbf{J}$ seen in Figure 6 is somewhat smeared
by using the wrong potential, it is not completely lost. Therefore, even when
the true potential is unknown, these plots enable us to identify
substructures.
We can go further, and use the displacement of patches in $\Omega$ space by an
erroneous potential to identify the true potential. Specifically, at time $t$
the angle coordinates of the $\alpha$th particle
$\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}_{\alpha}$ satisfy
$\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}_{\alpha}(t-t_{0})-(\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}_{\alpha}-\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}_{\alpha,0})=2\pi\mathbf{m}_{\alpha},$
(9)
where the particle was at $\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}_{\alpha,0}$ at time
$t_{0}$; the (integer) components of $\mathbf{m}_{\alpha}$ give the number of
oscillations that the particle has made in $R,z$ and $\phi$.
Figure 9: $\overline{\delta_{R}}$ (solid line), and
$\overline{\delta_{\phi}}$ (dotted line) plotted against $t^{\prime}$ (see
Equation 4.3); the dashed line indicates the known true value of t. The lower
panels (ii & iii) show $\overline{\delta_{R}}$ and $\overline{\delta_{\phi}}$
determined using values of $\Omega$ and $\theta$ found in the same potential
that the orbit integration was carried out in – the lower-right panel (iii)
being a magnified section of the lower left hand panel (ii), focused around
the true value of t. The upper panel (i) shows $\overline{\delta_{R}}$ and
$\overline{\delta_{\phi}}$ determined using values of $\Omega$ and $\theta$
found in an incorrect potential (Equation 8). There are strong minima in both
$\overline{\delta_{R}}$ and $\overline{\delta_{\phi}}$ around the true value
of t when the true potential is used, whereas when an incorrect potential is
used none is seen.
There is negligible clumping in $\theta_{z}$ because the satellite’s orbit
initially lay in the plane, but at some time $t_{0}$, before the satellite was
stripped, individual values of $\theta_{R,\alpha,0}$ were tightly correlated,
as were values of $\theta_{\phi,\alpha,0}$. In fact, in our simulation at
$t=0$, the satellite was centred at $\theta_{\phi,0}=0$ and at apocentre,
where $\theta_{R}\simeq\pi$ for all orbits. Therefore, we define the
statistical measures
$\displaystyle\delta_{R,\alpha}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left|\frac{\Omega_{R,\alpha}t^{\prime}-(\theta_{R,\alpha}-\theta_{R,0})-2\pi
m_{R,\alpha}}{\pi}\right|$ $\displaystyle\delta_{\phi,\alpha}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left|\frac{\Omega_{\phi,\alpha}t^{\prime}-(\theta_{\phi,\alpha}-\theta_{\phi,0})-2\pi
m_{\phi,\alpha}}{\pi}\right|,$ (10)
where the integers $m_{\phi,\alpha}$ and $m_{R,\alpha}$ are chosen such that
$\delta_{R,\alpha}$ and $\delta_{\phi,\alpha}$ are minimised;
$\theta_{R,0}=\pi$ and $\theta_{\phi,0}=0$ (in this case) and $t^{\prime}$ is
a free parameter. In these expressions the numerators vary between $\pm\pi$,
so when the values of $\Omega_{\alpha}t^{\prime}$ are randomly distributed,
$\bar{\delta}_{i}\simeq 0.5$, while when $\Omega_{i}t^{\prime}$ has a well
defined phase relative to the rest of the numerator, $\bar{\delta}_{i}$ can
approach either zero or 1, depending on whether the two halves of the
numerator are in or out of phase with each other.
At $t=4.5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$ in our simulation $\overline{\delta}_{R}$ and
$\overline{\delta}_{\phi}$ were evaluated by summing over particles within
$1.5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ of the Sun. Fig. 9 shows the resulting plots of
$\overline{\delta}_{R}$ and $\overline{\delta}_{\phi}$ as functions of
$t^{\prime}$ with $\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}_{\alpha}$ and
$\mbox{\boldmath$\theta$}_{\alpha}$ determined in the Miyamoto-Nagai potential
(upper panel) and in the true potential (lower panel). The upper panel shows
that when the dynamical variables are evaluated in an erroneous potential, the
$\bar{\delta}_{i}$ scarcely move from their mean values after the first few
megayears, and when one of them does move downwards, the other does not. By
contrast in the lower panel for the true potential both $\bar{\delta}_{i}$
display sustained beats as the relative phases of the two terms that make up
the numerators in equations (4.3) have stable relative phases. In the
neighbourhood of the true disruption time of the relic the beating swells in
amplitude and, as the exploded view on the right of the figure shows, both
move down together just $10\,$Myr past the relic’s true age.
When applying the test involving the $\bar{\delta}_{i}$ to real observational
data, it will be necessary to search for beats over both $t^{\prime}$ and the
mean of the initial azimuthal phases $\theta_{\phi,\alpha}$. Hence, Fig. 9
oversimplifies the problem because it shows a one-dimensional search rather
than a two-dimensional one. Moreover, if the satellite was initially on an
inclined orbit rather than one in the plane, the vertical angles $\theta_{z}$
would be involved, so coincident beats would be required in three angle-
dependent variables $\bar{\delta}_{i}$ rather than two. Consequently, a
smaller fraction of a relic’s stars would satisfy this condition at a given
time, making it harder to identify a relic against background noise. The
upside of the involvement of $\theta_{z}$ is that it would give us the
opportunity to constrain the vertical structure of the potential; a relic of a
satellite that started from $J_{z}\simeq 0$ only probes the Galactic rotation
curve.
Real data will also have background stars that did not come from the
satellite. Naturally, the Poisson noise in the distribution of background
stars makes it harder to identify overdensities in $\mathbf{J}$-space, but
once the overdensities associated with a remnant have been identified,
background stars have negligible impact on the ability of the
$\bar{\delta}_{i}$ to determine the disruption time: any star in the
overdensity is in the same part of $\Omega$-space as the remnant’s stars, so
the contributions to equation (4.3) from background and remnant stars will
differ only in the relevant values of $\theta$. These differences will
inevitably be small because we are dealing with a small survey volume. For
example, if $20\%$ of the stars identified as being part of the remnant are
actually background stars, and are – on average – displaced from the position
on the orbit where a typical remnant member with the same $\Omega$ would be by
$\Delta\theta_{i}=0.2$ (equivalent to $\sim 1.5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ in the
$\phi$-direction), this would only make a difference of $~{}0.01$ to
$\bar{\delta}_{i}$.
Before the satellite is completely disrupted, it is affected by dynamical
friction, which will cause spreading in velocity space. However this is a
significantly smaller effect than that due to the self gravity and initial
velocity dispersion in the satellite for an object of this mass – the
Chandrasekhar dynamical friction formula (e.g. Binney & Tremaine, 2008, §8.1)
suggests that a satellite of this mass should be decelerated by $\sim
10\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}\,\mathrm{Gyr}^{-1}$, and this decreases in
direct proportion to the satellite mass as it is stripped. Hence including
dynamical friction would shift individual velocities by significantly less
than their intrinsic scatter, namely the internal velocity distribution of the
satellite ($18.6\,\mathrm{km}\,\mathrm{s}^{-1}$).
These matters, and any others that arise, will be investigated further, but
Fig. 9 clearly conveys the essential idea and gives a tantalising taste of the
diagnostic potential of angle variables.
## 5 Secular evolution
Stars have continued to form at a significant rate throughout the lifetime of
the Galaxy’s thin disc, and it must be presumed that the disc’s mass has
increased significantly over the last $5\,\mathrm{Gyr}$. Since actions are
adiabatic invariants, such secular evolution of the Galactic potential does
not affect the distribution of relic stars in the $J_{\phi}-J_{R}$ plane (Fig.
5). Secular evolution causes the frequencies at fixed $\mathbf{J}$ to become
explicit functions of time, so we should write
$\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}(\mathbf{J},t)$, and the increment in $\theta_{i}$
over time $t$ changes from $\Delta\theta_{i}=\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}_{i}t$ to
$\Delta\theta_{i}=\int_{0}^{t}dt\,\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}_{i}$. The
conditions for a relic star to be in the solar neighbourhood are given values
of $\Delta\theta_{i}\mod 2\pi$ for $i=R,\phi$. Since with secular evolution
$\Delta\theta_{i}$ remains a continuous function of $\mathbf{J}$, these
conditions continue to be satisfied only in a grid of patches in action space;
secular evolution shifts the patches, but does not blur them. Hence the
diagnostic power of plots like Fig. 6 is unaffected by secular evolution.
In the presence of secular evolution it becomes necessary in equation (9) to
replace $\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}_{\alpha}(t-t_{0})$ by
$\int_{t_{0}}^{t}dt\,\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}_{\alpha}$. To evaluate the
required integrals, one must adopt a model of the history of the potential,
which determines the time dependence of $\Omega$. The required model is self-
evident if secular evolution is confined to growth in the disc’s mass at a
known rate. Uncertainties in this rate will make it harder to locate beats in
Fig. 9.
Of course the key to calculating the secular evolution of stellar systems, be
they globular clusters or galaxies, is to express their distribution functions
in terms of actions (e.g. Sellwood & McGaugh, 2005), so the availability of
orbital tori for arbitrary potentials opens up new horizons in this area.
## 6 Summary
A major hope of “near-field cosmology” is to identify within the Galaxy groups
of stars that were accreted together (Freeman & Bland-Hawthorn, 2002). We have
demonstrated the power of angle-action coordinates for doing this by studying
the debris of a self-gravitating satellite of mass $3.75\times 10^{8}\,{\rm
M}_{\odot}$, released within the plane of a realistic Galactic potential on an
orbit with apocentre at $9\,\mathrm{kpc}$. On this short-period orbit the
satellite’s stars become well phase mixed within a couple of gigayears, and
they are quite widely distributed in action space. Nonetheless, the stars that
lie within $1.5\,\mathrm{kpc}$ of the Sun are concentrated into a grid of
patches in action space because only stars with certain frequencies are
currently near the Sun. To see the patchiness of the distribution in action
space it is not necessary to use the angle-action coordinates of the true
Galactic potential. But the correct potential must be used if statistical
measures constructed from the angle coordinates of stars are to show a
characteristic pattern of beats from which the time at which the relic was
disrupted can be deduced. Hence our results suggest a two-stage procedure:
first a reasonable approximation to the Galactic potential is used to identify
relics through the clustering of their stars’ points around the nodes of a
grid in action space. Then once a relic has been identified, the Galactic
potential would be adjusted until the angle-variable diagnostics showed
pronounced beats. This second step would not only pin down the Galaxy’s
potential, but also reveal the time at which relic was disrupted.
Growth in the mass of the disc since the satellite fell in would have
significant effects only on Fig. 9: to recover this plot it would be necessary
to model the time dependence of the Galactic potential, so that the integrals
$\int dt\,\mbox{\boldmath$\Omega$}$ could be evaluated. We anticipate that
with the help of angle-action coordinates this could be done to sufficient
accuracy, but defer this refinement to a subsequent publication.
We have neglected the deviations of the Galactic potential from axisymmetry.
Could these deviations have a significant impact? Jurić et al. (2008) use star
counts in the SDSS survey to show that the Galaxy’s thick disc is remarkably
axisymmetric near the Sun. This finding suggests that it is legitimate to
neglect the bar when searching for relics within the thick disc, such as the
Arcturus group. In general, the quadrupole moments of the bar’s gravitational
potential will decline rapidly outside the end of the bar at $R\sim
3\,\mathrm{kpc}$, so stars that are not resonant with the bar will not be
strongly affected by it. The observed axisymmetry of the thick disc suggests
that few if any of its stars are resonantly trapped by the bar, so their
orbits can be safely modelled with an axisymmetric potential. The question of
how the – phase-dependent – effects of the bar would impact Fig. 9 may prove
important.
The exciting possibilities discussed here rest on two foundations. One is the
availability of angle-action coordinates for any given potential, and the
other is the availability of full phase space coordinates for significant
samples of stars. The torus construction technique developed in a series of
paper starting with McGill & Binney (1990) can provide angle-action
coordinates, and programmes such as the Geneva-Copenhagen, RAVE and Gaia
surveys will provide the phase space coordinates.
Currently the torus technique is restricted to either axisymmetric systems or
two-dimensional non-rotating bars. However, extension to three-dimensional
bars, including bars that are rotating with a constant pattern speed, is in
principle straightforward and will be attempted soon.
Clearly when this technique is used to search a real catalogue for relics, and
then to analyse them, difficulties will be encountered that we have ignored
here. Most obviously one will have to contend with errors in the phase space
coordinates of stars (primarily due to errors in distances) and with the
difficulty in picking out overdensities in action space against a background
of Poisson noise from field stars. We are currently applying the method to
$\sim 200\,000$ stars from the RAVE survey and hope to report the results in
the near future.
## Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Walter Dehnen for making his torus code available to us. We
also thank Ben Burnett, John Magorrian and Andy Eyre and the other members of
the Oxford dynamics group for critical comments on this work. PJM is supported
by a grant from the Science and Technology Facilities Council.
## References
* Abadi et al. (2003) Abadi M. G., Navarro J. F., Steinmetz M., Eke V. R., 2003, ApJ, 597, 21
* Belokurov et al. (2006) Belokurov V., Zucker D. B., Evans N. W., Gilmore G., Vidrih S., Bramich D. M., Newberg H. J., Wyse R. F. G., Irwin M. J., Fellhauer M., Hewett P. C., Walton N. A., Wilkinson M. I., Cole N., Yanny B., Rockosi C. M., Beers T. C., Bell E. F., Brinkmann J., Ivezić Ž., Lupton R., 2006, ApJL, 642, L137
* Binney & Tremaine (2008) Binney J., Tremaine S., 2008, Galactic dynamics. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press
* Chereul et al. (1999) Chereul E., Crézé M., Bienaymé O., 1999, A&AS, 135, 5
* Dehnen (1999) Dehnen W., 1999, ApJL, 524, L35
* Dehnen (2000) —, 2000, AJ, 119, 800
* Dehnen (2002) —, 2002, Journal of Computational Physics, 179, 27
* Dehnen & Binney (1998) Dehnen W., Binney J., 1998, MNRAS, 294, 429
* Eggen (1971) Eggen O. J., 1971, PASP, 83, 271
* Famaey et al. (2005) Famaey B., Jorissen A., Luri X., Mayor M., Udry S., Dejonghe H., Turon C., 2005, A&A, 430, 165
* Freeman & Bland-Hawthorn (2002) Freeman K., Bland-Hawthorn J., 2002, AnnRA&A, 40, 487
* Fux (2001) Fux R., 2001, A&A, 373, 511
* Helmi & de Zeeuw (2000) Helmi A., de Zeeuw P. T., 2000, MNRAS, 319, 657
* Helmi et al. (2006) Helmi A., Navarro J. F., Nordström B., Holmberg J., Abadi M. G., Steinmetz M., 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1309
* Helmi & White (1999) Helmi A., White S. D. M., 1999, MNRAS, 307, 495
* Helmi et al. (1999) Helmi A., White S. D. M., de Zeeuw P. T., Zhao H., 1999, Nat, 402, 53
* Helmi et al. (2003) Helmi A., White S. D. M., Springel V., 2003, MNRAS, 339, 834
* Ibata et al. (1994) Ibata R. A., Gilmore G., Irwin M. J., 1994, Nat, 370, 194
* Jurić et al. (2008) Jurić M., Ivezić Ž., Brooks A., Lupton R. H., Schlegel D., Finkbeiner D., Padmanabhan N., Bond N., Sesar B., Rockosi C. M., Knapp G. R., Gunn J. E., Sumi T., Schneider D. P., Barentine J. C., Brewington H. J., Brinkmann J., 2008, ApJ, 673, 864
* Kaasalainen & Binney (1994) Kaasalainen M., Binney J., 1994, MNRAS, 268, 1033
* Lynden-Bell & Lynden-Bell (1995) Lynden-Bell D., Lynden-Bell R. M., 1995, MNRAS, 275, 429
* McGill & Binney (1990) McGill C., Binney J., 1990, MNRAS, 244, 634
* Navarro et al. (2004) Navarro J. F., Helmi A., Freeman K. C., 2004, ApJL, 601, L43
* Nordström et al. (2004) Nordström B., Mayor M., Andersen J., Holmberg J., Pont F., Jørgensen B. R., Olsen E. H., Udry S., Mowlavi N., 2004, A&A, 418, 989
* Perryman et al. (2001) Perryman M. A. C., de Boer K. S., Gilmore G., Høg E., Lattanzi M. G., Lindegren L., Luri X., Mignard F., Pace O., de Zeeuw P. T., 2001, A&A, 369, 339
* Press et al. (1986) Press W. H., Flannery B. P., Teukolsky S. A., 1986, Numerical recipes. The art of scientific computing. Cambridge: University Press
* Sellwood & McGaugh (2005) Sellwood J. A., McGaugh S. S., 2005, ApJ, 634, 70
* Springel & Hernquist (2003) Springel V., Hernquist L., 2003, MNRAS, 339, 289
* Steinmetz et al. (2006) Steinmetz M., Zwitter T., Siebert A., Watson F. G., Freeman K. C., Munari U., Campbell R., Williams M., Seabroke G. M., Wyse R. F. G., Parker Q. A., Bienaymé O., Roeser S., Gibson B. K., Gilmore G., Grebel E. K., Helmi A., Navarro J. F., Burton D., Cass C. J. P., Dawe J. A., Fiegert K., Hartley M., Russell K. S., Saunders W., Enke H., Bailin J., Binney J., Bland-Hawthorn J., Boeche C., Dehnen W., Eisenstein D. J., Evans N. W., Fiorucci M., Fulbright J. P., Gerhard O., Jauregi U., Kelz A., Mijović L., Minchev I., Parmentier G., Peñarrubia J., Quillen A. C., Read M. A., Ruchti G., Scholz R.-D., Siviero A., Smith M. C., Sordo R., Veltz L., Vidrih S., von Berlepsch R., Boyle B. J., Schilbach E., 2006, AJ, 132, 1645
* Tremaine (1999) Tremaine S., 1999, MNRAS, 307, 877
* White & Rees (1978) White S. D. M., Rees M. J., 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341
* Zwitter et al. (2008) Zwitter T., Siebert A., Munari U., Freeman K. C., Siviero A., Watson F. G., Fulbright J. P., Wyse R. F. G., Campbell R., Seabroke G. M., Williams M., Steinmetz M., Bienaymé O., Gilmore G., Grebel E. K., Helmi A., Navarro J. F., Anguiano B., Boeche C., Burton D., Cass P., Dawe J., Fiegert K., Hartley M., Russell K., Veltz L., Bailin J., Binney J., Bland-Hawthorn J., Brown A., Dehnen W., Evans N. W., Re Fiorentin P., Fiorucci M., Gerhard O., Gibson B., Kelz A., Kujken K., Matijevič G., Minchev I., Parker Q. A., Peñarrubia J., Quillen A., Read M. A., Reid W., Roeser S., Ruchti G., Scholz R.-D., Smith M. C., Sordo R., Tolstoi E., Tomasella L., Vidrih S., de Boer E. W., 2008, AJ, 136, 421
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-02T16:10:19 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.070368 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Paul J. McMillan and James J. Binney",
"submitter": "Paul McMillan",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0319"
} |
0806.0420 | # Spin-Orbit Coupling in an f-electron Tight-Binding Model
M. D. Jones Department of Physics and Center for Computational Research,
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, Buffalo, NY 14260
jonesm@ccr.buffalo.edu R. C. Albers Theoretical Division, Los Alamos National
Laboratory,
Los Alamos, NM 87501 rca@lanl.gov
###### Abstract
We extend a tight-binding method to include the effects of spin-orbit
coupling, and apply it to the study of the electronic properties of the
actinide elements Th, U, and Pu. These tight-binding parameters are determined
for the fcc crystal structure using the equivalent equilibrium volumes. In
terms of the single particle energies and the electronic density of states,
the overall quality of the tight-binding representation is excellent and of
the same quality as without spin-orbit coupling. The values of the optimized
tight-binding spin-orbit coupling parameters are comparable to those
determined from purely atomic calculations.
###### pacs:
71.15.Ap, 71.15.Nc, 71.15.Rf, 71.20.Gj,71.70.Ej
## I Introduction
The accurate determination of inter-atomic forces is crucial for almost all
aspects of modeling the fundamental behavior of materials. Whether one is
interested in static equilibrium properties using Monte Carlo methods, or time
dependent phenomena using molecular dynamics, the essential feature remains
the origin, applicability, and transferability of the forces acting on the
fundamental unit being modeled (atoms or molecules in most cases). First
principles methods based on density functional theory have gained wide
acceptance for their ease of use, relatively accurate determination of
fundamental properties, and high transferability. These techniques, however,
are limited in their application by current computing technology to systems of
a few hundred atoms or less (most commonly a few dozen atoms). Potentials that
are classically derived (i.e., pair potentials) lack directional bonding (or
at best add some bond angle information) and other quantum mechanical effects
but are computationally far more tractable for larger simulations. Recent
advances in tight-binding (TB) theory, which include directional bonding, but
treat only the most important valence electrons shells, therefore show a great
deal of promise.
TB models have become a useful method for the computational modeling of
materials properties thanks to their ability to incorporate quantum mechanics
in a greatly simplified theoretical treatment, making large accurate
simulations possible on modern digital computersGoringe et al. (1997);
Papaconstantopoulos and Mehl (2003). Another advantage of these TB models is
their ability to treat a general class of problems that include directional
bonding between valence electrons, of particular importance for transition
metal and $f$-electron materials. Finally, TB models are widely used in many-
body formalisms for the one-electron part of the Hamiltonian. It is therefore
a useful representation of the band-structure for a more sophisticated
treatment of electronic correlation, and has so been usedZhu et al. (2007),
for example, in dynamical mean-field theory applications for Pu.
In this report we present recent developments towards a transferable tight-
binding total energy technique applicable to heavy metals. With the addition
of spin-orbit coupling effects for angular momentum up to (and including)
$f$-character, we demonstrate the applicability of this technique for the
element Pu, of particular interest for its position near the half-filling
point of the $5f$ subshell in the actinide sequence and the boundary between
localized and delocalized $f$-electronsAlbers (2001).
## II TB Method
The TB model used in this report is similar to that used in the handbook by
PapaconstantopoulosPapaconstantopoulos (1986). We have extended the
calculations to include $f$-electronsJones and Albers (2002) and spin-orbit
couplingLach-hab et al. (2002). As such, in this report we will elaborate only
on those aspects of the technique that are unique to this work. A very brief
recapitulation of the underlying TB method and its approximations is included
to create the proper context for the addition of $f$-electrons and spin-orbit
coupling.
The Slater-Koster methodSlater and Koster (1954) consists of solving the
secular equation,
$H\psi_{i,v}=\epsilon_{i,v}S\psi_{i,v},$ (1)
for the single-particle eigenvalues and orbitals, under the following
restrictions: terms involving more than two centers are ignored, terms where
the orbitals are on the same atomic site are taken as constants, and the
resulting reduced set of matrix elements are treated as variable parameters.
The Hamiltonian, $H$, includes the labels for orbitals having generic quantum
numbers $\alpha,\beta$ localized on atoms $i,j$, where the effective potential
is assumed to be spherical, and can be represented as a sum over atomic
centers,
$H_{\alpha i,\beta j}=\left\langle\alpha,i\left|-\nabla^{2}+\sum_{k}V^{\rm
eff}_{k}\right|\beta,j\right\rangle,$ (2)
which we further decompose into “on-site” and “inter-site” terms,
$H_{\alpha i,\beta j}=e_{\alpha}\delta_{\alpha\beta}\delta_{ij}+E_{\alpha
i,\beta j\neq i},$ (3)
where the on-site terms, $e_{\alpha}$, represent terms in which two orbitals
share the same atomic site, and
$E_{\alpha i,\beta j\neq
i}=\sum_{n}e^{i\textbf{k}\cdot\left(\textbf{R}_{n}+\textbf{b}_{j}-\textbf{b}_{i}\right)}\int
d\textbf{r}\psi_{\alpha}\left(\textbf{r}-\textbf{R}_{n}-\textbf{b}_{i}\right)H\psi_{\beta}\left(\textbf{r}-\textbf{b}_{j}\right),$
(4)
are the remaining energy integrals involving orbitals located on different
atomic sites, and we have used translational invariance to reduce the number
of sums over bravais lattice points $\\{\textbf{R}_{n}\\}$, and the
$\textbf{b}_{i}$ denote atomic basis vectors within the repeated lattice
cells. Note that terms which have both orbitals located on the same site, but
the effective potential ($V^{\textrm{eff}}$) on other sites have been ignored.
These contributions are typically taken to be “environmental” corrections to
the on-site terms, and are not accounted for in the usual Slater-Koster
formalism. For the inter-site terms, the two center approximation also
consists of ignoring these additional terms in which the effective potential,
$V^{\textrm{eff}}$, does not lie on one of the atomic sites. Once this
approximation has been made, the inter-atomic ($i\neq j$) matrix elements
reduce to a simple sum over angular functions,
$G_{ll^{\prime}m}(\Omega_{i,j})$, and functions which depend only upon the
magnitude of the distances between atoms,
$H_{\alpha i,\beta j}=\sum
h_{ll^{\prime}m}(r_{ij})G_{ll^{\prime}m}(\Omega_{i,j}),$ (5)
where we have now adopted the usual convention of using the familiar $l,m$
angular momentum quantum numbers, and the axis connecting the atoms is the
quantization axis. An equivalent expression for $s_{ll^{\prime}m}$ terms
exists when non-orthogonal orbitals are used. The basis set used for the
$\alpha$ and $\beta$ quantum states are the cubic harmonicsvon Der Lage and
Bethe (1947) whose functional forms are given in Table 1 (with appropriate
normalization factors)
Table 1: TB basis functions used for an $sp^{3}d^{5}f^{7}$ calculation. Note that $f_{l}(r)=1/r^{l}$. l=0 | l=1 | l=2 | l=3
---|---|---|---
$|s\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{1/4\pi}|\pm\rangle$ | $|p_{1}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{3/4\pi}f_{1}(r)x|\pm\rangle$ | $|d_{1}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{5/16\pi}f_{2}(r)xy|\pm\rangle$ | $|f_{1}\pm\rangle=$ | $2\sqrt{105/16\pi}f_{3}(r)xyz|\pm\rangle$
| | $|p_{2}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{3/4\pi}f_{1}(r)y|\pm\rangle$ | $|d_{2}\pm\rangle=$ | $2\sqrt{15/16\pi}f_{2}(r)yz|\pm\rangle$ | $|f_{2}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{7/16\pi}f_{3}(r)x(5x^{2}-3r^{2})|\pm\rangle$
| | $|p_{3}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{3/4\pi}f_{1}(r)z|\pm\rangle$ | $|d_{3}\pm\rangle=$ | $2\sqrt{15/16\pi}f_{2}(r)zx|\pm\rangle$ | $|f_{3}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{7/16\pi}f_{3}(r)y(5y^{2}-3r^{2})|\pm\rangle$
| | | | $|d_{4}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{15/16\pi}f_{2}(r)(x^{2}-y^{2})|\pm\rangle$ | $|f_{4}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{7/16\pi}f_{3}(r)z(5z^{2}-3r^{2})|\pm\rangle$
| | | | $|d_{5}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{5/16\pi}f_{2}(r)(3z^{2}-r^{2})|\pm\rangle$ | $|f_{5}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{105/16\pi}f_{3}(r)x(y^{2}-z^{2})|\pm\rangle$
| | | | | | $|f_{6}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{105/16\pi}f_{3}(r)y(z^{2}-x^{2})|\pm\rangle$
| | | | | | $|f_{7}\pm\rangle=$ | $\sqrt{105/16\pi}f_{3}(r)z(x^{2}-y^{2})|\pm\rangle$
where $|\pm\rangle$ denotes the spin-state, which we will need for spin-orbit
coupling.
The Slater-Koster tables for the $sp^{3}d^{5}$ matrix elements can be found in
standard referencesHarrison (1980), and we have used the tabulated results of
Takegahara et al.Takegahara et al. (1980) for the additional matrix elements
involving $f$-electrons. Typical TB applications are then reduced to using TB
as an interpolation scheme; the matrix elements ($h_{ll^{\prime}m}$,
$s_{ll^{\prime}m}$ and $e_{\alpha}$) are determined by fitting to ab-initio
calculated quantities such as the total energy and band energies.
In this study we restrict ourselves to the determination of optimal TB
parameters at the neighbor distances in the face-centered cubic crystal
structure (often used as a surrogate for the more complex ground state crystal
structure of the actinides) near the equilibrium volume. Such tabulations have
been extensively usedPapaconstantopoulos (1986) in the study of materials with
lower atomic number. To the best of our knowledge this is the first time that
such parameters have been presented for light actinide elements that include
the $f$-electron orbitals (although similar parameters have been determined
for the elements Ac and Th in an $sp^{3}d^{5}$ basisPapaconstantopoulos
(1986)). The TB parameter values so derived are available (on request) from
the authors.
### II.1 Spin-orbit coupling
The primary impact of spin-orbit coupling is to non-trivially couple electrons
of different spin states, thus doubling the size of the TB Hamiltonian. The
spin-orbit contribution to the Hamiltonian is given by
$H^{so}=\xi(r)\textbf{L}\cdot\textbf{S},$ (6)
where $\xi(r)=(\alpha^{2}/(2r))(\partial V/\partial r)$, $V$ is the total
(crystal) potential. We neglect contributions from more than one center. A new
Hamiltonian matrix can then be defined in terms of the spinless one,
${\cal H}=H+H^{so}=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}H+\frac{1}{2}\xi
L_{z}&\frac{1}{2}\xi L_{-}\\\ \frac{1}{2}\xi L_{+}&H-\frac{1}{2}\xi
L_{z}\end{array}\right)$ (7)
where
$\xi_{nl}=\hbar\int_{0}^{\infty}\xi(r)\left[R^{0}_{nl}(r)\right]^{2}r^{2}dr,$
(8)
is the spin-orbit coupling parameter between orbitals of orbital angular
momentum $l$ and primary quantum number $n$ located on the same atom,
$L_{\pm}$ are the usual raising and lowering operators, and $L_{z}$ the
azimuthal angular momentum operator,
$\begin{array}[]{ll}L_{\pm}Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)=\hbar\sqrt{l(l+1)-m(m\pm
1)}Y_{lm\pm 1}\\\ L_{z}Y_{lm}(\theta,\phi)=\hbar mY_{lm}.\end{array}$
The functions $R^{0}_{nl}(r)$ are the non-relativistic radial wave functions.
The spin-orbit contributions to the Hamiltonian matrix can then be expressed
in term of the TB basis functions listed in Table 1. Rather than list
contributions for the 32x32 matrix, here we list the matrices in the sub-
blocks corresponding to each orbital angular momentum. The $p$ and $d$
contributions have been previously discussed in relation to the tight-binding
formalismFriedel et al. (1964); Chadi (1977); to the best of our knowledge no
$f$ contribution has yet appeared in the literature. For completeness we
detail the spin-orbit contribution for all values of the angular momentum up
to $l=3$.
${H}^{so}_{p}=\frac{\xi_{np}}{2}\left(\begin{array}[]{rrrrrr}0&-i&0&0&0&1\\\
i&0&0&0&0&-i\\\ 0&0&0&-1&i&0\\\ 0&0&-1&0&i&0\\\ 0&0&-i&-i&0&0\\\
1&i&0&0&0&0\end{array}\right),$ (9)
${H}^{so}_{d}=\frac{\xi_{nd}}{2}\left(\begin{array}[]{rrrrrrrrrr}0&0&0&2i&0&0&1&-i&0&0\\\
0&0&i&0&0&-1&0&0&-i&-i\sqrt{3}\\\ 0&-i&0&0&0&i&0&0&-1&\sqrt{3}\\\
-2i&0&0&0&0&0&i&1&0&0\\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&i\sqrt{3}&-\sqrt{3}&0&0\\\
0&-1&-i&0&0&0&0&0&-2i&0\\\ 1&0&0&-i&-i\sqrt{3}&0&0&-i&0&0\\\
i&0&0&1&-\sqrt{3}&0&i&0&0&0\\\ 0&i&-1&0&0&2i&0&0&0&0\\\
0&i\sqrt{3}&\sqrt{3}&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\end{array}\right),$ (10)
${H}^{so}_{f}=\frac{\xi_{nf}}{4}\left(\begin{array}[]{rrrrrrrrrrrrrr}0&0&0&0&0&0&2i&0&0&0&0&2i&2&0\\\
0&0&\frac{3i}{2}&0&0&it&0&0&0&0&-\frac{3}{2}&0&0&t\\\
0&-\frac{3i}{2}&0&0&it&0&0&0&0&0&\frac{3i}{2}&0&0&it\\\
0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&\frac{3}{2}&-\frac{3i}{2}&0&t&it&0\\\
0&0&-it&0&0&-\frac{i}{2}&0&-2i&0&0&-t&0&0&\frac{1}{2}\\\
0&-it&0&0&\frac{i}{2}&0&0&-2&0&0&-it&0&0&-\frac{i}{2}\\\
-2i&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&-t&-it&0&-\frac{1}{2}&\frac{i}{2}&0\\\
0&0&0&0&2i&-2&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&-2i\\\
0&0&0&\frac{3}{2}&0&0&-t&0&0&-\frac{3i}{2}&0&0&-it&0\\\
0&0&0&\frac{3i}{2}&0&0&it&0&\frac{3i}{2}&0&0&-it&0&0\\\
0&-\frac{3}{2}&-\frac{3i}{2}&0&-t&it&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\\
-2i&0&0&t&0&0&-\frac{1}{2}&0&0&it&0&0&\frac{i}{2}&0\\\
2&0&0&-it&0&0&-\frac{i}{2}&0&it&0&0&-\frac{i}{2}&0&0\\\
0&t&-it&0&\frac{1}{2}&\frac{i}{2}&0&2i&0&0&0&0&0&0\end{array}\right),$ (11)
where $t=\sqrt{15}/2$.
### II.2 Fitting the Parameters
The values of the TB parameters were determined using standard non-linear
least squares optimization routines by matching energy band values derived
from highly accurate first principles density functional theory (DFT)
calculationsBlaha et al. (2001\. ISBN 3-9501031-1-2). The technique is
described in detail in a previous workJones and Albers (2002), where the DFT
calculations in this case used a generalized gradient approximation DFT
functionalPerdew et al. (1996), and the improved tetrahedron schemeBlöchl et
al. (1994) for Brillouin zone integrations. In this study we use as a starting
point high quality fits to the scalar-relativistic energy bands and
approximate atomic values of the spin-orbit parameters. The first step is to
then use this fit for fitting the relativistic energy bands including spin-
orbit coupling. Successive optimization steps then relax only the spin-orbit
coupling paramaters (step 1), the remaining on-site parameters (step 2), and
finally the inter-site terms (step 3). The fit quality through these steps is
shown in Figure 1. Note that the quality of the final fit is comparable to the
original fit quality (open symbols at step 3) when only scalar-relativistic
effects were taken into account.
Figure 1: TB fit quality in terms of the cumulative root mean square (rms)
errors at various steps of the optimization procedure. Step 1 relaxes the
spin-orbit parametes ($\xi_{nl}$), 2 relaxes the remaining on-site parameters,
and 3 is a full relaxation of all parameters. Open symbols at Step 3 indicate
the original scalar-relativistic fit quality. Note that the cumulative rms
error is over all of the fitted bands (20 bands for Th, U, and Pu). Although
the spin-orbit coupling is an atomic quantity, the improvement of our results
in step 3 (which relaxes inter-site parameters) indicates some environmental
effects should also be taken into account.
## III Application to the Light Actinides, Th, U, and Pu
### III.1 Energy bands including spin-orbit coupling
The first comparison between the TB fit and FLAPW calculations are the energy
bands shown in Figure 2. Note the excellent agreement between the two sets of
calculations (the cumulative root mean square error in the TB fits to the
first 20 energy bands in the irreducible Brillouin zone is 0.013, 0.013, and
0.072 Ry, respectively).
(a) Th (b) U
(c) Pu
Figure 2: TB energy bands for Th ($a=9.61$), U ($a=8.22$), and Pu ($a=8.14)$,
shown in comparison with FLAPW valence energy bands (dotted lines). Note the
excellent agreement. The abscissa for each calculation has been shifted such
that the Fermi energy is at zero. Higher valence states (above the first 20)
are not fit, hence the poorer fit quality well above the Fermi level. Figure
3: TB energy bands (dashed lines) for Pu semi-core 6p states, compared with
FLAPW values (solid lines).
Also note that we have included the “semi-core” $6p$ states in the fit to
better fix the available $p$ states in the TB basis. To expand the energy
scale comparing the valence bands, the fit quality for the semi-core 6p states
is shown separately in Figure 3 for Pu (all three elements have similar
excellent fit quality for the more localized 6p states). Note that higher
energy bands (well above the Fermi level) are not fit, hence the larger
discrepancies for those levels.
### III.2 Density of states including spin-orbit coupling
We also compare the total density of states (DOS) between TB and FLAPW methods
in Figure 4.
(a) Th (b) U (c) Pu
Figure 4: TB (dotted lines) and FLAPW (solid lines) total DOS, including spin-
orbit coupling. Note that the TB calculation is in quite good agreement with
the FLAPW results, despite using a different BZ integration method.The
abscissa for each calculation has been shifted such that the Fermi energy is
at zero.
The TB method shown in the figure used a simple Fermi-Dirac temperature
smearing method (with $k_{B}T=500$) for integrating over the irreducible wedge
of the Brillouin zone, while the FLAPW calculations used the improved
tetrahedronBlöchl et al. (1994) method with Gaussian smearing. From the
comparison between the TB and FLAPW methods shown in the above figure, we note
that the agreement is excellent, with all major features in the DOS reproduced
by the TB calculations. There is a slight reduction in the height of some of
the larger peaks in the DOS for the TB technique, most likely due to the
inability of the temperature smearing technique to represent the finer grained
features as well as the improved tetrahedron method does.
### III.3 Spin-orbit coupling terms
Table 2: Values of spin-orbit coupling strength, $\xi_{nl}$, and spin-orbit splittings, $\Delta_{nl}=(2l+1)\xi_{nl}/2$, for the various valence electron shells predicted by the TB fit compared with purely atomic values using relativistic density functional theory (DFT)kot , a Dirac-Slater atomic code (DIRAC)adf , and relativistic Hartree-Fock-Slater (HFS)Herman and Skillman (1963) atomic calculations. Dashed entries are used for orbitals not populated in the atomic calculations. Values are in eV. Method | $\xi_{6p}$ | $\Delta_{6p}$ | $\xi_{5d}$ | $\Delta_{5d}$ | $\xi_{5f}$ | $\Delta_{5f}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| Th
DIRAC | 5.29 | 7.94 | 0.20 | 0.51 | 0.19 | 0.66
DFT | 5.24 | 7.86 | 0.21 | 0.52 | – | –
HFS | 4.09 | 6.14 | 0.30 | 0.75 | – | –
TB | 4.19 | 6.29 | 0.20 | 0.51 | 0.18 | 0.62
| U
DIRAC | 5.96 | 8.94 | 0.19 | 0.47 | 0.24 | 0.83
DFT | 5.90 | 8.85 | 0.20 | 0.50 | 0.24 | 0.84
HFS | 4.38 | 6.57 | 0.30 | 0.75 | 0.35 | 1.24
TB | 4.64 | 6.96 | 0.23 | 0.58 | 0.42 | 1.48
| Pu
DIRAC | 6.92 | 10.38 | 0.20 | 0.51 | 0.31 | 1.10
DFT | – | – | – | – | – | –
HFS | 4.60 | 6.90 | – | – | 0.41 | 1.43
TB | 5.23 | 7.84 | 0.59 | 1.46 | 0.54 | 1.90
It is interesting to compare the spin-orbit coupling parameters, $\xi_{nl}$,
predicted by TB theory for the various valence shells relative to the values
predicted by accurate Hartree-Fock-Slater calculations of isolated atomsHerman
and Skillman (1963). This comparison is shown in Table 2.
Note the overall agreement between the TB fitted parameters and the atomic
values. The overall shift of a few tenths of an eV for the TB values is
interesting, and this trend could be representative of crystal field effects
(this speculation could be checked by performing equivalent fits at different
densities). Equivalently, one can compare the spin-orbit splitting of the
electronic energy levels with the purely atomic case. This comparison is also
shown in Table 2.
## IV Conclusions
We have included $f$-electron and spin-orbit effects in a standard tight-
binding method for solids in order to advance simpler simulation methods that
are capable of the accuracy of more expensive, full-potential density-
functional techniques. We have applied this TB technique to elemental fcc Th,
U, and Pu, and have achieved excellent agreement with the electronic
properties predicted using a highly accurate FLAPW method. The fitted spin-
orbit coupling parameters match very well the values independently predicted
by atomic electronic structure calculations. This methodology bodes well for
further TB investigations, especially for the study of defects, phonons, and
dynamical properties. In future work we intend to develop a more transferable
model based on a TB total energy formalismJones and Albers (2002), which
should allow the straightforward calculation of detailed materials properties.
###### Acknowledgements.
This work was carried out under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security
Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy at Los Alamos National
Laboratory under Contract No. DE-AC52-06NA25396. Calculations were performed
at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Center for Computational
Research at SUNY–Buffalo. FLAPW calculations were performed using the Wien2k
packageBlaha et al. (2001\. ISBN 3-9501031-1-2). We thank Jian-Xin Zhu for
providing helpful remarks.
## References
* Goringe et al. (1997) C. M. Goringe, D. R. Bowler, and E. Hernandez, Rep. Prog. Phys. 60, 1447 (1997).
* Papaconstantopoulos and Mehl (2003) D. A. Papaconstantopoulos and M. J. Mehl, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15, R413 (2003).
* Zhu et al. (2007) J.-X. Zhu, A. K. McMahan, M. D. Jones, T. Durakiewicz, J. J. Joyce, J. M. Wills, and R. C. Albers, Phys. Rev. B 76, 245118 (2007).
* Albers (2001) R. C. Albers, Nature 410, 759 (2001).
* Papaconstantopoulos (1986) D. A. Papaconstantopoulos, _Handbook of the Band Structure of Elemental Solids_ (Plenum Press, New York, 1986).
* Jones and Albers (2002) M. D. Jones and R. C. Albers, Phys. Rev. B 66, 134105 (2002).
* Lach-hab et al. (2002) M. Lach-hab, M. J. Mehl, and D. A. Papaconstantopoulos, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 63, 833 (2002).
* Slater and Koster (1954) J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster, Phys. Rev. 94, 1498 (1954).
* von Der Lage and Bethe (1947) F. von Der Lage and H. A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 71, 612 (1947).
* Harrison (1980) W. A. Harrison, _Electronic Structure and the Properties of Solids_ (Freeman, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1980).
* Takegahara et al. (1980) K. Takegahara, Y. Aoki, and A. Yanase, J. Phys. C 13, 583 (1980).
* Friedel et al. (1964) J. Friedel, P. Lenglart, and G. Leman, J. Phys. Chem. Solids 25, 781 (1964).
* Chadi (1977) D. J. Chadi, Phys. Rev. B 16, 790 (1977).
* Blaha et al. (2001. ISBN 3-9501031-1-2) P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, G. K. H. Madsen, D. Kvasnicka, and J. Luitz, _WIEN2K, An Augmented Plane Wave + Local Orbitals Program for Calculating Crystal Properties_ (Karlheinz Schwartz, Techn. Universit t Wien, Austria, 2001\. ISBN 3-9501031-1-2).
* Perdew et al. (1996) J. P. Perdew, S. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996).
* Blöchl et al. (1994) P. E. Blöchl, O. Jepsen, and O. K. Andersen, Phys. Rev. B 49, 16223 (1994).
* (17) S. Kotochigova, Z. H. Levine, E. L. Shirley, M. D. Stiles, and C. W. Clark, http://math.nist.gov/DFTdata (1996).
* (18) ADF2004.01, SCM, Theoretical Chemistry, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, http://www.scm.com.
* Herman and Skillman (1963) F. Herman and S. Skillman, _Atomic Structure Calculations_ (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1963).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-03T19:53:16 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.077677 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "M. D. Jones and R. C. Albers",
"submitter": "Matthew D. Jones",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0420"
} |
0806.0441 | # The parabolic Sturmian-function basis representation of the six-dimensional
Coulomb Green’s function
S. A. Zaytsev zaytsev@fizika.khstu.ru Pacific National University,
Khabarovsk, 680035, Russia
###### Abstract
The square integrable basis set representation of the resolvent of the
asymptotic three-body Coulomb wave operator in parabolic coordinates is
obtained. The resulting six-dimensional Green’s function matrix is expressed
as a convolution integral over separation constants.
###### pacs:
03.65.Nk
## I Introduction
It is well known that the Schrödinger equation for a three-body Coulomb system
is asymptotically separable in terms of parabolic coordinates Klar
$\xi_{j}=r_{ls}+\hat{\bf k}_{ls}\cdot{\bf
r}_{ls},\quad\eta_{j}=r_{ls}-\hat{\bf k}_{ls}\cdot{\bf r}_{ls},$ (1)
where ${\bf r}_{ls}$ and ${\bf k}_{ls}$ are the relative coordinate and
momentum vectors between the particles $l$ and $s$. Here $j$, $l$, $s$ is a
cyclic permutation of 1, 2, 3. The long-ranged six-dimensional operator, which
provides a three-body continuum wave function, 3C-function C31 ; C32 , that
satisfies exact asymptotic boundary conditions for Coulomb systems in the
region where the distances between the particles are large, reads as the sum
of two-dimensional operators Klar :
$\sum_{j=1}^{3}\frac{1}{\mu_{ls}(\xi_{j}+\eta_{j})}\left[\hat{h}_{\xi_{j}}+\hat{h}_{\eta_{j}}+2k_{ls}t_{ls}\right],$
(2)
where $t_{ls}=\frac{Z_{l}Z_{s}\mu_{ls}}{k_{ls}}$,
$\mu_{ls}=\frac{m_{l}m_{s}}{m_{l}+m_{s}}$. Here the one-dimensional operators
$\hat{h}_{\xi_{j}}$ and $\hat{h}_{\eta_{j}}$ are defined by
$\begin{array}[]{ccc}\hat{h}_{\xi_{j}}&=&-2\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_{j}}\xi_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_{j}}+ik_{ls}\xi_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\xi_{j}}\right),\\\
\hat{h}_{\eta_{j}}&=&-2\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta_{j}}\eta_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta_{j}}-ik_{ls}\eta_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\eta_{j}}\right).\end{array}$
(3)
In the previous paper previous we introduce the six-dimensional operator
$\mathfrak{h}$ which is obtained by multiplying (2) on the left by
$\prod_{j=1}^{3}\mu_{ls}(\xi_{j}+\eta_{j})$:
$\hat{\mathfrak{h}}=\mu_{13}(\xi_{2}+\eta_{2})\,\mu_{12}(\xi_{3}+\eta_{3})\hat{\mathfrak{h}}_{1}+\mu_{23}(\xi_{1}+\eta_{1})\,\mu_{12}(\xi_{3}+\eta_{3})\hat{\mathfrak{h}}_{2}+\mu_{23}(\xi_{1}+\eta_{1})\,\mu_{13}(\xi_{2}+\eta_{2})\hat{\mathfrak{h}}_{3},$
(4)
where
$\hat{\mathfrak{h}}_{j}=\hat{h}_{\xi_{j}}+\hat{h}_{\eta_{j}}+2k_{ls}t_{ls}.$
(5)
The resolvent of the operator (4) can be used in the corresponding Lippmann-
Schwinger equation for the three-body Coulomb wave function.
It has been suggested previous to treat the operator (4) within the context
of $L^{2}$ parabolic Sturmian basis set Ojha1
$\left|\mathcal{N}\right>=\prod_{j=1}^{3}\phi_{n_{j}\,m_{j}}(\xi_{j},\,\eta_{j}),$
(6)
$\phi_{n_{j}\,m_{j}}(\xi_{j},\,\eta_{j})=\psi_{n_{j}}(\xi_{j})\,\psi_{m_{j}}(\eta_{j}),$
(7) $\psi_{n}(x)=\sqrt{2b}e^{-bx}L_{n}(2bx),$ (8)
where $b$ is the scaling parameter. In particular, a matrix representation
${\bf G}_{j}$ of the resolvent for the two-dimensional operator
$\hat{\mathfrak{h}}_{j}+\mu_{ls}C_{j}(\xi_{j}+\eta_{j})$ (9)
has been obtained which is formally the matrix inverse to the infinite matrix
$\left[{\bf h}_{j}+\mu_{ls}C_{j}{\bf Q}_{j}\right]$ of the operator (9):
$\left[{\bf h}_{j}+\mu_{ls}C_{j}{\bf Q}_{j}\right]{\bf
G}_{j}(t_{ls};\;\mu_{ls}C_{j})={\bf I}_{j}.$ (10)
Here
${\bf h}_{j}={\bf h}_{\xi_{j}}\otimes{\bf I}_{\eta_{j}}+{\bf
I}_{\xi_{j}}\otimes{\bf h}_{\eta_{j}}+2k_{ls}t_{ls}{\bf I}_{j}$ (11)
is the matrix of the operator $\hat{\mathfrak{h}}_{j}$ (5) in the basis (7),
${\bf I}_{\xi_{j}}$, ${\bf I}_{\eta_{j}}$ and ${\bf I}_{j}={\bf
I}_{\xi_{j}}\otimes{\bf I}_{\eta_{j}}$ are the unit matrices. ${\bf
Q}_{j}={\bf Q}_{\xi_{j}}\otimes{\bf I}_{\eta_{j}}+{\bf I}_{\xi_{j}}\otimes{\bf
Q}_{\eta_{j}}$, where ${\bf Q}_{\xi_{j}}$ and ${\bf Q}_{\eta_{j}}$ are the
matrices of $\xi_{j}$ and $\eta_{j}$ in basis (8), respectively.
In the previous paper previous it has been suggested that the matrices ${\bf
G}_{j}$ of the two-dimensional Green’s functions be used to construct the
matrix $\underline{\mathfrak{G}}$ which is inverse to the operator (4) matrix
$\underline{\mathfrak{h}}=\mu_{13}\mu_{12}{\bf h}_{1}\otimes{\bf
Q}_{2}\otimes{\bf Q}_{3}+\mu_{23}\mu_{12}{\bf Q}_{1}\otimes{\bf
h}_{2}\otimes{\bf Q}_{3}+\mu_{23}\mu_{13}{\bf Q}_{1}\otimes{\bf
Q}_{2}\otimes{\bf h}_{3}.$ (12)
Namely, we proposed to express the six-dimensional Green’s function matrix
$\underline{\mathfrak{G}}$ as the convolution integral
$\underline{\mathfrak{G}}=\aleph\int\int dC_{1}dC_{2}\,{\bf
G}_{1}(t_{23};\;\mu_{23}C_{1})\otimes{\bf
G}_{2}(t_{13};\;\mu_{13}C_{2})\otimes{\bf
G}_{3}(t_{12};\;-\mu_{12}(C_{1}+C_{2})),$ (13)
where $\aleph$ is a normalizing factor. Thus, our problem is now to determine
the pathes of integration over the separation constants $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ in
(13) and to find the corresponding normalizing factor $\aleph$ such that the
condition
$\underline{\mathfrak{h}}\underline{\mathfrak{G}}={\bf I}_{1}\otimes{\bf
I}_{2}\otimes{\bf I}_{3}$ (14)
holds. For this purpose consider the product
$\underline{\mathfrak{h}}\;\underline{\mathfrak{G}}$. From the relation (10)
we obtain
$\begin{array}[]{c}\underline{\mathfrak{h}}\;\underline{\mathfrak{G}}=\aleph\left\\{\int\int
dC_{1}dC_{2}\left[{\bf I}_{1}-\mu_{23}C_{1}{\bf Q}_{1}{\bf
G}_{1}(t_{23};\;\mu_{23}C_{1})\right]\otimes\mu_{13}{\bf Q}_{2}{\bf
G}_{2}(t_{13};\;\mu_{13}C_{2})\right.\\\\[8.53581pt] \otimes\mu_{12}{\bf
Q}_{3}{\bf G}_{3}(t_{12};\;-\mu_{12}(C_{1}+C_{2}))\\\\[8.53581pt] \int\int
dC_{1}dC_{2}\,\mu_{23}{\bf Q}_{1}{\bf
G}_{1}(t_{23};\;\mu_{23}C_{1})\otimes\left[{\bf I}_{2}-\mu_{13}C_{2}{\bf
Q}_{2}{\bf G}_{2}(t_{13};\;\mu_{13}C_{2})\right]\\\\[8.53581pt]
\otimes\mu_{12}{\bf Q}_{3}{\bf
G}_{3}(t_{12};\;-\mu_{12}(C_{1}+C_{2}))\\\\[8.53581pt] \int\int
dC_{1}dC_{2}\,\mu_{23}{\bf Q}_{1}{\bf
G}_{1}(t_{23};\;\mu_{23}C_{1})\otimes\mu_{13}{\bf Q}_{2}{\bf
G}_{2}(t_{13};\;\mu_{13}C_{2})\\\\[8.53581pt] \left.\otimes\left[{\bf
I}_{3}+\mu_{12}(C_{1}+C_{2}){\bf Q}_{3}{\bf
G}_{3}(t_{12};\;-\mu_{12}(C_{1}+C_{2}))\right]\right\\},\\\ \end{array}$ (15)
and hence
$\begin{array}[]{c}\underline{\mathfrak{h}}\;\underline{\mathfrak{G}}=\aleph\left\\{\int\int
dC_{1}dC_{2}\left[{\bf I}_{1}\otimes\mu_{13}{\bf Q}_{2}{\bf
G}_{2}(t_{13};\;\mu_{13}C_{2})\otimes\mu_{12}{\bf Q}_{3}{\bf
G}_{3}(t_{12};\;-\mu_{12}(C_{1}+C_{2}))\right.\right.\\\\[8.53581pt]
\left.+\mu_{23}{\bf Q}_{1}{\bf G}_{1}(t_{23};\;\mu_{23}C_{1})\otimes{\bf
I}_{2}\otimes\mu_{12}{\bf Q}_{3}{\bf
G}_{3}(t_{12};\;-\mu_{12}(C_{1}+C_{2}))\right]\\\\[8.53581pt]
\left.+\left[\mu_{23}{\bf Q}_{1}\int dC_{1}\,{\bf
G}_{1}(t_{23};\;\mu_{23}C_{1})\right]\otimes\left[\mu_{13}{\bf Q}_{2}\int
dC_{2}\,{\bf G}_{2}(t_{13};\;\mu_{13}C_{2})\right]\otimes{\bf
I}_{3}\right\\}.\end{array}$ (16)
As a first step towards our goal we consider the integrals
$\int dC_{j}\,{\bf G}_{j}(t_{ls};\;\mu_{ls}C_{j})$ (17)
inside the figure brackets on the right-hand side of (16).
In Sec. II completeness of the eigenfunctions of the two-dimensional operator
(9) is considered. In particular, an integral representation of the matrix
${\bf A}$ which is inverse to the infinite matrix ${\bf Q}$ of the operator
$(\xi+\eta)$ in the basis (7) is obtained. In Sec. III it is demonstrated that
the integral (17) taken along an appropriate contour is proportional to the
matrix ${\bf A}$ obtained in the previous section. Finally, Sec. IV presents a
convolution integral representation of the six-dimensional Coulomb Green’
function matrix.
## II Completeness relations
### II.1 The continuous spectrum
Of particular interest are the regular solutions
$f(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi,\,\eta)=u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)\,v(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\eta)$
(18)
of the system
$\left[\hat{h}_{\xi}+2kt+\mu\,C\xi\right]u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)=0,$ (19)
$\left[\hat{h}_{\eta}+2k(t_{0}-t)+\mu\,C\eta\right]v(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)=0.\\\
$ (20)
Obviously, the regular solutions $u$ and $v$ are proportional to confluent
hypergeometric functions Abramowitz :
$u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)=e^{\frac{i}{2}(\gamma-k)\xi}\,{{}_{1}F_{1}}\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau,\,1,\,-i\gamma\xi\right)$
(21)
and
$\begin{array}[]{l}v(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\eta)=e^{-\frac{i}{2}(\gamma-k)\eta}\,{{}_{1}F_{1}}(\frac{1}{2}+i(\tau-\tau_{0}),\,1,\,i\gamma\eta)\hfill\\\\[8.53581pt]
\hfill=e^{\frac{i}{2}(\gamma+k)\eta}\,{{}_{1}F_{1}}(\frac{1}{2}+i(\tau_{0}-\tau),\,1,\,-i\gamma\eta),\\\
\end{array}$ (22)
where
$\mu\,C=\frac{k^{2}}{2}-\frac{\gamma^{2}}{2},\quad\tau=\frac{k}{\gamma}\left(t+\frac{i}{2}\right),\quad\tau_{0}=\frac{k}{\gamma}t_{0}.$
(23)
It should be noted that since the representation of the two- and six-
dimensional Coulomb Green’s functions matrix elements involves an integration
over $\tau$ from $-\infty$ to $\infty$, in the subsequent discussion we assume
that $\tau$ is real. With this assumption it is readily seen that the
solutions (21) and (22) coincide, except for normalization and the phase
factors $e^{-\frac{i}{2}k\xi}$ and $e^{\frac{i}{2}k\eta}$, with parabolic
Coulomb Sturmians treated in Ref. Gasaneo3 . In this case $\gamma$ plays the
role of the momentum and $\mathcal{E}=\frac{\gamma^{2}}{2}$ is the energy.
From this we conclude that for $\gamma>0$ the solutions (21) and (22)
correspond to the continuous spectrum of $\mathcal{E}$.
It is readily verified that the solutions $u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)$ and
$v(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\eta)$ are expressed by basis set (8) expansions
$u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)=\frac{2\sqrt{2b}}{2b-i(\gamma-k)}\left(\frac{2b-i(\gamma-k)}{2b+i(\gamma+k)}\right)^{i\tau+\frac{1}{2}}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\theta^{n}\,p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)\,\psi_{n}(\xi),$
(24)
$v(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\eta)=\frac{2\sqrt{2b}}{2b-i(\gamma+k)}\left(\frac{2b-i(\gamma+k)}{2b+i(\gamma-k)}\right)^{i(\tau_{0}-\tau)+\frac{1}{2}}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\lambda^{-n}\,p_{n}\left(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta\right)\,\psi_{n}(\eta),$
(25)
where
$\theta=\frac{2b+i(\gamma-k)}{2b-i(\gamma-k)},\qquad\lambda=\frac{2b-i(\gamma+k)}{2b+i(\gamma+k)},\qquad\zeta=\frac{\lambda}{\theta}.$
(26)
The expansion (24) and (25) coefficients contain the polynomials previous
$p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)=\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n!}\frac{\Gamma\left(n+\frac{1}{2}-i\tau\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}-i\tau\right)}\;{{}_{2}F_{1}}{\left(-n,\,\frac{1}{2}+i\tau;\;-n+\frac{1}{2}+i\tau;\;\zeta\right)}.$
(27)
The basis set (8) representation of the equation (19) is the three-term
recursion relation previous
$a_{n}\,y_{n-1}+b_{n}\,y_{n}+d_{n+1}\,y_{n+1}=0,\quad n\geq 1$ (28)
where
$\begin{array}[]{c}b_{n}=(b+\frac{\mu C}{2b}+ik)+2(b+\frac{\mu
C}{2b})n+2kt,\\\\[5.69054pt] a_{n}=(b-\frac{\mu C}{2b}-ik)n,\quad
d_{n}=(b-\frac{\mu C}{2b}+ik)n.\\\ \end{array}$ (29)
The functions
$s_{n}(t;\;\mu C)=\theta^{n}\,p_{n}(\tau;\;\zeta)$ (30)
are the “regular” solutions of (28) with the initial conditions: $s_{0}\equiv
1$, $s_{-1}\equiv 0$. The polynomials $p_{n}$ (27) of degree $n$ in $\tau$ are
orthogonal with respect to the weight function previous
$\rho(\tau;\zeta)=\frac{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}-i\tau\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)}{2\pi
i}\,(-\zeta)^{i\tau+\frac{1}{2}},$ (31)
where it is considered that $\left|\arg(-\zeta)\right|<\pi$. The corresponding
orthogonality relation reads
$\frac{i}{\zeta^{m}}\left(\frac{\zeta-1}{\zeta}\right)\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\tau\,\rho(\tau;\;\zeta)\,p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)\,p_{m}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)=\delta_{n\,m}.$
(32)
### II.2 The discrete spectrum
For $t_{0}<0$ the eigenfunctions of (19) corresponding to the discrete
spectrum: $\mathcal{E}^{(\ell)}=\frac{\gamma_{\ell}^{2}}{2}$,
$\gamma_{\ell}=i\kappa_{\ell}$, $\kappa_{\ell}=-\frac{kt_{0}}{\ell}$,
$\ell=1,2,\,\ldots,\,\infty$, are Landau
$f_{\ell,\,m}(\xi,\,\eta)=u_{\ell,\,m}(\xi)\,v_{\ell,\,\ell-m-1}(\eta),\qquad
m=0,\,1,\ldots\,,\,\ell-1,$ (33)
where
$u_{\ell,\,m}(\xi)=e^{-\frac{i}{2}k\xi}e^{-\frac{\kappa_{\ell}\xi}{2}}\,{{}_{1}F_{1}}(-m,\,1;\;\kappa_{\ell}\xi)=e^{-\frac{i}{2}k\xi}e^{-\frac{\kappa_{\ell}\xi}{2}}\,L_{m}(\kappa_{\ell}\xi)$
(34)
and
$v_{\ell,\,m}(\eta)=e^{\frac{i}{2}k\eta}e^{-\frac{\kappa_{\ell}\eta}{2}}\,{{}_{1}F_{1}}(-m,\,1;\;\kappa_{\ell}\eta)=e^{\frac{i}{2}k\eta}e^{-\frac{\kappa_{\ell}\eta}{2}}\,L_{m}(\kappa_{\ell}\eta).$
(35)
The solutions $f_{\ell,\,m}$ meet the orthogonality relation
$\frac{\kappa_{\ell}^{3}}{2\ell}\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}(\xi+\eta)d\xi
d\eta\,f_{\ell,\,m}(\xi,\,\eta)\,\left[f_{{\ell\,}^{\prime},\,m^{\prime}}(\xi,\,\eta)\right]^{*}=\delta_{\ell,\,{\ell\,^{\prime}}}\,\delta_{m,\,m^{\prime}}.$
(36)
It is readily verified that the expansions of $u_{\ell,\,m}(\xi)$ and
$v_{\ell,\,m}(\eta)$ in a basis function (8) series are
$u_{\ell,\,m}(\xi)=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\mathcal{S}^{(\ell,\,m)}_{n}\,\psi_{n}(\xi)$
(37)
and
$v_{\ell,\,m}(\eta)=\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\left[\mathcal{S}^{(\ell,\,m)}_{n}\right]^{*}\psi_{n}(\eta),$
(38)
where the coefficients are given by
$\begin{array}[]{l}\mathcal{S}^{(\ell,\,m)}_{n}=2\sqrt{2b}\,(-)^{n}\,\frac{(m+1)_{n}}{n!}\frac{(2b-\kappa_{\ell}-ik)^{n}(2b-\kappa_{\ell}+ik)^{m}}{(2b+\kappa_{\ell}+ik)^{n+m+1}}\hfill\\\\[5.69054pt]
\hfill\times{{}_{2}F_{1}}\left(-n,\,-m,\,-n-m;\;\frac{(2b+\kappa_{\ell})^{2}+k^{2}}{(2b-\kappa_{\ell})^{2}+k^{2}}\right).\\\
\end{array}$ (39)
### One-dimensional completeness relations
The eigensolution $u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)$ of (19) corresponding to the
continuous spectrum ($\gamma>0$) for large $\xi$ behaves as
$u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)\mathop{\sim}\limits_{\xi\rightarrow\infty}\,\frac{e^{-\frac{i}{2}k\xi}\,e^{\frac{\pi\tau}{2}}}{\left|\Gamma(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau)\right|}\,\frac{2i}{\sqrt{\gamma\xi}}\,\sin\left(\frac{\gamma\xi}{2}-\tau\ln(\gamma\xi)+\frac{\pi}{4}+\sigma\right),$
(40)
where $\sigma=\arg\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)$. Therefore (see e. g.
Michel ),
$\frac{\gamma}{4}\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)\right|^{2}\,e^{-\pi\tau}\,\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}\xi\,d\xi\,u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)\,\left[u(\gamma^{\prime},\,\tau,\,\xi)\right]^{*}=\pi\delta(\gamma-\gamma^{\prime}),$
(41)
and for $\tau>0$
$\xi\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}\gamma\,d\gamma\,\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)\right|^{2}}{4\pi}\,e^{-\pi\tau}\,u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)\,\left[u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi^{\prime})\right]^{*}=\delta(\xi-\xi^{\prime}).$
(42)
On the other hand, if the functions $u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)$ are regarded as
charge Sturmians Gasaneo3 , i. e. the parameter $\tau$ is considered as
eigenvalue of the problem, whereas the momentum $\gamma$ remains constant, the
corresponding orthogonality and completeness relations are given by Gasaneo3
$\gamma\,\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)\right|^{2}\,e^{-\pi\tau}\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}d\xi\,u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)\left[u(\gamma,\,\tau^{\prime},\,\xi)\right]^{*}=2\pi\delta(\tau-\tau^{\prime})$
(43)
and
$\gamma\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\tau\,\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\,e^{-\pi\tau}\,u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)\left[u(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi^{\prime})\right]^{*}=\delta(\xi-\xi^{\prime}).$
(44)
Taking matrix elements of the completeness relation (44) we find
$\frac{8\,b\,\gamma\,\theta^{n-m}}{\sqrt{\left[4b^{2}+(\gamma+k)^{2}\right]\left[4b^{2}+(\gamma-k)^{2}\right]}}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\tau\,\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\,(-\zeta)^{i\tau}p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)\left[p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)\right]^{*}=\delta_{n,\,m}.$
(45)
It may be noted that (45) is closely related to (32). To see this, let
$\gamma>0$. Then, it follows from the definitions (26) that
$\frac{(\zeta-1)}{\zeta}(-\zeta)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{8\,b\,\gamma}{\sqrt{\left[4b^{2}+(\gamma+k)^{2}\right]\left[4b^{2}+(\gamma-k)^{2}\right]}}.$
(46)
Further, the regular solution $\theta^{n}p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)$ of
the three-term recursion relation (28) is an even function of $\gamma$, since
the coefficients $a_{n}$, $b_{n}$ and $d_{n}$ depend on $\gamma$ only through
$\mu C=\frac{1}{2}(k^{2}-\gamma^{2})$. Thus, replacing $\gamma$ by $-\gamma$,
and hence $\tau$ by $-\tau$ ($\theta\rightarrow\lambda$ and
$\lambda\rightarrow\theta$) and $\zeta$ by $\zeta^{-1}$ in Eq. (27) gives
$\theta^{n}\,p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)=\lambda^{n}\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n!}\frac{\Gamma\left(n+\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)}\;{{}_{2}F_{1}}{\left(-n,\,\frac{1}{2}-i\tau;\;-n+\frac{1}{2}-i\tau;\;\zeta^{-1}\right)}.$
(47)
Comparing Eqs. (27) and (47) then yields the relation
$\theta^{n}\,p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)=\lambda^{n}\left[p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)\right]^{*},$
(48)
and hence
$\left[p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)\right]^{*}=\zeta^{-n}\,p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right).$
(49)
From the argument above, we conclude that for $\gamma>0$ the orthogonality
relation (32) reduces to (45).
### The two-dimensional completeness relation
It follows from the relations (41) and (43) and analogous relations for
$v(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)$ that the two-dimensional orthogonality relation for
$\gamma>0$ is given by
$\begin{array}[]{c}e^{-\pi\tau_{0}}\,\frac{\gamma^{2}}{4}\,\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i(\tau_{0}-\tau)\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\,\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}(\xi+\eta)\,d\xi
d\eta\left\\{f(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi,\,\eta)\right.\\\\[8.53581pt]
\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.\times\left[f(\gamma^{\prime},\,\tau^{\prime},\,\xi,\,\eta)\right]^{*}\right\\}=\delta(\gamma-\gamma^{\prime})\,\delta(\tau-\tau^{\prime}).\\\
\end{array}$ (50)
In turn, in the case $t_{0}>0$ (where there are no bound states) it would
appear reasonable that the two-dimensional completeness relation would be
given by
$\begin{array}[]{l}(\xi+\eta)\left\\{\alpha\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}d\gamma\,\gamma^{2}e^{-\pi\tau_{0}}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\tau\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i(\tau_{0}-\tau)\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\right.\hfill\\\\[8.53581pt]
\hfill\left.\times
f(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi,\,\eta)\left[f(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi^{\prime},\,\eta^{\prime})\right]^{*}\vphantom{\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}}\right\\}=\delta(\xi-\xi^{\prime})\,\delta(\eta-\eta^{\prime}).\\\
\end{array}$ (51)
The integration over $\tau$ in (51) is performed on the assumption that $\tau$
is independent of $\gamma$. To test this hypothesis and determine the
normalizing factor $\alpha$, we carried out the following numerical
experiments. First with some parameters $t_{0}>0$, $k>0$ and $b$ we calculate
the matrix elements $A_{n_{1},\,n_{2};\;m_{1},\,m_{2}}$ for the expression in
the figure braces on the right-hand side of (51) in the basis (7):
$\begin{array}[]{l}A_{n_{1},\,n_{2};\;m_{1},\,m_{2}}=\alpha\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}d\gamma\,\frac{64\,b^{2}\,\gamma^{2}\,(-\zeta)^{i\tau_{0}}}{\left[4b^{2}+(\gamma+k)^{2}\right]\left[4b^{2}+(\gamma-k)^{2}\right]}\,\theta^{n_{1}-m_{1}}\lambda^{m_{2}-n_{2}}\hfill\\\\[8.53581pt]
\times\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\tau\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i(\tau_{0}-\tau)\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\,p_{n_{1}}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)p_{n_{2}}\left(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta\right)\left[p_{m_{1}}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)p_{m_{2}}\left(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta\right)\right]^{*}.\\\
\end{array}$ (52)
It should be noted that the value of $(-\zeta)^{i\tau_{0}}$ in this formula is
determined by the condition $\left|\arg(-\zeta)\right|<\pi$. Then the
resulting matrix ${\bf A}$ is multiplied by the matrix
${\bf Q}={\bf Q}_{\xi}\otimes{\bf I}_{\eta}+{\bf I}_{\xi}\otimes{\bf
Q}_{\eta}$ (53)
of the operator $(\xi+\eta)$. Finally, using the condition
${\bf Q}\,{\bf A}={\bf I}_{\xi}\otimes{\bf I}_{\eta}.$ (54)
we have obtained that $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$. Notice that the infinite symmetric
matrices ${\bf Q}_{\xi}$ and ${\bf Q}_{\eta}$ are tridiagonal previous ,
therefore the equations on the left hand-side of the linear system (54) each
contain no more than six terms.
For for $t_{0}<0$ the completeness relation (51) transforms into
$\begin{array}[]{c}(\xi+\eta)\left\\{\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}d\gamma\,\gamma^{2}e^{-\pi\tau_{0}}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\tau\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i(\tau_{0}-\tau)\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\,f(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi,\,\eta)\left[f(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi^{\prime},\,\eta^{\prime})\right]^{*}\right.\\\\[8.53581pt]
\left.\hfill+\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^{\infty}\frac{\kappa_{\ell}^{3}}{2\ell}\,\sum\limits_{m=0}^{\ell-1}f_{\ell,\,m,\,\ell-m-1}(\xi,\,\eta)\left[f_{\ell,\,m,\,\ell-m-1}(\xi^{\prime},\,\eta^{\prime})\right]^{*}\right\\}=\delta(\xi-\xi^{\prime})\,\delta(\eta-\eta^{\prime}).\\\
\end{array}$ (55)
In this case the matrix ${\bf A}$ with elements
$\begin{array}[]{l}A_{n_{1},\,n_{2};\;m_{1},\,m_{2}}=\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}d\gamma\,\frac{32\,b^{2}\,\gamma^{2}\,(-\zeta)^{i\tau_{0}}}{\left[4b^{2}+(\gamma+k)^{2}\right]\left[4b^{2}+(\gamma-k)^{2}\right]}\,\theta^{n_{1}-m_{1}}\lambda^{m_{2}-n_{2}}\hfill\\\\[8.53581pt]
\times\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\tau\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\frac{\left|\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i(\tau_{0}-\tau)\right)\right|^{2}}{2\pi}\,p_{n_{1}}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)p_{n_{2}}\left(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta\right)\left[p_{m_{1}}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)p_{m_{2}}\left(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta\right)\right]^{*}\\\\[8.53581pt]
\hfill+\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^{\infty}\frac{\kappa_{\ell}^{3}}{2\ell}\,\sum\limits_{m=0}^{\ell-1}\mathcal{S}^{(\ell,\,m)}_{n_{1}}\,\mathcal{S}^{(\ell,\,\ell-m-1)}_{m_{2}}\left[\mathcal{S}^{(\ell,\,\ell-m-1)}_{n_{2}}\,\mathcal{S}^{(\ell,\,m)}_{m_{1}}\right]^{*},\\\
\end{array}$ (56)
is also inverse to the matrix ${\bf Q}$ (53). The expression (56) can be
rewritten, in view of (46) and (49), as
$\begin{array}[]{l}A_{n_{1},\,n_{2};\;m_{1},\,m_{2}}=-\frac{1}{2}\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}d\gamma\left\\{\left(\frac{\zeta-1}{\zeta}\right)^{2}\,\frac{\theta^{n_{1}+m_{2}}}{\lambda^{n_{2}+m_{1}}}\,\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\tau\rho(\tau;\;\zeta)\,\rho(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta)\right.\\\\[8.53581pt]
\hfill\left.\times
p_{n_{1}}(\tau;\;\zeta)\,p_{n_{2}}(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta)\,p_{m_{1}}(\tau;\;\zeta)\,p_{m_{2}}(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta)\vphantom{\left(\frac{\zeta-1}{\zeta}\right)^{2}}\right\\}\\\\[8.53581pt]
\hfill+\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^{\infty}\frac{\kappa_{\ell}^{3}}{2\ell}\,\sum\limits_{m=0}^{\ell-1}\mathcal{S}^{(\ell,\,m)}_{n_{1}}\,\mathcal{S}^{(\ell,\,\ell-m-1)}_{m_{2}}\left[\mathcal{S}^{(\ell,\,\ell-m-1)}_{n_{2}}\,\mathcal{S}^{(\ell,\,m)}_{m_{1}}\right]^{*}.\\\
\end{array}$ (57)
## III Contour integrals
Notice that expressing the resolvent of the one-dimensional operator
$\left[\hat{h}_{\xi}+2kt+\mu\,C\xi\right]$ requires two linearly independent
solutions of (19). Irregular solutions of (19) are expressed in terms the
confluent hypergeometric function Abramowitz
$w^{(\pm)}(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)=e^{\frac{i}{2}(\pm\gamma-k)\xi}\,{U\left(\frac{1}{2}\pm
i\tau,\,1;\;\mp\gamma\xi\right)}.$ (58)
The corresponding solutions of the three-term recursion relation (28) are
$\begin{array}[]{c}c_{n}^{(+)}(t;\;\mu
C)=\theta^{n+1}\,q^{(+)}_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right),\\\\[8.53581pt]
c_{n}^{(-)}(t;\;\mu C)=\lambda^{n+1}\,q^{(-)}_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right),\\\
\end{array}$ (59)
where
$\begin{array}[]{c}q_{n}^{(+)}(\tau;\;\zeta)=(-)^{n}\,\frac{n!\,\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)}{\Gamma\left(n+\frac{3}{2}+i\tau\right)}\;{{}_{2}F_{1}}\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau,\,n+1;\;n+\frac{3}{2}+i\tau;\;\zeta^{-1}\right),\\\\[8.53581pt]
q_{n}^{(-)}(\tau;\;\zeta)=(-)^{n}\,\frac{n!\,\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}-i\tau\right)}{\Gamma\left(n+\frac{3}{2}-i\tau\right)}\;{{}_{2}F_{1}}\left(\frac{1}{2}-i\tau,\,n+1;\;n+\frac{3}{2}-i\tau;\;\zeta\right).\\\
\end{array}$ (60)
In particular, the functions
$\begin{array}[]{l}\widetilde{w}^{(\pm)}(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)=\frac{2i\sqrt{2b}}{2b-i(\gamma-k)}\left(-\frac{2b+i(\gamma-k)}{2b-i(\gamma+k)}\right)^{i\tau+\frac{1}{2}}\hfill\\\\[8.53581pt]
\hfill\times\frac{e^{-\pi\tau}}{\theta\,\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}\pm
i\tau\right)}\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}c_{n}^{(\pm)}(t;\;\mu
C)\,\psi_{n}(\xi)\\\ \end{array}$ (61)
tend to $w^{(\pm)}(\gamma,\,\tau,\,\xi)$ as $\xi\rightarrow\infty$.
The matrix elements of the resolvent of
$\left[\hat{h}_{\xi}+2kt+\mu\,C\xi\right]$ can be written in the form previous
$g^{(+)}_{n,\,m}(t;\;\mu
C)=\frac{i}{2\gamma}\left(\frac{\zeta-1}{\zeta}\right)\frac{\theta^{n-m}}{\zeta^{m}}\,p_{n_{<}}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)\,q^{(+)}_{n_{>}}(\tau;\;\zeta)$
(62)
and
$g^{(-)}_{n,\,m}(t;\;\mu
C)=\frac{i}{2\gamma}\left(\frac{\zeta-1}{\zeta}\right)\frac{\theta^{n-m}}{\zeta^{m}}\,p_{n_{<}}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)\,\zeta^{n_{>}+1}\,q^{(-)}_{n_{>}}(\tau;\;\zeta),$
(63)
where $n_{>}$ and $n_{<}$ are the greater and lesser of $n$ and $m$. Notice
that $c_{n}^{(+)}$ $\left(c_{n}^{(-)}\right)$ are defined in the upper (lower)
half of the complex $\gamma$-plane where $|\zeta|\geq 1$ $\left(|\zeta|\leq
1\right)$. To analytically continue $c_{n}^{(+)}$ onto the lower half of the
$\gamma$-plane the relation previous
$c_{n}^{(+)}(t;\;\mu C)=c_{n}^{(-)}(t;\;\mu C)+2\pi
i\rho(\tau;\;\zeta)\,\theta^{n+1}p_{n}\left(\tau;\;\zeta\right)$ (64)
can be used.
In previous we obtained the basis set (7) representation of the resolvent for
the two-dimensional operator
$\left[\hat{h}_{\xi}+2kt+\mu\,C\xi\right]+\left[\hat{h}_{\eta}+2k(t_{0}-t)+\mu\,C\eta\right]$.
In particular, the matrix elements of the two-dimensional Green’s function can
be expressed as the convolution integral
$\begin{array}[]{l}G^{(\pm)}_{n_{1},\,n_{2};\;m_{1},\,m_{2}}(t_{0};\;\mu
C)=i\left(\frac{\zeta-1}{\zeta}\right)\,\frac{\lambda^{m_{2}-n_{2}}}{\zeta^{m_{2}}}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\tau\,\rho(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta)\\\\[8.53581pt]
\hfill\times g^{(\pm)}_{n_{1},\,m_{1}}(t;\;\mu
C)\,p_{n_{2}}(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta)\,p_{m_{2}}(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta).\end{array}$
(65)
Notice that in this case only the regular solutions of (20) discrete analogues
$\lambda^{-n}p_{n}(\tau_{0}-\tau;\;\zeta)$ are used.
Let us consider the integral
$\mathcal{I}_{1}=\frac{1}{2\pi
i}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}\gamma\,d\gamma\,G^{(+)}_{n_{1},\,n_{2};\;m_{1},\,m_{2}}(t_{0};\;\mu
C).$ (66)
Notice that by replacing $\gamma\rightarrow-\gamma$ (and hence
$\theta\rightarrow\lambda$, $\lambda\rightarrow\theta$, $\zeta\rightarrow
1/\zeta$, $\tau\rightarrow-\tau$ and $\tau_{0}\rightarrow-\tau_{0}$) in Eq.
(65) $G^{(+)}_{n_{1},\,n_{2};\;m_{1},\,m_{2}}(t_{0};\;\mu C)$ is transformed
to $G^{(-)}_{n_{1},\,n_{2};\;m_{1},\,m_{2}}(t_{0};\;\mu C)$. Thus, for the
integral $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ we obtain
$\mathcal{I}_{1}=\frac{1}{2\pi
i}\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}\gamma\,d\gamma\left\\{G^{(+)}_{n_{1},\,n_{2};\;m_{1},\,m_{2}}(t_{0};\;\mu
C)-G^{(-)}_{n_{1},\,n_{2};\;m_{1},\,m_{2}}(t_{0};\;\mu C)\right\\}.$ (67)
Inserting Eqs. (65), (62) and (63) into Eq. (67), we find, in view of (64),
that $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ coincides with the integral on the right hand-side of
(57).
Now, we consider the integral
$\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int\limits_{\mathcal{C}}\,d\mathcal{E}\,{\bf
G}^{(+)}\left(t_{0};\;\frac{k^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}\right),$ (68)
taken along the contour in the complex $\mathcal{E}$-plane shown in Fig. 1.
The contour $\mathcal{C}$ passes in a negative direction (clockwise) round all
the points $\mathcal{E}^{(\ell)}=-\frac{\kappa_{\ell}^{2}}{2}$ (filled circles
in Fig. 1 which accumulate at the origin) and the cut along the right half of
the real axis and is closed at infinity (see e. g. Shakeshaft ). The
corresponding matrix element of the integral along the two sides of the cut is
equal to $\mathcal{I}_{1}$ (66) (this is circumstantial evidence that the
normalizing factor $\alpha$ in the completeness relation (51) is equal to
$\frac{1}{2}$). On the other hand, the integration along a contour enclosing
$\mathcal{E}^{(\ell)}$ reduces to $(-1)$ times the double sum of the residues
of the integrand at the points $\tau^{(m)}=i\left(m+\frac{1}{2}\right)$,
$m=0,\,1,\,\ldots$ and
${\mathcal{E}^{(\ell)}=-\frac{(kt_{0})^{2}}{2\ell^{2}}}$,
$\ell=1,\,2,\,\ldots\,$, which are the poles of the gamma functions
$\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i\tau\right)$ and
$\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+i(\tau_{0}-\tau)\right)=\Gamma\left(m+1+\frac{kt_{0}}{\sqrt{-2\mathcal{E}^{(\ell)}}}\right)$,
respectively. It is readily shown that the matrix element of this part of the
integral (68) coincides with the double sum in (57). Thus, the integral (68)
is equal to the matrix ${\bf A}$. The contour $\mathcal{C}$ can be deformed,
for instance, into a straight line parallel to the real axis. The resulting
path $\mathcal{C}_{1}$ shown in Fig. 2 runs above the cut and the bound-state
poles of ${\bf G}^{(+)}\left(t_{0};\;\frac{k^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}\right)$.
Then, to make the integral amenable to numerical integration, rotate
$\mathcal{C}_{1}$ about some point $\mathcal{E}_{0}$ on the right half of the
real axis through a negative angle $\varphi$ Shakeshaft ; see the contour
$\mathcal{C}_{2}$ in Fig. 2. The part of $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ on the unphysical
sheet is depicted by the dashed line. Thus, we obtain the following
representation of the matrix ${\bf A}$ (which is inverse to the matrix ${\bf
Q}$ (53)):
${\bf A}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int\limits_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}\,d\mathcal{E}\,{\bf
G}^{(+)}\left(t_{0};\;\frac{k^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}\right)={\bf Q}^{-1}.$ (69)
## IV Six-dimensional Green’s function matrix
Using the relation (69) we can rewrite the expression (13) for the six-
dimensional Coulomb Green’ function matrix as the contour integral
$\underline{\mathfrak{G}}=\frac{\aleph}{\mu_{23}\mu_{13}}\int\limits_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}d\mathcal{E}_{1}\int\limits_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}d\mathcal{E}_{2}\,{\bf
G}_{1}\left(t_{23};\;\frac{k_{23}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{1}\right)\otimes{\bf
G}_{2}\left(t_{13};\;\frac{k_{13}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{2}\right)\otimes{\bf
G}_{3}\left(t_{12};\;\frac{k_{12}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{3}\right),$ (70)
where $\mathcal{E}_{j}=\frac{k_{ls}^{2}}{2}-\mu_{ls}C_{j}$ and
$C_{1}+C_{2}+C_{3}=0$. This also allows us to determine the normalizing factor
$\aleph$. Indeed, it follows from (69) that the third term inside the figure
brackets on the right-hand side of (16) is proportional to the unit matrix:
$\begin{array}[]{c}\left[{\bf
Q}_{1}\int\limits_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}d\mathcal{E}_{1}\,{\bf
G}_{1}\left(t_{23};\;\frac{k_{23}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{1}\right)\right]\otimes\left[{\bf
Q}_{2}\int\limits_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}d\mathcal{E}_{2}\,{\bf
G}_{2}\left(t_{13};\;\frac{k_{13}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{2}\right)\right]\otimes{\bf
I}_{3}\\\\[8.53581pt] =(2\pi i)^{2}\,{\bf I}_{1}\otimes{\bf I}_{2}\otimes{\bf
I}_{3}.\\\ \end{array}$ (71)
Consider the first two terms in the figure braces in (16). For the energy
$\mathcal{E}_{3}=\frac{k_{12}^{2}}{2}+\mu_{12}(C_{1}+C_{2})$ we have
$\mathcal{E}_{3}=\frac{k_{12}^{2}}{2}+\frac{\mu_{12}}{\mu_{23}}\left(\frac{k_{23}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{1}\right)+\frac{\mu_{12}}{\mu_{13}}\left(\frac{k_{13}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{2}\right).$
(72)
On the other hand, on the contours $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ the energy variables
$\mathcal{E}_{j}$, $j=1,\,2$ are given by
$\mathcal{E}_{j}=\mathcal{E}_{0j}+E_{j}e^{i\varphi},$ (73)
where $\varphi<0$, $\mathcal{E}_{0j}$ is an arbitrary positive parameter,
$E_{j}$ is real and runs from $-\infty$ to $\infty$. Hence, for the energy
$\mathcal{E}_{3}$ (72) we obtain
$\mathcal{E}_{3}=\left[\frac{k_{12}^{2}}{2}+\frac{\mu_{12}}{\mu_{23}}\left(\frac{k_{23}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{01}\right)+\frac{\mu_{12}}{\mu_{13}}\left(\frac{k_{13}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{02}\right)\right]+\left(-\frac{\mu_{12}}{\mu_{23}}\,E_{1}-\frac{\mu_{12}}{\mu_{13}}\,E_{2}\right)e^{i\varphi}.$
(74)
Thus, $\mathcal{E}_{3}$ can be expressed in the form
$\mathcal{E}_{3}=\mathcal{E}_{03}+E_{3}\,e^{i\varphi},$ (75)
where $\mathcal{E}_{03}$ and $E_{3}$ denote the term in the square braces and
the real factor in front of the exponent in (74), respectively. Since
$\mathcal{E}_{03}$ should be positive, the positive parameters
$\mathcal{E}_{01}$ and $\mathcal{E}_{02}$ have to satisfy the constraint
$\frac{\mu_{12}}{\mu_{23}}\,\mathcal{E}_{01}+\frac{\mu_{12}}{\mu_{13}}\,\mathcal{E}_{02}<\frac{k_{12}^{2}}{2}+\frac{\mu_{12}}{\mu_{23}}\frac{k_{23}^{2}}{2}+\frac{\mu_{12}}{\mu_{13}}\frac{k_{13}^{2}}{2}.$
(76)
Now, we consider the integral
$\mathcal{I}_{2}=\int\limits_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}d\mathcal{E}_{1}{\bf
G}_{3}\left(t_{12};\;\frac{k_{12}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{3}\right).$ (77)
With fixed $\mathcal{E}_{2}$, in view (74), (75) and (69), we see that
$\begin{array}[]{c}\mathcal{I}_{2}=e^{i\varphi}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}dE_{1}{\bf
G}_{3}\left(t_{12};\;\frac{k_{12}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{3}\right)=-\frac{\mu_{23}}{\mu_{12}}\,e^{i\varphi}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty}dE_{3}{\bf
G}_{3}\left(t_{12};\;\frac{k_{12}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{3}\right)\\\\[8.53581pt]
=-\frac{\mu_{23}}{\mu_{12}}\int\limits_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}d\mathcal{E}_{3}{\bf
G}_{3}\left(t_{12};\;\frac{k_{12}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{3}\right)=-2\pi
i\,\frac{\mu_{23}}{\mu_{12}}\,{\bf Q}_{3}^{-1}.\end{array}$ (78)
Similarly, we obtain
$\int\limits_{\mathcal{C}_{2}}d\mathcal{E}_{2}{\bf
G}_{3}\left(t_{12};\;\frac{k_{12}^{2}}{2}-\mathcal{E}_{3}\right)=-2\pi
i\,\frac{\mu_{13}}{\mu_{12}}\,{\bf Q}_{3}^{-1}.$ (79)
Inserting (78), (79) and (71) into (16) then yields
$\underline{\mathfrak{h}}\;\underline{\mathfrak{G}}=\aleph\,4\pi^{2}\,{\bf
I}_{1}\otimes{\bf I}_{2}\otimes{\bf I}_{3}.$ (80)
Thus, from (80) we conclude that
$\aleph=\frac{1}{4\pi^{2}}.$ (81)
## V Conclusion
The Sturmian basis-set representation of the resolvent for the asymptotic
three-body Coulomb wave operator is obtained, which can be used in the
discrete analog of the Lippmann-Schwinger equation for the three-body
continuum wave function. The six-dimensional Green’s function matrix is
expressed as a convolution integral over separation constants. The integrand
of this contour integral involves Green’s function matrices corresponding to
the two-dimensional operators which are constituents of the full six-
dimensional wave operator. The completeness relation of the eigenfunctions of
these two-dimensional operators is used to define the appropriate pathes of
integration of the convolution integral.
## References
* (1) H. Klar, Z. Phys. D 16, 231 (1990).
* (2) Dz. Belkic, J. Phys. B 11, 3529 (1978).
* (3) C. R. Garibotti, J. E. Miraglia, Phys. Rev. A 21, 572 (1980).
* (4) S. A. Zaytsev, J. Phys. A, to be published.
* (5) P. C. Ojha, J. Math. Phys. 28, 392 (1987).
* (6) M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of mathematical functions (New York: Dover), 1970\.
* (7) G. Gasaneo and F. D. Colavecchia, J. Phys. A 36 8443 (2003).
* (8) L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics: Non-Relativistic Theory (Oxford: Pergamon), 1965.
* (9) N. Michel, J. Math. Phys. 49 022109 (2008).
* (10) R. Shakeshaft, Phys. Rev. A, 70, 042704 (2004).
Figure 1: The path of integration $\mathcal{C}$ in (68).
Figure 2: The path of integration $\mathcal{C}_{2}$ in (69).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-03T05:53:59 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.082691 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "S. A. Zaytsev",
"submitter": "Sergey Zaytsev Alexandrovich",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0441"
} |
0806.0537 | # Flexible Logic from Neuronal Dynamics
Abraham Miliotis aris.miliotis@gmail.com Sachin Talathi
sachin.talathi@gmail.com William Ditto william.ditto@bme.ufl.edu J Crayton
Pruitt Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611
(August 27, 2024)
###### Abstract
We present two novel methods for performing logic operations. Our methods are
based on using the time dimension for programming and data representation. The
first method is based on varying the sampling moment in time of a neuronal
action potential, and the second method is based on a neural delay system,
where the generation of the action potential is delayed by specific time
lengths, to be sampled at a fixed moment in time. Both methods are supported
by explicit examples.
###### pacs:
Valid PACS appear here
††preprint: APS/123-QED
The computational capabilities of chaotic and non-linear systems have been
widely reported sinha:2156 ; sinha:363 ; sinha:036216 ; sinha:036214 ;
murali:025201 ; murali:2005 ; murali:2669 ; murali:016205 ; munakata:1629 .
Most of these computational methods involve the threshold control of a chaotic
system murali:016210 ; ding:644 to perform computations, whether its simple
arithmetic calculations sinha:363 ; sinha:2156 , emulation of logic gates
sinha:036216 or solving more complex computational problems like the Deutsch-
Jozsa problem sinha:036214 . These nonlinear systems, with variable
thresholding schemes, provide an unique approach to emulate all logic gates
and have the flexibility of switching between different operational roles,
thus allowing for the design of a dynamic computer architecture. More recently
a different method for logic gate emulation based on the synchronization of a
driver and response nonlinear systems has been reported murali:025201 . In
this method though, the programming instruction and input data are separated
in different parts of the system. In this paper we present two novel methods
to perform computation using nonlinear systems which utilize time as
computational commands to represent both the programming instruction and the
input data stream into the logic gate, i.e. computation is performed by
varying a single parameter. The first method is based on variation of the
observation time (sampling instance) of a non-linear signal to obtain logic
gate emulation, while the second method for logic gate emulation is based on
time delays in the generation of a non-linear signal.
We will demonstrate these two general methods for logic gate emulation by
using the nonlinear properties of action potentials generated by neurons. We
model neuronal dynamics in the framework of conductance based Hodgkin-Huxley
(HH) neurons Talathi ; Talathi2 . The first method for logic emulation is
based on the idea of sampling the membrane voltage signal of a single neuron
at different moments in time. The second method utilizes two bi-directionally
coupled HH neurons, such that the two neuron system creates a time delay
circuit. This two neuron time delay circuit operates by generating an output
spike at time $t_{0}+\tau(R)$ in response to an input spike arriving into the
circuit at time $t_{0}$. The logic gates are emulated by varying the synaptic
strength $R$ that determines the time delay $\tau(R)$ and then observing the
output at a predetermined fixed time instant.
A system (a flexible logic gate) to be able to switch between the five
fundamental logic gates (AND, NAND, OR, NOR, XOR), needs to be able to
reproduce the truth table of each and every one of these gates murali:025201 ;
sinha:036216 . We can combine the truth tables into a single non-linear
function of the form: $F(u,t)>0,\text{for }t-\Delta t>t>t+\Delta\ t,\text{
else }F(u,t)=0$; which provides the required behavior for a system to be
utilized as a flexible logic gate. This function is very similar to an action
potential generated by a neuron; resting at a low voltage ($F(u,t)=0$), and
for a brief length of time rising very rapidly to a higher voltage
($F(u,t)>0$), and then dropping very rapidly back to its original level. It is
known that neurons have a method for performing computational operations Zhang
; we do not propose that the methods we present here are the method neurons
use, but it may well be a way by which neuronal networks in the brain
communicate information.
For any computational system to be able to perform flexible logic there are
three parameters that need to be given to the system. The first parameter that
needs to be introduced to the system is the programming instruction. This
programming instruction is the parameter of the system that defines which of
the five logic gates will be performed on a given set of inputs. The other two
parameters that need to be given to the system are the two logical inputs,
INPUT1 and INPUT2, see Figure 1.
Figure 1: Required inputs and outputs of a flexible logic gate.
The first method of flexible logic implementation we will introduce is based
on utilizing fixed time intervals for representing the programming instruction
and the two inputs to the gate, as described above. These time intervals are
combined (as explained below) to determine the time at which the signal is to
be sampled to obtain an output from the gate. Consider a periodic nonlinear
signal of period T, which has a form close to that of a neuronal action
potential, see inset of Figure 2, i.e. for most of the time the signal is
“low” and for a brief length of time the signal is “high”. A programming
instruction is a time length, $t_{prog}<T$, at which the signal is sampled;
this time length is measured from a predetermined reference time point. Next,
the input data are also represented by a predetermined fixed time length.
Specifically a finite nonzero time length represents a logical 1,
$t_{input,i}$, where $i=\\{1,2\\}$, while zero time length representing a
logical 0. So we have:
$t_{input,i}=\\{\begin{array}[]{cc}t_{input,i}>0,&INPUTi=1\\\ \\\
t_{input,i}=0,&INPUTi=0\\\ \end{array}$
These three time intervals define the observation time at which the signal is
sampled for the output of the logic gate. This observation time is given by
$t_{prog}+t_{input,1}+t_{input,2}$.
It is important to note that the input data time length needs to be a constant
length irrespective of which of the two inputs, INPUT1 or INPUT2, is at
logical 1 and of double time length for the input (INPUT1, INPUT2) =(1,1).
This is a necessary condition so that the two input streams can be considered
degenerate, i.e. the cases (0,1) and (1,0) are represented by an equal time
length, while the case (1,1) corresponds to double this time length, which we
call as the input “unit” time. Careful choice of both the programming
instruction time and the input unit time can produce responses (threshold
crossing) at the sampled instance that are identical to the fundamental logic
gates. Note that since the time length representing a logical 0 is of zero
length, the programming instruction time is analogous to performing the
logical operation between two inputs of logical 0, i.e. (0,0).
As an example consider the action potential generated by a single neuron,
modeled as a type I HH neuron Talathi , see inset of Figure 2. For most of its
period the signal rests at -60mV, the resting membrane potential of the
neuron, but for a brief period of time the membrane voltage rises above the
resting potential when the neuron generates an action potential. If we
interpret a membrane voltage over -45mV as a logical 1 and below as logical 0,
then it is only a matter of $when$ we observe the signal to obtain a logical 0
or a logical 1 at the output, which represents a flexible logic opearation.
Take for example the case of the logical gate NOR, see Table 1, the truth
table of the NOR gate is: OUTPUT=1 for INPUTS=(0,0), OUTPUT=0 for INPUTS=(0,1)
/ (1,0) and OUTPUT=0 for INPUTS=(1,1). So we need 3 distinct times at which to
observe(sample) our signal that correspond to the OUTPUT values given by the
truth table. At the same time, the time difference between the 3 observation
times should be constant for the logical input of 1 to have a constant
representation, irrespective if it is INPUT1 or INPUT2. See Table 1.
Table 1: NOR gate truth table, sampling time representation of programming and inputs, necessary conditions for representation of the NOR gate. INPUTS | NOR | Sampling time | Condition
---|---|---|---
(0,0) | 1 | $t_{prog}+0+0$ | $V_{sampled}>-45mV$
(0,1)/(1,0) | 0 | $t_{prog}+t_{input,1/2}+0$ | $V_{sampled}<-45mV$
(1,1) | 0 | $t_{prog}+t_{input,1}+t_{input,2}$ | $V_{sampled}<-45mV$
Figure 2: Demonstration of operating a NOR gate using different sampling
times. Green dot represents a logical 1 at the OUTPUT, blue dot represents
logical 0 at the OUTPUT. The three dots indicate the distinct moments in time
that the signal would be sampled to generate the truth table of a NOR gate.
Inset: A typical action potential.
In Figure 2 we show the results of sampling our signal at the time instances
of 2555 for inputs (0,0), 2605 for inputs (0,1)/(1,0) and at 2655 for inputs
(1,1). Therefore in terms of programming and input time lengths, for the NOR
gate, $t_{prog}=2555$ time steps and $t_{input,i}=50,i=\\{1,2\\}$ time steps.
As is clear from the figure the appropriate OUTPUT values are obtained, i.e.
the voltage is over -45mV for the (0,0) case and below for the other two
cases. This observation can be interpreted as follows: to perform the logic
gate NOR we require to wait 2555 time steps as a programming time length and
then another 50 time steps for each occurrence of a single logical input of 1.
Using the same system, that is the HH neuron described above with the action
potential generated at the same rate, time instances for accomplishing the all
fundamental gates are given in Table 2. So in essence we have two time delays
on the observation instance, one for programming instruction, i.e. which gate
will be performed, and it is analogous to performing an operation on inputs
(0,0), and second time delay representing an input of logical 1, in this case
it is equal to 50 time steps.
Table 2: Appropriate time sample instances to perform each fundamental logic gate, for each case of different inputs. In brackets the output of each gate is given. | NOR | NAND | AND | OR | XOR
---|---|---|---|---|---
(0,0) | 2555 (1) | 2505 (1) | 2405 (0) | 2455 (0) | 2485 (0)
(0,1)/(1,0) | 2605 (0) | 2555 (1) | 2455 (0) | 2505 (1) | 2535 (1)
(1,1) | 2655 (0) | 2605 (0) | 2505 (1) | 2555 (1) | 2585 (0)
The second method for flexible logic implementation is based on the idea that
one fixes the time instance of observation and varies the time of generation
of the action potential to perform the logic operations. This form of variable
delays can be implemented, in a neuronal system, by using a simple network of
two mutually coupled neurons as explained below.
In Talathi the authors present a neuronal circuit that has the ability to
generate an action potential at a delayed time interval controlled by synaptic
coupling strength. In brief, the circuit is composed of two HH neurons
arranged as shown in Figure 3 inset; with neuron ($\alpha$), set at resting
state and the bistable neuron $\beta$ also set at resting fixed point state.
When an action potential arrives at time $t_{0}$, the neuron $\beta$ is pushed
into its bistable oscillating state. This neuron then sends an excitatory
input drive to neuron $\alpha$, which eventually triggers an action potential,
at a delayed time interval $t_{0}+\tau(R)$, that depends on the strength of
excitatory synaptic input the neuron receives at time $t_{0}$ through the
synapse $g_{S}=Rg_{S0}$, with $g_{S0}=1$. At that stage the action potential
generated by the neuron $\alpha$ will inhibit the bistable neuron sending it
back to its resting state. Thus both neurons will return to their resting
states, making the system receptive to a new operation. The time delay for the
generation of the action potential is governed by the parameter $R$, as can be
seen from Figure 3. By varying $R$ we can have the generated action potential
be produced at different times with respect to an initiating spike.
Figure 3: Two neuron time delay circuitry. (Adapted from Talathi .)
Now in order to implement flexible logic gates with this two neuron time delay
circuitry, we set a specific observation time to observe the output of this
circuitry in response to an initiating spike; i.e. in the example below this
time is at 425msec after the initiating spike. Next we set a confirmation
voltage at -45mV; which we interpret as: logical 1 output if voltage at
observation time exceeds -45mV, else logical output 0. We also use the range
of $R$, $1.68<R<1.72$ where the curve of Figure 3 is linear, so that the
changes in $R$ are linearly proportional to the changes in $\tau(R)$ and so
changes for a logical 1 at the input are independent of whether it is at
INPUT1 or INPUT2.
Using this method of time delays, flexible logic can be implemented as
follows: the time delay circuitry is setup with a specific $R_{prog}$
representing which logical operation will be performed. Further, we shift the
total $R$ value of the system an extra amount depending on the inputs to the
system. In analogy to the previous method we have the total value of $R$
defined as: $R=R_{prog}+R_{input,1}+R_{input,2}$; representing the combination
of programming instruction, which decides the logic operation to be performed,
and the two input data streams, each represented by a shift in total $R$. In
our specific example a shift of $R_{input,i}=0.005,i=\\{1,2\\}$ represents a
single logical 1 at the inputs, for cases (0,1) and (1,0); and naturally for
inputs (1,1) $R_{input,1}+R_{input,2}=0.01$ and for (0,0)
$R_{input,i}=0,i=\\{1,2\\}$.
An initiating spike is given to the system every second, like a universal
clock. At 425msec after the initiating spike we observe the system, if there
is an action potential and the voltage is higher than -45mV we interpret a
logical 1 at the output otherwise a logical 0, see Figure 4 for an
illustrative example of a NOR gate implementation. In Figure 4 we see the
three distinct cases of the truth table of a NOR gate superimposed. Each case
is generated with a different $R$ value, representing the programming and the
inputs to the gate. As is expected for the NOR gate, only in the case of
INPUTS=(0,0) we have an action potential, at the observation time, over -45mV,
signified by the green dot. In the other two cases of the truth table the
action potentials generated at those $R$ values are lower than -45mV at the
observation time, signified by blue dots. Just like in the previous method, of
varying sampling time, we can with this method reproduce the five fundamental
logic gates with different delay parameter values, $R$, see Table 3.
Figure 4: Demonstration of operating a NOR gate using different delay times. Green dot represents a logical 1 at the OUTPUT, blue dot represents logical 0 at the OUTPUT. The three action potentials each represents a distinct case of the truth table of NOR gate, in reality only one action potential will be generated for the specific case of inputs. Table 3: R values for all gates. INPUTS | NOR | NAND | AND | OR | XOR
---|---|---|---|---|---
(0,0) | 1.705 | 1.700 | 1.690 | 1.695 | 1.697
(0,1)/(1,0) | 1.710 | 1.705 | 1.695 | 1.700 | 1.702
(1,1) | 1.715 | 1.710 | 1.700 | 1.705 | 1.707
We are using neuronal systems for our demonstrations as they are one of the
most natural generators for the function that covers all fundamental logic
gates. The neuronal action potential structure is exactly what is needed for
our methods to work. The novelty of the methods introduced is that we use time
for both the computational programming and the data representation. Based on
these methods our computational efficiency and capabilities are limited by how
finely time can be sliced, the sampling rate. The finer definition we have on
the slicing of time, higher sampling rate, the more distinct the different
cases can be and more robust to noise. In the implementation of our ideas
using neuronal models, the key parameter that defines the precision of each
operation is the width of the action potential in relation to the period of
the signal, the wider the action potential is the further apart in time each
case will be providing more resolution between the different logic cases and
more robustness to noise.
To concatenate such systems into more complex logic circuits, of two logic
gates and more, the output from one such system needs to be given as an input
to the next gate (system). This can be accomplished with the use of a lookup
table that relates the event of crossing the threshold, or not, with a time
length (for the first method) or with a shift in $R$ (for the second method),
see Figure 5 for a demonstration. A look up table is used because the nature
of the inputs to the system is different to that of the output, inputs are
time lengths (or changes in synaptic strength, $R$) whereas outputs are
events.
Figure 5: Each flexible logic gate passes its output to a look up table that
translates the event of crossing the -45mV threshold to a change in the R
parameter of the next flexible logic gate.
Further research will focus to bring the inputs and outputs to the same units
so that concatenation can be performed without the use of a lookup table,
which adds computational overhead. In addition a method using time as
computational commands, to store and process (specifically: searching)
information will be reported in a future paper.
## References
* [1] H.D.I. Abarbanel and S.S. Talathi. Neural circuitry for recognizing interspike interval sequences. Physics Review Letters, 96, 2006.
* [2] Mingzhou Ding, E-Jiang Ding, William L. Ditto, Bruce Gluckman, Visarath In, Jian-Hua Peng, Mark L. Spano, and Weiming Yang. Control and synchronization of chaos in high dimensional systems: Review of some recent results. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 7(4):644–652, 1997.
* [3] Toshinori Munakata, Sudeshna Sinha, and William L. Ditto. Chaos computing: Implementation of fundamental logical gates by chaotic elements. IEEE Transactions in Circuits and Systems, 49(11):1629, 2002.
* [4] K. Murali and Sudeshna Sinha. Experimental realization of chaos control by thresholding. Physical Review E (Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics), 68(1):016210, 2003.
* [5] K. Murali and Sudeshna Sinha. Using synchronization to obtain dynamic logic gates. Physical Review E (Rapid Communications), 75, 2007.
* [6] K. Murali, Sudeshna Sinha, and William L. Ditto. Implementation of nor gate by a chaotic chua’s circuit. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 13(9):2669, 2002\.
* [7] K. Murali, Sudeshna Sinha, and William L. Ditto. Realization of the fundamental nor gate using a chaotic circuit. Physical Review E (Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics), 68(1):016205, 2003.
* [8] K. Murali, Sudeshna Sinha, and I. Raja Mohamed. Chaos computing: experimental realization of nor gate using a simple chaotic circuit. Physics Letters A, 339:39–44, 2005.
* [9] Sudeshna Sinha and William L. Ditto. Dynamics based computation. Physical Review Letters, 81(10):2156–2159, 1998.
* [10] Sudeshna Sinha and William L. Ditto. Computing with distributed chaos. Physical Review E (Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics), 60(1):363–377, 1999.
* [11] Sudeshna Sinha, Toshinori Munakata, and William L. Ditto. Flexible parallel implementation of logic gates using chaotic elements. Physical Review E (Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics), 65(3):036216, 2002.
* [12] Sudeshna Sinha, Toshinori Munakata, and William L. Ditto. Parallel computing with extended dynamical systems. Physical Review E (Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics), 65(3):036214, 2002.
* [13] SS Talathi, HDI Abarbanel, and WL Ditto. Temporal spike pattern learning. Physical Review E (Submitted), 2008.
* [14] Chang Nian Zhang, Ming Zhao, and Meng Wang. Logic operations based on single neuron rational model. IEEE Transactions on neural networks, 11(3), 2000.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-03T14:03:17 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.089761 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Abraham Miliotis, Sachin S. Talathi, William L. Ditto",
"submitter": "Sachin Talathi",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0537"
} |
0806.0678 | # On the behavior of quasi-local mass at the infinity along nearly round
surfaces
Yuguang Shi1 Key Laboratory of Pure and Applied mathematics, School of
Mathematics Science, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, P. R. China.
ygshi@math.pku.edu.cn , Guofang Wang Faculty of Mathematics, University
Magdeburg, D-39016, Magdebrug, Germany gwang@math.uni-magdeburg.de and Jie
Wu1 Key Laboratory of Pure and Applied mathematics, School of Mathematics
Science, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, P. R. China.
wujie@math.pku.edu.cn
(Date: May 2008)
###### Abstract.
In this paper, we study the limiting behavior of the Brown-York mass and
Hawking mass along nearly round surfaces at infinity of an asymptotically flat
manifold. Nearly round surfaces can be defined in an intrinsic way. Our
results show that the ADM mass of an asymptotically flat $3$-manifold can be
approximated by some geometric invariants of a family of nearly round surfaces
which approach to infinity of the manifold.
###### 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 53C20; Secondary 83C99
1Research partially supported by Grant of NSFC (10725101) and by 973 Program
(2006CB805905) of China
## 1\. Introduction
The ADM mass of an asymptotically flat (AF) manifold is a basic conserved
quantity in General relativity. To state its explicit definition, we need the
following:
###### Definition 1.1.
A complete three manifold $(M,g)$ is said to be asymptotically flat (AF) of
order $\tau$ (with one end) if there is a compact subset $K$ such that
$M\setminus K$ is diffeomorphic to $\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus B_{R}(0)$ for some
$R>0$ and in the standard coordinates in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, the metric $g$
satisfies:
(1.1) $g_{ij}=\delta_{ij}+\sigma_{ij}$
with
(1.2)
$|\sigma_{ij}|+r|\partial\sigma_{ij}|+r^{2}|\partial\partial\sigma_{ij}|=O(r^{-\tau}),$
for some constant $1\geq\tau>\frac{1}{2}$, where $r$ and $\partial$ denote the
Euclidean distance and standard derivative operator on $\mathbb{R}^{3}$
respectively.
A coordinate system of $M$ near infinity so that the metric tensor in these
coordinates satisfies the decay conditions in the definition is said to be
admissible, in such a coordinate system, we have
###### Definition 1.2.
The Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass (see [1]) of an asymptotically flat
manifold $M$ is defined as:
(1.3)
$m_{ADM}(M)=\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_{S_{r}}\left(g_{ij,i}-g_{ii,j}\right)\nu^{j}d\sigma^{0},$
where $S_{r}$ is the Euclidean sphere, $d\sigma^{0}$ is the volume element
induced by the Euclidean metric, $\nu$ is the outward unit normal of $S_{r}$
in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ and the derivative is the ordinary partial derivative.
We always assume that the scalar curvature is in $L^{1}(M)$ so that the limit
exists in the definition. Under the decay conditions in the definition of AF
manifold, the definition of the ADM mass is independent of the choice of
admissible coordinates by the result of Bartnik [2]. Indeed $S_{r}$ in the
above definition does not need to be the Euclidean sphere in some admissible
coordinates, it could be a connected boundary of an exhausting domain with its
area growth like $r^{2}$. Here $r=\min_{x\in\Sigma}r(x)$, $r(x)$ is the
distance function to some fixed point(see Proposition 4.1, [2]). Hence the ADM
mass of an AF manifold is actually a geometric quantity. With these facts in
mind and in the view point of geometry, one may intend to ask: Whether or not
one can define certain geometric invariants on a family of surfaces defined in
an intrinsic way, i.e. are independent of the choice of admissible
coordinates, that tends to the ADM mass as the surfaces approach to the
infinity of the manifold ? In this paper, we will investigate this problem and
give an affirmative answer to it.
Intuitively, the ADM mass is a kind of total mass of $(M,g)$. In many cases,
we want to measure how much mass is contained in a bounded domain. For this
purpose, the notion of quasi-local energy (mass) is needed. The Brwon-York
mass and the Hawking mass are two of them which are used frequently in
literature and both of them are geometric invariants of the surfaces (see the
definitions below). Physically, one natural property of quasi-local mass need
to have is : the limit of quasi-local mass of the boundary of exhausting
domains of an AF manifold should approach the ADM mass (see [10]). Many people
have studied this problem, they verified that for boundary of certain
exhausting domains this property is true for the Brown-York mass and the
Hawking mass, see [3, 4, 7, 14, 18], see also [11, 23]. However, the
definitions of these boundaries considered in above mentioned papers depend on
some special coordinates. So, these surfaces are not intrinsic.
In this paper, we will discuss the problem mentioned above in the case that
surfaces are nearly round at infinity of an AF manifold $(M,g)$. Let us begin
with the following definition
###### Definition 1.3.
Let $\\{\Sigma_{r}\\}$ be a family of surfaces which are topological sphere in
$(M,g)$, $r=\min_{x\in\Sigma}r(x)$, then we call $\Sigma_{r}$ as nearly round
when $r$ tends to infinity if it satisfies:
1. (1)
$|\overset{\circ}{A}|+r|\nabla\overset{\circ}{A}|\leq Cr^{-1-\tau}$,
2. (2)
$\max_{x\in\Sigma_{r}}r(x)\leq C\min_{x\in\Sigma_{r}}r(x)+C$,
3. (3)
${\rm diam}(\Sigma_{r})\leq Cr$,
4. (4)
${\rm Area}(\Sigma_{r})\leq Cr^{2}$.
Here $C$ is a constant independent of $r$. ${\rm diam}(\Sigma_{r})$, $\nabla$,
and $|\cdot|$, denote diameter of the surface, covariant derivatives and the
norm with respect to the induced metric of $g$ respectively, $r(x)$ is the
distance of $x$ to some fixed point in $(M,g)$, $A$ is the second fundamental
forms of $\Sigma_{r}$ in $(M,g)$ and $\overset{\circ}{A}$ is the trace free
part of $A$.
###### Remark 1.4.
1. (1)
It is easy to see that the above definition of nearly round surface is
intrinsic, i.e. it does not depend on any coordinates.
2. (2)
We suspect that the third and the fourth assumptions are superfluous, since
both of them can be derived from the first and second assumptions in the
Euclidean space case.
3. (3)
It is not difficult to see that the third assumption implies the second one.
One of very important and also quite natural surfaces in AF manifolds are
those with constant mean curvature and approach to infinity of the manifolds,
the existence of these surfaces was proved by [24], and [15] many years ago,
and later the uniqueness was obtained by [21](see also [15]). It is not so
difficult to see that these constant mean curvature surfaces are nearly round
(see the discussion at the beginning of Section 2). Besides this, all the
surfaces considered in [3, 4, 7, 14, 18, 11, 23] are nearly round.
Now, let us move to the definition of the Brown-York mass and the Hawking
mass.
Let $\left(\Omega,g\right)$ be a compact three manifold with smooth boundary
$\partial\Omega$. Suppose the Gauss curvature of $\partial\Omega$ is positive,
then the Brown-York quasi local mass of $\partial\Omega$ is defined as (see
[6, 7]):
###### Definition 1.5.
(1.4)
$m_{BY}\left(\partial\Omega\right)=\frac{1}{8\pi}\int_{\partial\Omega}(H_{0}-H)d\sigma$
where $H$ is the mean curvature of $\partial\Omega$ with respect to the
outward unit normal and the metric $g$, $d\sigma$ is the volume element
induced on $\partial\Omega$ by $g$ and $H_{0}$ is the mean curvature of
$\partial\Omega$ when embedded in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$.
The Brown-York mass is well-defined because by the result of Nirenberg [19],
$\partial\Omega$ can be isometrically embedded in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ and the
embedding is unique by [12, 22, 20]. In particular, $H_{0}$ is completely
determined by the metric on $\partial\Omega$. However, this is a global
property. In contrast, the norm of the mean curvature vector of an embedding
of $\partial\Omega$ into the light cone in the Minkowski space can be
expressed explicitly in terms of the Gauss curvature, see [5]. Hence in the
the study of Brown-York mass, one of the difficulties is to estimate
$\int_{\partial\Omega}H_{0}d\sigma$. We will use the Minkowski formulae [16]
and the estimates of Nirenberg [19] to deal with this problem.
The Hawking quasi local mass is defined as (see [13]):
###### Definition 1.6.
(1.5)
$m_{H}(\partial\Omega)=\frac{|\partial\Omega|^{1/2}}{(16\pi)^{3/2}}\left(16\pi-\int_{\partial\Omega}H^{2}d\sigma\right)$
where $d\Sigma$ is the volume element induced on $\partial\Omega$ by $g$ and
$|\partial\Omega|$ is the area of $\partial\Omega$.
Our main results in this paper are:
###### Theorem 1.
Let $(M,g)$ be an AF manifold, $\\{\Sigma_{r}\\}$ be nearly round surfaces of
$(M,g)$ when $r$ tends to infinity, then
$\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}m_{BY}(\Sigma_{r})=m_{ADM}(M).$
###### Theorem 2.
Let $(M,g)$ be an AF manifold, $\\{\Sigma_{r}\\}$ be nearly round surfaces of
$(M,g)$ when $r$ tends to infinity then
$\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}m_{H}(\Sigma_{r})=m_{ADM}(M).$
The remaining of this paper is organized in the following way. In Section 2 we
will discuss the geometry of nearly round surfaces, show that many interesting
surfaces are nearly round and present some useful formulae. In Section 3 we
will show some estimates of isometric embedding and in Section 4 we will prove
the main theorems.
## 2\. Geometry of nearly round surfaces
In this section, we want to give some examples of nearly round surfaces and to
investigate their geometric properties, and also we will derive some basic
formulae which will be used later. Let us begin with some interesting
examples.
###### Example 2.1.
Constant mean curvature (CMC) surfaces constructed in [15] are nearly round at
the infinity of the manifold .
Note that the CMC surfaces constructed in [15] are convex at infinity, and
then by Propositions 3.5, 3.9 and 3.12 in [15] we see that they are nearly
round at infinity of the manifolds.
Also, by a direct computations, it is not difficult to see that
###### Example 2.2.
Let $(M,g,x^{i})$ , $1\leq i\leq 3$, be an AF manifold with admissible
coordinates $x^{i}$, then the coordinate sphere
$S_{r}=\\{(x^{1},x^{2},x^{3})|$ $(x^{1})^{2}+(x^{2})^{2}+(x^{3})^{2}=r^{2}\\}$
is nearly round when $r$ tends to infinity.
Our next example relates to the surfaces in Kerr solution to vacuum Einstein
equations.
###### Example 2.3.
The well-known Kerr metric is given by
(2.1)
$\begin{split}ds^{2}=&-(1-\frac{2mr}{r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta})dt^{2}-\frac{2mar\sin^{2}\theta}{r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}(dtd\phi+d\phi
dt)\\\
&+\frac{r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}{r^{2}-2mr+a^{2}}dr^{2}+(r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2})d\theta^{2}\\\
&+\frac{\sin^{2}\theta}{(r^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{2}}[(r^{2}+a^{2})^{2}-a^{2}(r^{2}-2mr+a^{2})\sin^{2}\theta]d\phi^{2}.\end{split}$
For instance, see page 261 in [8]. Let $(M,g)$ be the slice with $t=const.$,
then it can be shown directly that $(M,g)$ is an AF manifold. Let
$\Sigma_{\tau}$ be the surface in $(M,g)$ with $r=\tau$, then one can verify
that $\Sigma_{\tau}$ is nearly round in $(M,g)$ when $\tau$ goes to infinity.
Indeed, if we let
$e_{1}=(\tau^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2})^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}$,
$e_{2}=\frac{\tau^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}{\sin\theta}[(\tau^{2}+a^{2})^{2}-a^{2}(\tau^{2}-2m\tau+a^{2})\sin^{2}\theta]^{-\frac{1}{2}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\phi}$,
then it is easy to see that $e_{1}$, $e_{2}$ is an orthonormall frame of
$\Sigma_{\tau}$, and in this frame the second fundamental form of
$\Sigma_{\tau}$ with respect to outward unit normal vector in $(M,g)$ is
$A_{11}=\frac{2}{\tau}\left(\frac{1-\frac{2m}{\tau}+\frac{a^{2}}{\tau^{2}}}{1+\frac{a^{2}}{\tau^{2}}\cos^{2}\theta}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}(1+\frac{a^{2}}{\tau^{2}}\cos^{2}\theta)^{-1},\quad
A_{12}=0,$
$\begin{split}A_{22}=&\frac{2}{\tau^{2}}\left(\frac{1-\frac{2m}{\tau}+\frac{a^{2}}{\tau^{2}}}{1+\frac{a^{2}}{\tau^{2}}\cos^{2}\theta}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{1+\frac{a^{2}}{\tau^{2}}\cos^{2}\theta}{(1+\frac{a^{2}}{\tau^{2}})^{2}-\tau^{-2}(1-\frac{2m}{\tau}+\frac{a^{2}}{\tau^{2}})a^{2}\sin^{2}\theta}\right)\\\
&\cdot\frac{1}{(\tau^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta)^{2}}\left\\{\tau^{5}+2a^{2}\tau^{3}\cos^{2}\theta-a^{2}\tau^{2}m\sin^{2}\theta\right.\\\
&\left.+a^{4}\tau(\cos
2\theta+\sin^{4}\theta)+ma^{4}\sin^{2}\theta\cos^{2}\theta\right\\}.\end{split}$
When $\tau$ tends to infinity, we have
$A_{11}=\frac{2}{\tau}-\frac{2m}{\tau^{2}}+O(\tau^{-3}),\quad A_{12}=0,$
$A_{22}=\frac{2}{\tau}-\frac{2m}{\tau^{2}}+O(\tau^{-3}).$
Hence
$|\overset{\circ}{A}|\leq C\tau^{-3}.$
Similarly we have
$|\nabla\overset{\circ}{A}|\leq C\tau^{-4}.$
Here $C$ is a constant independent of $\tau$. Hence, $\Sigma_{\tau}$ is a
nearly round surface when $\tau$ tends to infinity.
###### Lemma 2.4.
Let $\Sigma_{r}$ be nearly round surfaces in $(M,g)$ when $r$ goes to
infinity, then there is a positive constant $\Lambda$ which is independent of
$r$, and with $\Lambda^{-1}r^{2}\leq{\rm Area}(\Sigma_{r})\leq\Lambda r^{2}$.
###### Proof.
It suffices to show the lower bound of the area. Since $g$ is an AF metric,
without loss of generality we may assume $g$ and $\hat{g}$ are equivalent on
$M\setminus K$. Here and in the sequel, $\hat{g}$ is background Euclidean
metric on $M\setminus K$. Thus, we only need to show ${\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r},\hat{g})\geq Cr^{2}$, where ${\rm Area}(\Sigma_{r},\hat{g})$
is the area of $\Sigma_{r}$ with respect to metric $\hat{g}$. From the second
assumption of nearly round sphere surfaces, we know that the standard sphere
with radius $\frac{r}{2}$, denoted by $\mathbb{S}^{2}_{\frac{r}{2}}$, is in
the domain enclosed by $\Sigma_{r}$. Let $\Omega$ be the domain enclosed by
$\Sigma_{r}$ and $\mathbb{S}^{2}_{\frac{r}{2}}$, $X=(X^{1},X^{2},X^{3})$ be
the Euclidean coordinates. In view of
${\rm div}_{\hat{g}}(\frac{X}{|X|})=\frac{2}{|X|}>0,$
we have
$\begin{split}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\frac{X}{|X|}\cdot
n-\int_{\mathbb{S}^{2}_{\frac{r}{2}}}\frac{X}{|X|}\cdot n&=\int_{\Omega}{\rm
div}_{\hat{g}}(\frac{X}{|X|})\\\ &\geq 0,\end{split}$
where $n$ is the outward unit normal vector of on one part of the boundary of
$\Omega$, $\Sigma_{r}$ and $-n$ is the outward unit normal vector of on
another part of the boundary of $\Omega$, $\mathbb{S}^{2}_{\frac{r}{2}}$.
Therefore, we see that
${\rm Area}(\Sigma_{r},\hat{g})\geq\pi r^{2}.$
This finishes the proof of the Lemma. ∎
Our next lemma is on the estimation of the decay of the second fundamental
forms of nearly round sphere surfaces.
###### Lemma 2.5.
Let $\Sigma_{r}$ be nearly round surfaces in $(M,g)$ when $r$ goes to
infinity, then we have
$|A|\leq Cr^{-1},$
where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $r$.
###### Proof.
Let $e_{0}$, $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$ be the orthonormall frame of $(M,g)$ at any
fixed point of $\Sigma_{r}$, $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$ be the tangential vectors of
$\Sigma_{r}$. Let $\nabla_{k}A_{ij}$ be the components of $\nabla A$, then by
a direct computation for $1\leq$ $i$, $j$, $k$ $\leq 2$, we have
$\nabla_{i}A_{jk}=E_{ijk}+F_{ijk},$
where
$E_{ijk}=\frac{1}{4}(\nabla_{i}H\bar{g}_{jk}+\nabla_{j}H\bar{g}_{ik}+\nabla_{k}H\bar{g}_{ij})-\frac{1}{2}w_{i}\bar{g}_{jk}+\frac{1}{2}(w_{j}\bar{g}_{ik}+w_{k}\bar{g}_{ij}).$
Here $w_{i}=R_{0kil}\bar{g}^{kl}$ and $\bar{g}_{ij}$ is the induced metric on
$\Sigma_{r}$. By the Codazzi equations, we have
$\langle E_{ijk},F_{ijk}\rangle=0,$
and
$|E_{ijk}|^{2}=\frac{3}{5}|\nabla H|^{2}+|w|^{2}-\langle
w_{i},\nabla_{i}H\rangle.$
thus combining these equalities we have
(2.2) $\begin{split}|\nabla\overset{\circ}{A}|^{2}&=|\nabla
A|^{2}-\frac{1}{2}|\nabla H|^{2}\geq|E|^{2}-\frac{1}{2}|\nabla H|^{2}\\\
&\geq\frac{1}{20}|\nabla H|^{2}-C|w|^{2}\geq\frac{1}{200}(|\nabla
A|^{2}-|\nabla\overset{\circ}{A}|^{2})-C|w|^{2},\end{split}$
where $C$ is a constant. Thus, we see that
$|\nabla A|\leq C(|\nabla\overset{\circ}{A}|+r^{-2-\tau}).$
Combining this with the first assumption of nearly round sphere surfaces we
have
$|\nabla H|\leq|\nabla A|\leq Cr^{-2-\tau}.$
Due to the assumption ${\rm diam}(\Sigma_{r})\leq Cr$, we see that for any
$x\in\Sigma_{r}$ we have
$\begin{split}|H(x)-H(x_{0})|&\leq|\nabla H|\cdot{\rm diam}(\Sigma_{r})\\\
&\leq Cr^{-1-\tau}.\end{split}$
Here $x_{0}$ is a fixed point on $\Sigma_{r}$. Setting
$r_{1}=\frac{2}{H(x_{0})},$
we have
$H=\frac{2}{r_{1}}+O(r^{-1-\tau}).$
We now claim that there is a constant $C>1$ independent of $r$ with
$C^{-1}r\leq r_{1}\leq Cr.$
Indeed, due to the assumption $|\overset{\circ}{A}|\leq Cr^{-1-\tau}$ and the
Gauss equations, we have
$K=\frac{1}{r^{2}_{1}}+r^{-1}_{1}O(r^{-1-\tau})+O(r^{-2-\tau}),$
where $K$ is the Gauss curvature of $\Sigma_{r}$ with respect to the metric
induced from $g$. Then by the Gauss-Bonnet formula we get
$\frac{{\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r})}{r^{2}_{1}}+r^{-1}_{1}O(r^{1-\tau})+O(r^{-\tau})=4\pi.$
Together with Lemma 2.4, it follows that the claim is true. Note that
$A_{ij}=\overset{\circ}{A}_{ij}+\frac{H}{2}\bar{g}_{ij}$, where $\bar{g}_{ij}$
is the metric on $\Sigma_{r}$ induced from $g$. The first assumption and the
claim imply
$|A|\leq Cr^{-1},$
which finishes the proof of the lemma. ∎
As mentioned before, we may regard $\Sigma_{r}$ as a surface in $M\setminus K$
with the Euclidean metric $\hat{g}$. Our next lemma is about the relationship
between $A$ and $\hat{A}$, here and in the sequel, $\hat{A}$ is the second
fundamental forms of $\Sigma_{r}$ with respect to outward unit normal vector
and metric $\hat{g}$.
###### Lemma 2.6.
Let $\rho$ be the Euclidean distance function to $\Sigma_{r}$,
$\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}$, $1\leq i\leq 3$, be the standard coordinate
frame in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, $\Gamma^{k}_{ij}$ is the Christoffel symbols of
metric $g$ with respect to $\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}$, then
$\hat{A}(X,Y)=|\nabla_{g}\rho|\cdot
A(X,Y)+X^{i}Y^{j}\Gamma^{k}_{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{k}},$
where $X=X^{i}\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}$ and
$Y=Y^{i}\cdot\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}$ are tangential vectors of
$\Sigma_{r}$ and $\nabla_{g}$ is the Livi-Civita connection with respect to
$g$.
###### Proof.
By the definition of $\rho$, on $\Sigma_{r}$ we have
$\begin{array}[]{rcl}\nabla^{2}\rho(X,Y)&=&XY(\rho)-\nabla_{X}Y(\rho)\\\
&=&-\nabla_{X}Y(\rho)\\\ &=&-\langle\nabla_{X}Y,v\rangle v(\rho)\\\
&=&A(X,Y)v(\rho),\end{array}$
where $v$ is the outward unit normal vector of $\Sigma_{r}$. Again, a direct
computations gives
$v=|\nabla_{g}\rho|^{-1}g^{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j}},$
Hence, we have
$v(\rho)=|\nabla_{g}\rho|,$
$A(X,Y)=\frac{1}{|\nabla_{g}\rho|}\nabla^{2}\rho(X,Y)$
and
$\nabla^{2}\rho(X,Y)=X^{i}Y^{j}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{i}\partial
x^{j}}-X^{i}Y^{j}\Gamma^{k}_{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{k}}.$
Similarly we have
$\hat{A}(X,Y)=X^{i}Y^{j}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{i}\partial
x^{j}},$
Combining these formulas together, we have
$\hat{A}(X,Y)=|\nabla_{g}\rho|\cdot
A(X,Y)+X^{i}Y^{j}\Gamma^{k}_{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{k}}.$
∎
Let $v=\sum_{i=1}^{3}v^{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}$, then
$h_{ij}=g_{ij}-v_{i}v_{j}$, $1\leq i$, $j\leq 3$. Then $h_{ij}dx_{i}dx_{j}$ is
the induced metric on $\Sigma_{r}$ in $(M,g)$. Define
$h^{ij}:=g^{is}g^{jt}h_{st}$. We have
###### Lemma 2.7.
Let $\rho$ be the Euclidean distance function to $\Sigma_{r}$, then on
$\Sigma_{r}$, we have
$\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{i}\partial
x^{j}}=B_{ij}+\frac{\hat{H}}{2}h_{ij},$
where $B_{ij}=\overset{\circ}{\hat{A}}((\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{i}})^{T},(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j}})^{T})$, and
$(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}})^{T}$ is the tangential part of
$\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}}$.
###### Proof.
Let $\hat{\nabla}$ be the covariant derivatives with respect to $\hat{g}$,
then by a direct computation gives
(2.3) $\begin{split}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{i}\partial
x^{j}}&=\hat{\nabla}^{2}\rho((\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{i}})^{T},(\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j}})^{T})\\\
&=\hat{A}((\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i}})^{T},(\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{j}})^{T})\\\ &=\overset{\circ}{\hat{A}}((\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{i}})^{T},(\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{j}})^{T})+\frac{\hat{H}}{2}h_{ij}.\end{split}$
∎
Combining Lemma (2.5), Lemma (2.6) and Lemma (2.7), we obtain
###### Corollary 2.8.
Let $\Sigma_{r}$ be nearly round surfaces in $(M,g)$ as $r$ goes to infinity,
then on $\Sigma_{r}$, we have:
$|\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{i}\partial x^{j}}|\leq Cr^{-1},$
where $C$ is a constant independent of $r$.
As a corollary, we have
###### Corollary 2.9.
Let $\overset{\circ}{\hat{A}}$ be the trace free part of $\hat{A}$, $\bar{D}$
be the covariant derivatives of $\Sigma_{r}$ with respect to induced metric
from $(M\setminus K,\hat{g})$, then we have
$|\overset{\circ}{\hat{A}}|+r|\bar{D}\overset{\circ}{\hat{A}}|\leq
Cr^{-1-\tau},$
where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $r$.
###### Proof.
By Lemma 2.6 and direct computations, we have
$|H-\hat{H}|\leq Cr^{-1-\tau},$
where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $r$, and hence
$|\overset{\circ}{\hat{A}}|\leq Cr^{-1-\tau}.$
Hence it suffices to show the second part estimate of the corollary is true.
Let $p$ be any point of $\Sigma_{r}$, $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$ be the orthonormal
frame at $p$ with $\bar{D}_{e_{i}}e_{j}=0$, $1\leq i$, $j\leq 2$. Let $X_{i}$,
$1\leq i\leq 3$, be one of $e_{k}$. Then, at $p$, we have
(2.4)
$\begin{split}(\bar{D}_{X_{3}}\hat{A})(X_{1},X_{2})=&X_{3}(\hat{A}(X_{1},X_{2}))\\\
=&X_{3}(|\nabla_{g}\rho|)\cdot
A(X_{1},X_{2})+|\nabla_{g}\rho|X_{3}(A(X_{1},X_{2}))\\\
&+(X_{3}(X^{i}_{1})X^{j}_{2}+X^{i}_{1}X_{3}(X^{j}_{2}))\Gamma^{k}_{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{k}}+X^{i}_{1}X^{j}_{2}X_{3}(\Gamma^{k}_{ij})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{k}}\\\
&+X^{i}_{1}X^{j}_{2}\Gamma^{k}_{ij}X_{3}(\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{k}}).\end{split}$
Here we assume $X_{i}=X_{i}^{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{k}}$. Since $\rho$
is Euclidean distance to $\Sigma_{r}$, we have
$\sum_{i=1}^{3}(\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{i}})^{2}=1.$
Thus,
$\begin{split}|\sum_{i=1}^{3}g^{ij}X_{3}(\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}|&\leq|\sum_{i=1}^{3}\sigma^{ij}X_{3}(\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{j}}|+Cr^{-1-\tau}\\\ &\leq
Cr^{-1-\tau},\end{split}$
where $C$ is a constant independent of $r$ and $p$ and the orthonormal frames
that we choose. Note that Corollary 2.8 was used in the last equality.
Due to the asymptotically flatness of manifold $(M,g)$, by Lemma (2.5) and
Corollary (2.8) we have
$|X_{3}(|\nabla_{g}\rho|)\cdot
A(X_{1},X_{2})|+|X^{i}_{1}X^{j}_{2}X_{3}(\Gamma^{k}_{ij})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{k}}|+|X^{i}_{1}X^{j}_{2}\Gamma^{k}_{ij}X_{3}(\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{k}})|\leq Cr^{-2-\tau},$
where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $r$ and $p$ and the
orthonormal frames that we choose. In order to get the estimates of the
remaining part, we need to estimate covariant derivatives of $X_{i}$ at $p$
first. Note that by Lemma 2.6, we see that there is a constant $C$ which is
independent of $r$ and with
$|A-\hat{A}|\leq Cr^{-1-\tau}.$
On the other hand, by the fundamental equations of the surface, for $i=1$,
$2$, we have
$\begin{split}\bar{\nabla}_{X_{3}}X_{i}-\bar{D}_{X_{3}}X_{i}&=(\nabla_{X_{3}}X_{i}-D_{X_{3}}X_{i})+(\hat{A}-A)(X_{3},X_{i})v+\hat{A}(X_{3},X_{i})(\hat{v}-v)\\\
&=X^{i}_{3}X^{k}_{i}\Gamma^{l}_{ik}\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{l}}+(\hat{A}-A)(X_{3},X_{i})v+\hat{A}(X_{3},X_{i})(\hat{v}-v),\end{split}$
where $\nabla$, $\bar{\nabla}$ is covariant derivatives with respect to metric
$g$ and its induced metric on $\Sigma_{r}$ respectively. By a direct
computations, it is not difficult to see that
$|\hat{v}-v|\leq Cr^{-\tau},$
where $C$ is a positive universal constant independent of $r$. Hence, by the
choice of $X_{i}$ and decay of $|A-\hat{A}|$, we get
(2.5) $|\bar{\nabla}_{X_{3}}X_{i}|\leq Cr^{-1-\tau},$
at $p$, where $C$ is a constant independent of $r$ and $p$ and the orthonormal
frames that we choose. Together this with decay of $|\bar{\nabla}A|$ and the
equality
$X_{3}(A(X_{1},X_{2}))=(\bar{\nabla}_{X_{3}}A)(X_{i},X_{j})+A(\bar{\nabla}_{X_{3}}X_{i},X_{j})+A(\bar{\nabla}_{X_{3}}X_{j},X_{i}),$
$i$, $j=$ $1$, $2$, we get
$|X_{3}(A(X_{i},X_{j}))|\leq Cr^{-2-\tau},$
where $C$ is a constant independent of $r$ and $p$ and the orthonormal frames
that we choose. By the choice of $X_{i}$, we have for $i=1$, $2$,
$\bar{D}_{X_{3}}X_{i}=D_{X_{3}}X_{i}-\hat{A}(X_{3},X_{i})\hat{v}=0,$
at $p$, and hence
$X_{3}(X_{i}^{k})=\hat{g}(\hat{A}(X_{3},X_{i})\hat{v},\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{k}})$
at $p$ which implies
$|X_{3}(X_{i}^{k})|\leq Cr^{-1}$
for a constant $C$ independent of $r$ and $p$ and the orthonormal frames that
we choose. Combining the above estimates, we have
$|\bar{D}\hat{A}|\leq Cr^{-2-\tau}$
at $p$ for some universal constant independent of $r$ and $p$ and the
orthonormal frames that we choose. Since $p$ is arbitrary, we complete to
prove the corollary. ∎
Let $H$ and $\hat{H}$ be the mean curvature of $\Sigma_{r}$ in
$(\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus K,g)$ and $(\mathbb{R}^{3}\setminus K,\hat{g})$
respectively. Both of them are with respect to outward unit normal vector.
###### Lemma 2.10.
Let $\rho$ be the Euclidean distance to $\Sigma_{r}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, then
(2.6)
$\begin{split}H=&\hat{H}+\frac{H}{2}\sigma_{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{st,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}\\\ &-\sigma_{ij}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{i}\partial
x^{j}}-g_{ij,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}+\frac{1}{2}g_{jj,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}+O(r^{-1-2\tau}).\\\ \end{split}$
Here and in the sequel, $\sigma_{ij,k}=\frac{\partial\sigma_{ij}}{\partial
x^{k}}$ and $g_{ij,k}=\frac{\partial g_{ij}}{\partial x^{k}}$.
###### Proof.
We first note that on $\Sigma$ we have
$\Delta_{0}\rho=\hat{H},$
where $\Delta_{0}$ is Laplacian with respect to $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. The unit
normal vector of $\Sigma_{r}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ is
$\nabla_{0}\rho=\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{i}}\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{i}}$, denoted by $\hat{v}$. Let $\\{e_{1},e_{2},v\\}$ be the orthonormal
frame in $(M\setminus K,g)$ and $\\{e_{1},e_{2}\\}$ the tangential vector of
$\Sigma$. We have
$\Delta\rho=\nabla^{2}\rho(e_{1},e_{1})+\nabla^{2}\rho(e_{2},e_{2})+\nabla^{2}\rho(v,v)$
and
(2.7)
$\begin{split}\nabla^{2}\rho(e_{1},e_{1})+\nabla^{2}\rho(e_{2},e_{2})&=e_{1}e_{1}\rho-\nabla_{e_{1}}e_{1}\rho+e_{2}e_{2}\rho-\nabla_{e_{2}}e_{2}\rho\\\
&=-(\nabla_{e_{1}}e_{1}+\nabla_{e_{2}}e_{2})\rho\\\
&=\langle\nabla_{e_{1}}e_{1}+\nabla_{e_{2}}e_{2},v\rangle v(\rho)\\\ &=H\cdot
v(\rho).\end{split}$
On the other hand, it is clear that
$\hat{v}=\langle\hat{v},v\rangle_{g}v+T,$
where, $T$ is the tangential part of $\hat{v}$ on $\Sigma_{r}$ and
$\langle,\rangle_{g}$ is the inner product with respect to the metric $g$.
Thus we have
$\hat{v}(\rho)=\langle\hat{v},v\rangle_{g}v(\rho).$
Since $\hat{v}(\rho)=1$ on $\Sigma_{r}$, we get
$v(\rho)=\langle\hat{v},v\rangle_{g}^{-1}.$
It is easy to see that
$v=\frac{\nabla\rho}{|\nabla\rho|}=|\nabla\rho|^{-1}g^{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j}}$
and
(2.8)
$\begin{split}\langle\hat{v},v\rangle_{g}&=|\nabla\rho|^{-1}g^{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\langle\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j}},\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{k}}\rangle_{g}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{k}}\\\
&=|\nabla\rho|^{-1}g^{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}g_{jk}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{k}}\\\
&=|\nabla\rho|^{-1}.\end{split}$
Hence, we have
$v(\rho)=|\nabla\rho|,\quad\langle\hat{v},v\rangle_{g}=|\nabla\rho|^{-1}.$
Since $v$ is the unit norm vector along $\Sigma_{r}$, it is clear that
$\langle\nabla_{v}v,v\rangle_{g}=0$, which implies $\nabla_{v}v$ is a
tangential vector on $\Sigma_{r}$. Therefore, we get
$\nabla_{v}v(\rho)=0.$
Combining these facts we obtain
$\nabla^{2}\rho(v,v)=v(|\nabla\rho|)$
and
(2.9) $\Delta\rho=H|\nabla\rho|+v(|\nabla\rho|).$
Now we compute the second term in (2.9).
(2.10) $\begin{split}v(|\nabla\rho|^{2})=&v(g^{st}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{t}})\\\
=&|\nabla\rho|^{-1}g^{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{j}}(g^{st}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{t}})\\\
=&|\nabla\rho|^{-1}g^{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}g^{st}_{,j}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}+2|\nabla\rho|^{-1}g^{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}g^{st}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{s}\partial
x^{j}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{t}},\end{split}$
where
$g^{st}_{,j}=\frac{\partial g^{st}}{\partial x^{j}}$
and
$g^{ij}=\delta^{ij}-\sigma_{ij}+O(r^{-2\tau}).$
Putting these things together, we get
(2.11) $\begin{split}v(|\nabla\rho|^{2})=&\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}g^{st}_{,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}+2|\nabla\rho|^{-1}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{i}\partial
x^{j}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{j}}\\\
&-2|\nabla\rho|^{-1}\sigma_{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{s}\partial
x^{j}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}}-2|\nabla\rho|^{-1}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{i}\partial
x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{t}}\sigma_{st}\\\
&+O(r^{-1-2\tau}).\end{split}$
From
$\sum_{i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{i}}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{i}\partial x^{s}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{s}}((\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{i}})^{2})=0$
and
$v(|\nabla\rho|^{2})=2|\nabla\rho|v(|\nabla\rho|),$
we get
$v(|\nabla\rho|)=\frac{1}{2}g^{st}_{,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}+O(r^{-1-2\tau}).$
Thus, we have
$\Delta\rho=H|\nabla\rho|+\frac{1}{2}g^{st}_{,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}+O(r^{-1-2\tau}).$
On the other hand, by the definition of Laplacian operator we have
(2.12) $\begin{split}\Delta\rho&=g^{ij}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{i}\partial j}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{i}}(\sqrt{g}g^{ij})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{j}}\\\
&=\hat{H}-\sigma_{ij}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{i}\partial
x^{j}}+g^{ij}_{,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}+g^{ij}\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{i}}(\sqrt{g})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{j}}.\end{split}$
Noticing that
$\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{i}}(\sqrt{g})=\frac{1}{2}g_{jj,i}+O(r^{-1-2\tau})$
and
$g^{ij}_{,i}=-g_{ij,i},$
we get
(2.13)
$\begin{split}H=&\hat{H}+\frac{H}{2}\sigma_{ij}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}+\frac{1}{2}\sigma_{st,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}\\\ &-\sigma_{ij}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial x^{i}\partial
x^{j}}-g_{ij,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}+\frac{1}{2}g_{jj,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}+O(r^{-1-2\tau})\\\ =&\hat{H}+O(r^{-1-\tau})+O(r^{-1-2\tau})\end{split}$
∎
In the sequel, we want to calculate the integral of $H-\hat{H}$ on
$\Sigma_{r}$. Let us begin with
(2.14) $\begin{split}&\int_{\Sigma}\sigma_{st,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}d\sigma^{0}=\int_{\Sigma}\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{i}}(\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}d\sigma^{0}-\int_{\Sigma}\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{i}\partial x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{t}}d\sigma^{0}\\\
&=-\int_{\Sigma}(\delta_{it}-\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{t}})\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{i}}(\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}})d\sigma^{0}+\int_{\Sigma}\frac{\partial}{\partial
x^{t}}(\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{s}})d\sigma^{0}\\\
&=-\int_{\Sigma}\hat{H}\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}d\sigma^{0}+\int_{\Sigma}\sigma_{st,t}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}}d\sigma^{0}+\int_{\Sigma}\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{s}\partial x^{t}}d\sigma^{0},\end{split}$
where $d\sigma^{0}$ is the area element with respect to the Euclidean induced
metric, and we have used the divergence theorem in the last equality. By Lemma
(2.4), we have
(2.15)
$\begin{split}\int_{\Sigma}(H-\hat{H})d\sigma=&\int_{\Sigma}(H-\hat{H})d\sigma^{0}+O(r^{1-2\tau})\\\
=&\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma}(H-\hat{H})\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}d\sigma^{0}+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma}(g_{ii,j}-g_{ij,i})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}d\sigma^{0}\\\
&-\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma}\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{s}\partial x^{t}}d\sigma^{0}+O(r^{1-2\tau}).\end{split}$
Noticing that
$H-\hat{H}=O(r^{-1-\tau})$
we have
(2.16)
$\int_{\Sigma}(H-\hat{H})d\sigma=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma}(g_{ii,j}-g_{ij,i})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}d\sigma^{0}-\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma}\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{s}\partial x^{t}}d\sigma^{0}+O(r^{1-2\tau}).$
## 3\. Estimations of isometric embedding of nearly round surfaces
In this section, we study the isometric embedding of nearly round surfaces,
and the main purpose is to get the expansion of the mean curvature nearly
round surfaces at the infinity of $(M,g)$.
Let $(\mathbf{S}^{2},g_{0})$ be the standard unit sphere and $i_{0}$ an
isometric embedding of $(\mathbf{S}^{2},g_{0})$ into $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Let
$K_{g}$ denote the Gauss curvature of the metric $g$. We want to show the
following
###### Theorem 3.
There exists a positive constant $\epsilon_{0}>0$ such that for any metric $g$
on $\mathbf{S}^{2}$ with
$\|K_{g}-1\|_{C^{1}}\leq\epsilon_{0},$
there exists an isometric embedding
$i:(\mathbf{S}^{2},g)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{3}$
and a conformal transformation $\Psi_{1}$ of $(\mathbf{S}^{2},g_{0})$ with
$\|i\circ\Psi^{-1}_{1}-i_{0}\|_{C^{2,\alpha}}\leq C_{0}\|K-1\|_{C^{\alpha}},$
for some $0<\alpha<1$. Here $C_{0}$ is a positive constant only depending on
$\alpha$, and $\|\cdot\|_{C^{2,\alpha}}$, $\|\cdot\|_{C^{\alpha}}$ are taken
with respect to $g_{0}$.
###### Proof.
The key point of the proof of above theorem is to show that there is a
conformal transformation $\Psi_{1}$ of the standard unit sphere with
(3.1) $\|\Psi_{1}^{*}(g)-g_{0}\|_{C^{2,\alpha}}\leq
C_{1}\|K-1\|_{C^{\alpha}},$
where $C_{1}$ is a constant only depending on $\alpha$. Once (3.1) is verified
then by the arguments in P353 of [19], we see that the conclusion of Theorem
is true. Due to the Uniformization Theorem, we see that there is conformal
differmorphism $\Phi$: $(\mathbf{S}^{2},g_{0})\mapsto(\mathbf{S}^{2},g)$ with
$\Phi^{*}(g)=e^{2u}g_{0}$ and
(3.2) $\Delta_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}u+Ke^{2u}=1.$
Without loss of generality, we may assume for $1\leq i\leq 3$
(3.3) $\int_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}e^{2u}x_{i}=0,$
where $x_{i}$, $1\leq i\leq 3$, is the coordinate function of the standard
sphere in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$, integral is taken on the standard sphere
$(\mathbf{S}^{2},g_{0})$. Otherwise, by Lemma 2, part 3 in [9] we can find a
conformal transformation $\Phi_{1}$:
$(\mathbf{S}^{2},g_{0})\mapsto(\mathbf{S}^{2},g_{0})$ so that $u\circ\Phi_{1}$
satisfying (3.2), and (3.3). Due to $a^{\prime}$ in the proof of Theorem 1,
Part 7 in [9], we know that there a constant $C$ only depending on $w$ and $W$
(here $0<w\leq K\leq W$) and with
(3.4) $|u|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\leq C.$
We now claim that for any $\eta>0$, there is $\delta=\delta(\eta)$ so that
(3.5) $|u|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\leq\eta,$
provided $|K-1|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\leq\delta$.
Suppose the claim fails, then we may find a constant $\eta_{0}>0$, and a
sequence of $K_{j}$ and $u_{j}$ satisfying (3.2) and (3.3), and $|K_{j}-1|$
tends to zero while $|u_{j}|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\geq\eta_{0}$. By (3.4)
and the standard estimates in elliptic PDE, we may take a subsequence still
denoted by $u_{j}$ which converges to $u_{\infty}$ in the sense of
$C^{1}(\mathbf{S}^{2})$, and $u_{\infty}$ satisfying (3.3) and
$\Delta_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}u_{\infty}+e^{2u_{\infty}}=1.$
By this we see that $u_{\infty}=0$ which is contradiction to the choice of
$u_{j}$. Thus, claim is true.
Let
$u=u_{0}+u_{1}+u_{2}$
with
$u_{0}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}u,\quad
u_{1}=a_{1}x_{1}+a_{2}x_{2}+a_{3}x_{3},$
where
$a_{i}=\frac{3}{4\pi}\int_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}u\cdot x_{i}$
for $1\leq 1\leq 3$. Taking integral on (3.2) on $(\mathbf{S}^{2},g_{0})$, we
get
$\int_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}Ke^{2u}=4\pi.$
Together this with the assumption of $K$, we get
(3.6) $|u_{0}|\leq
C(\|K-1\|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}+\|u\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}).$
Here and in the sequel, $C$ is always a constant independent of $u$. Let
$L(u):=\Delta_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}u+2u,$
By equation (3.2) and the definition of $u_{2}$, we get
$L(u_{2})=(1-K)e^{2u}+(1+2u-e^{2u})-2u_{0},$
from which we have
(3.7) $\begin{split}\int_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}(|\nabla
u_{2}|^{2}-2|u_{2}|^{2})\leq&C(\|K-1\|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\|u_{2}\|_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\\\
&+\|1+2u-e^{2u}\|_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\|u_{2}\|_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\\\
&+|u_{0}|\|u_{2}\|_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}),\end{split}$
From the definition of $u_{2}$ we see that
(3.8) $\int_{\mathbf{S}^{2}}(|\nabla u_{2}|^{2}-2|u_{2}|^{2})\geq
C\|u_{2}\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}$
where $C$ is a positive universal constant independent of $u$. By (3.5) we get
(3.9) $\|1+2u-e^{2u}\|_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\leq
C\|u\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}$
Combining (3.7), (3.8), (3.9) and (3.6) we obtain
(3.10) $\|u_{2}\|_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\leq
C(\|K-1\|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}+\|u\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})})$
On the other hand, by the (3.3) and direct computations we obtain, for each
$i$,
$|a_{i}|\leq C\|u\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})},$
which implies
$\|u_{1}\|_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\leq C\|u\|^{2}_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}.$
All the constants $C$ above are independent of $u$. Putting this estimate with
(3.6), (3.10), and (3.5), we get
(3.11) $\|u\|_{L^{2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\leq C\|K-1\|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}.$
Together this with (3.2), we get
$\|u\|_{W^{2,2}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\leq C\|K-1\|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})},$
which implies
$\|u\|_{C^{\alpha}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\leq C\|K-1\|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})},$
for some $\alpha>0$, here $C$ is a constant that only depends on $\alpha$ and
is independent of $u$. Then by the Schauder theory in partial differential
equations, we get
$\|u\|_{C^{2,\alpha}(\mathbf{S}^{2})}\leq C\|K-1\|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})},$
Thus, we see that
$\|\Psi^{*}_{1}(g)-g_{0}\|_{C^{2,\alpha}}\leq C_{1}\|K-1\|_{C^{\alpha}},$
where $C_{1}$ is a constant depending only on $\alpha$. It implies the
conclusion of the Theorem is true. Thus, we finish to prove the Theorem. ∎
Let $X$, $n$ be the position vector and the outward unit normal vector of
$i(\mathbf{S}^{2})$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ respectively, $H_{0}$ be its mean
curvature with respect to $n$, then as a corollary, we have
###### Corollary 3.1.
Let $(\mathbf{S}^{2},g)$ be a two dimensional Riemannian manifold, $K$ be its
Gauss curvature. Then there exist a positive constant $\epsilon_{0}$ which is
independent of $g$ such that if
$\|K-1\|_{C^{1}}\leq\epsilon_{0},$
then
$|X\cdot n-1|\leq C\|K-1\|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})},$
and
$|H_{0}-2|\leq C\|K-1\|_{C^{0}(\mathbf{S}^{2})},$
where $C$ is a constant that independent of $g$.
###### Proof.
By Theorem 3, we see that the statement of the theorem is true for
$i\circ\Psi^{-1}_{1}(\mathbf{S}^{2})$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. It is also true for
the case of $i(\mathbf{S}^{2})$, for the support function $X\cdot n$ and the
mean curvature $H_{0}$ are independent of a parametrization of the domain
manifold. ∎
On the other hand, by Corollary 2.9 and the similar arguments as in Prop 2.1
in [15], we may prove the following
###### Proposition 3.2.
Let $\hat{\lambda}_{i}$ be the principal curvature of $\Sigma$ in $(M\setminus
K,\hat{g})$, If $|\AA|=O(r^{-1-\tau})$, $|\bar{\nabla}\AA|=O(r^{-2-\tau})$,
then there is a number $r_{0}\in\mathbb{R}$ and a vector
$\overrightarrow{a}\in\mathbb{R}^{3}$ such that
$\hat{\lambda}_{i}-r^{-1}_{0}=O(r^{-1-\tau}),$
$|(y-\overrightarrow{a})-r_{0}\hat{n}|=O(r^{1-\tau}).$
Here $y$ is the position vector of $\Sigma$ in $(M\setminus K,\hat{g})$ (which
is regarded as a subdomain of $\mathbb{R}^{3}$), $\hat{n}$ is the outward unit
normal vector of $\Sigma_{r}$.
By the Gauss-Bonnet formula, Lemma 2.4 and the arguments we used before, we
know that there is a constant $C>0$ which is independent of $r$ and $r_{0}$
and with $C^{-1}r\leq r_{0}\leq Cr$.
Now, we are in the position to study the isometric embedding of nearly round
surfaces. Let $(M,g)$ be the AF manifolds and $\Sigma_{r}$ the nearly round
surface in $(M,g)$ as $r$ goes to infinity. Then we have
###### Theorem 4.
Let $\Sigma_{r}\subset(M,g)$ be a nearly round surfaces in $(M,g)$ as $r$ goes
to infinity, and $r_{0}$ defined as in Proposition 3.2. Then there is
isometrically embedding $X_{r}$ of $\Sigma_{r}$ into $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ such
that
(3.12) $X_{r}\cdot n_{0}=r_{0}+O(r_{0}^{1-\tau})$
and
(3.13) $\|H_{0}-\frac{2}{r_{0}}\|_{C^{0}}\leq C_{3}r_{0}^{-1-\tau},$
provided that $r_{0}$ is large enough. Here $n_{0}$ and $H_{0}$ are the unit
outward normal vector and mean curvature of $X_{r}(\Sigma_{r})$ in
$\mathbb{R}^{3}$ respectively. $C_{3}$ is a constant that is independent of
$r$.
###### Proof.
By the assumption on $A$ and $\bar{\nabla}A$, we see that
$K=\frac{1}{r_{0}^{2}}+O(r^{-2-\tau})$
and
$\|\bar{\nabla}K\|_{C^{0}}\leq Cr^{-3-\tau}.$
Then by a rescaling, we see that the resulting surface satisfying the
assumptions of Theorem 3. Then combining Theorem 3 with direct computations we
get the conclusion. ∎
## 4\. Brown-York mass and Hawking mass of nearly round surfaces at infinity
In this section, we prove our main results.
###### Theorem 5.
Let $(M,g)$ be an AF manifold, $\Sigma_{r}$ be a nearly round surface of
$(M,g)$ as $r$ goes to infinity, then
$\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}m_{BY}(\Sigma_{r})=m_{ADM}(M).$
###### Theorem 6.
Let $(M,g)$ be an AF manifold, $\Sigma_{r}$ be a nearly round surface of
$(M,g)$ as $r$ goes to infinity, then
$\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}m_{H}(\Sigma_{r})=m_{ADM}(M).$
###### Proof of Theorem 5.
Let $H_{0}$ be the mean curvature of the isometric embedding image of
$(\Sigma_{r},g)$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Then by Theorem 4, we have
$H_{0}=\frac{2}{r_{0}}+O(r^{-1-\tau}),\quad X_{r}\cdot
n_{0}=r_{0}+O(r^{1-\tau}),\quad K=\frac{1}{r^{2}_{0}}+O(r^{-2-\tau}).$
Then, by the same arguments as that at page 11 in [11], we claim that
$\int_{\Sigma_{r}}H_{0}d\sigma=4\pi r_{0}+\frac{{\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r})}{r_{0}}+O(r^{1-2\tau}).$
In fact, let $K=\frac{1}{r^{2}_{0}}+\bar{K}$, by one of the Minkowski integral
formulae [16, Lemma 6.2.9], we have
(4.1)
$\begin{split}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}H_{0}d\sigma&=2\int_{\Sigma_{r}}KX_{r}\cdot
n_{0}d\sigma\\\
&=2\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\left(\frac{1}{r_{0}^{2}}+\bar{K}\right)X_{r}\cdot
n_{0}d\sigma\\\ &=\frac{2}{r^{2}_{0}}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}X_{r}\cdot
n_{0}d\sigma+2\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\bar{K}X_{r}\cdot n_{0}d\sigma\\\
&=\frac{6V(r)}{r_{0}^{2}}+2\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\bar{K}\left(r_{0}+O\left(r^{1-\tau}\right)\right)d\sigma\\\
&=\frac{6V(r)}{r_{0}^{2}}+2r_{0}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\bar{K}+O(r^{1-2\tau})\\\
&=\frac{6V(r)}{r_{0}^{2}}+2r_{0}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\left(K-\frac{1}{r_{0}^{2}}\right)+O(r^{1-2\tau})\\\
&=\frac{6V(r)}{r_{0}^{2}}+8\pi r_{0}-\frac{2{\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r})}{r_{0}}+O(r^{1-2\tau}),\end{split}$
where $V(r)$ is the volume of the interior of the surface $X_{r}(\Sigma_{r})$
in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Here and in the sequel, ${\rm Area}(\Sigma_{r})$ is the
area of $(\Sigma,g)$. On the other hand, by the above estimate we know that
$H_{0}=\frac{2}{r}+H_{1}$ with $H_{1}=O\left(r^{-1-\tau}\right)$ and by
another Minkowski integral formula we have
(4.2) $\begin{split}2{\rm Area}(\Sigma_{r})&=\int_{\Sigma_{r}}H_{0}X_{r}\cdot
n_{0}d\sigma\\\ &=\frac{6V(r)}{r_{0}}+\int_{\Sigma_{r}}H_{1}X_{r}\cdot
n_{0}d\sigma\\\
&=\frac{6V(r)}{r_{0}}+r\int_{\Sigma_{r}}H_{1}d\sigma+O\left(r^{2-2\tau}\right)\\\
&=\frac{6V(r)}{r_{0}}-2{\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r})+r_{0}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}H_{0}d\sigma+O\left(r^{2-2\tau}\right),\end{split}$
which implies
(4.3) $\int_{\Sigma_{r}}H_{0}d\sigma=-\frac{6V(r)}{r_{0}^{2}}+\frac{4{\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r})}{r_{0}}+O(r^{1-2\tau}).$
The claim follows from (4.1) and (4.3). From the claim and (2.16) we get
(4.4) $\begin{split}&\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(H_{0}-H)d\sigma=4\pi r_{0}+\frac{{\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r})}{r_{0}}-\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\hat{H}d\sigma\\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(g_{ij,i}-g_{ii,j})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}d\sigma_{0}+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{s}\partial x^{t}}d\sigma^{0}+O(r^{1-2\tau}).\end{split}$
By the definition, we see that
$\frac{{\rm Area}(\Sigma_{r})}{r_{0}}=\frac{{\rm
Area}_{0}(\Sigma_{r})}{r_{0}}+\frac{1}{2}r^{-1}_{0}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}h^{st}\sigma_{st}d\sigma_{0}+O(r^{1-2\tau}),$
where ${\rm Area}_{0}(\Sigma_{r})$ is the area of $\Sigma_{r}$ with respect to
induce metric from $\hat{g}$. We also have
$\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\hat{H}d\sigma=\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\hat{H}d\sigma_{0}+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\hat{H}h^{st}\sigma_{st}d\sigma_{0}+O(r^{1-2\tau}).$
By Lemma 2.7 we have
$\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{s}\partial
x^{t}}d\sigma=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{st}\overset{\circ}{\hat{A}}_{st}+\frac{1}{4}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\hat{H}h^{st}\sigma_{st}d\sigma_{0}+O(r^{1-2\tau})$
Combining these things together we get
(4.5) $\begin{split}&\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(H_{0}-H)d\sigma=4\pi r_{0}+\frac{{\rm
Area}_{0}(\Sigma_{r})}{r_{0}}-\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\hat{H}d\sigma_{0}+\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(\frac{1}{2r_{0}}-\frac{\hat{H}}{4})h^{st}\sigma_{st}d\sigma_{0}\\\
&+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(g_{ij,i}-g_{ii,j})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}d\sigma_{0}+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{st}B_{st}d\sigma.\end{split}$
Set $\hat{X}=y-\overrightarrow{a}$. It is an isometric embedding of
$(\Sigma_{r},\hat{g})$ into $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. By Proposition 3.2, we see that
$\hat{X}\cdot\hat{n}=r_{0}+O(r^{1-\tau}),\quad\hat{H}=\frac{2}{r_{0}}+O(r^{-1-\tau}),\quad\hat{K}=\frac{1}{r^{2}_{0}}+O(r^{-2-\tau}),$
where $\hat{K}$ is the Gauss curvature of $\Sigma_{r}$ in $(M\setminus
K,\hat{g})$. Using the same arguments as that at page 11 in [11] to
$(\Sigma,\hat{g})$ we get
$4\pi r_{0}+\frac{{\rm
Area}_{0}(\Sigma_{r})}{r_{0}}-\int_{\Sigma}\hat{H}d\sigma_{0}=O(r^{1-2\tau}).$
By Corollary 2.9 and Proposition 3.2 we see that
$\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(\frac{1}{2r_{0}}-\frac{\hat{H}}{4})h^{st}\sigma_{st}d\sigma_{0}+\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{st}B_{st}d\sigma=O(r^{1-2\tau}).$
Thus we have
$\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(H_{0}-H)d\sigma=\frac{1}{2}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(g_{ij,i}-g_{ii,j})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}d\sigma_{0}+O(r^{1-2\tau}).$
The first term in the right hand side of the above equality is the ADM mass of
$(M,g)$. Thus, we finish to prove Theorem 5.∎
###### Proof of Theorem 6.
By Lemma 2.10 and (2.14) we have
(4.6)
$\begin{split}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}H^{2}d\sigma=&\int_{\Sigma_{r}}{\hat{H}}^{2}d\sigma+\int_{\Sigma_{r}}H\cdot\hat{H}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{j}}\sigma_{ij}d\sigma\\\
&+\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{st,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}d\sigma^{0}-2\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{ij}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{i}\partial x^{j}}d\sigma^{0}\\\
&-2\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}g_{ij,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{j}}d\sigma^{0}+\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}g_{jj,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}d\sigma^{0}+O(r^{-2\tau})\\\
=&\int_{\Sigma_{r}}{\hat{H}}^{2}d\sigma+\int_{\Sigma_{r}}H\cdot\hat{H}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial x^{j}}\sigma_{ij}d\sigma^{0}\\\
&-{\hat{H}}^{2}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{t}}d\sigma^{0}+\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{st,t}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{s}}d\sigma^{0}\\\
&+\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{st}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{s}\partial
x^{t}}d\sigma^{0}-2\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{ij}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{i}\partial x^{j}}d\sigma^{0}\\\
&-2\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}g_{ij,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}d\sigma^{0}+\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}g_{jj,i}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}d\sigma^{0}+O(r^{-2\tau})\\\
=&\int_{\Sigma_{r}}{\hat{H}}^{2}d\sigma+\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(g_{jj,i}-g_{ij,j})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}d\sigma^{0}\\\
&-\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}\sigma_{ij}\frac{\partial^{2}\rho}{\partial
x^{i}\partial x^{j}}d\sigma^{0}+O(r^{-2\tau}).\end{split}$
Note that
(4.7)
$\begin{split}d\sigma&=(1+h^{ij}\sigma_{ij}+O(r^{-2\tau}))^{\frac{1}{2}}d\sigma_{0}=d\sigma^{0}+\frac{1}{2}h^{ij}\sigma_{ij}d\sigma_{0}+O(r^{-2\tau}).\end{split}$
Combining above equalities with Lemma 2.7, we get
$\int_{\Sigma_{r}}H^{2}d\sigma=\int_{\Sigma_{r}}{\hat{H}}^{2}d\sigma_{0}+\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(g_{jj,i}-g_{ij,j})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}d\sigma^{0}+O(r^{-2\tau}).$
Hence,
(4.8) $\begin{split}m_{H}(\Sigma_{r})=&\frac{{\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{(16\pi)}^{\frac{3}{2}}}(16\pi-\int_{\Sigma_{r}}{\hat{H}}^{2}d\sigma_{0})\\\
&-\frac{{\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{(16\pi)}^{\frac{3}{2}}}\cdot\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(g_{jj,i}-g_{ij,j})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}d\sigma^{0}+O(r^{1-2\tau})\\\ =&-2\frac{{\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{(16\pi)^{\frac{3}{2}}}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}|\overset{\circ}{\hat{A}}|^{2}d\sigma^{0}-\frac{{\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{(16\pi)}^{\frac{3}{2}}}\cdot\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(g_{jj,i}-g_{ij,j})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}d\sigma^{0}\\\ &+O(r^{1-2\tau})\\\ =&\frac{{\rm
Area}(\Sigma_{r})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{{(16\pi)}^{\frac{3}{2}}}\cdot\hat{H}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(g_{ij,j}-g_{jj,i})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}d\sigma^{0}+O(r^{1-2\tau}),\end{split}$
where we have used estimate
$|\overset{\circ}{\hat{A}}|\leq Cr^{-1-\tau}$
in the last equality. On the other hand, we have
$K=\frac{1}{r^{2}_{0}}+O(r^{-2-\tau})$
By the Gauss-Bonnet formula, we get
${\rm Area}(\Sigma_{r})=4\pi r^{2}_{0}+O(r^{2-\tau}),$
From Proposition 3.2 we see that
$\hat{H}=\frac{2}{r_{0}}+O(r^{-1-\tau}),$
Combining these formulas we obtain
$m_{H}(\Sigma_{r})=\frac{1}{16\pi}\int_{\Sigma_{r}}(g_{ij,j}-g_{jj,i})\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
x^{i}}d\sigma^{0}+O(r^{1-2\tau}).$
Thus, we finish to prove the Theorem. ∎
## References
* [1] Arnowitt, R., Deser, S. and Misner, C. W., Coordinate invariance and energy expressions in general relativity, Phys. Rev. (2) 122, (1961), 997–1006.
* [2] Bartnik, R., The mass of an asymptotically flat manifold, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 39 (no. 5), (1986), 661–693.
* [3] Baskaran, D., Lau S. R. and Petrov A. N., Center of mass integral in canonical general relativity, Ann. Physics 307 (no. 1), (2003), 90–131.
* [4] Braden, H. W., Brown, J. D., Whiting, B. F. and York, J. W., Charged black hole in a grand canonical ensemble, Phys. Rev. D (3) 42 (no. 10), (1990), 3376–3385.
* [5] Brown, J. D., Lau, S. R. and York, J. W., Canonical quasilocal energy and small spheres, Phys. Rev. D (3) 59 (no. 6), (1999), 064028.
* [6] Brown, J. D. and York, J. W., Quasilocal energy in general relativity, Mathematical aspects of classical field theory (Seattle, WA, 1991), Contemp. Math., 132, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, (1992), 129–142.
* [7] Brown, J. D. and York, J. W., Quasilocal energy and conserved charges derived from the gravitational action, Phys. Rev. D (3) 47 (no. 4), (1993), 1407–1419.
* [8] S.M. Carroll Spacetime and Geometry, Addison Wesley.
* [9] Sun-Yung, A. Chang The Moser-Trudinger inequality and applications to some problems in conformal geometry, preprint.
* [10] D.Christodoulou and S.-T.Yau Some remarks on the quasi-local mass, Mathematics and general relativity (Santa Cruz, CA, 1986)9-14, Contemp.math.71, Amer.Math.Soc., Providence, RI, 1988.
* [11] Xu-Qian Fan, Yuguang Shi, and Luen-Fai Tam, Large-Sphere and small-sphere limits of the Brown-York mass, preprint
* [12] Herglotz, G. Über die Steinersche Formel für Parallelflächen, Abh. Math. Sem. Hansischen Univ. 15 (1943), 165–177.
* [13] Hawking, S. W., Gravitational Radiation in an Expanding Universe, J. Math. Phys. 9, 1968, 598-604.
* [14] Hawking, S. W. and Horowitz, G. T., The gravitational Hamiltonian, action, entropy and surface terms, Classical Quantum Gravity 13 (no. 6), (1996), 1487–1498.
* [15] G.Huisken, S.T. Yau, Definition of center of mass for isolated physical systems and unique foliations by stable spheres of constant mean curvature, Invent. Math. 124(1996)281-311.
* [16] Klingenberg, W., A course in differential geometry, Translated from the German by David Hoffman. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 51, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1978.
* [17] C.De Lellis, S.Muller, Sharp rigidity estimates for nearly umbilical surfaces, J. Differential Geom.69 (2005), 75-110.
* [18] E. A. Martinez, Quasilocal energy for Kerr black hole, Physical Review D, 50 (1994), 4920-4929.
* [19] The Weyl and Minkowski problem in differential geometry in the large, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. VI, 337-394(1953).
* [20] Pogorelov, A. V., Extrinsic geometry of convex surfaces, Translated from the Russian by Israel Program for Scientific Translations. Translations of Mathematical Monographs, Vol. 35, American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1973.
* [21] Qing J and Tian G, On the uniqueness of the foliation of spheres of constant mean curvature in asymptotically flat $3$-maifolds, J. Am. Math.Soc. 20 (2007), 1091-110.
* [22] Sacksteder, R., The rigidity of hypersurfaces, J. Math. Mech. 11 (1962), 929–939.
* [23] Shi, Y.-G. and Tam, L.-F., Positive mass theorem and the boundary behaviors of compact manifolds with nonnegative scalar curvature, J. Differential Geom. 62 (2002), 79–125.
* [24] Ye R, Foliation by constant mean curvature spheres on asymptotically flat manifolds, Geometric analysis and the calculus of variations (Cambridge, MA: International Press), pp 369-83 (1996)(Preprint:dg-ga/9709020)
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-04T02:02:50 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.097404 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Yuguang Shi, Guofang Wang, Jie Wu",
"submitter": "Yuguang Shi",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0678"
} |
0806.0726 | # Discrete phase-space structure of $n$-qubit mutually unbiased bases
A. B. Klimov Departamento de Física, Universidad de Guadalajara, 44420
Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico J. L. Romero Departamento de Física,
Universidad de Guadalajara, 44420 Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico G. Björk
School of Information and Communication Technology, Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), Electrum 229, SE-164 40 Kista, Sweden L. L. Sánchez-Soto
Departamento de Óptica, Facultad de Física, Universidad Complutense, 28040
Madrid, Spain
###### Abstract
We work out the phase-space structure for a system of $n$ qubits. We replace
the field of real numbers that label the axes of the continuous phase space by
the finite field $\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})$ and investigate the geometrical
structures compatible with the notion of unbiasedness. These consist of
bundles of discrete curves intersecting only at the origin and satisfying
certain additional properties. We provide a simple classification of such
curves and study in detail the four- and eight-dimensional cases, analyzing
also the effect of local transformations. In this way, we provide a
comprehensive phase-space approach to the construction of mutually unbiased
bases for $n$ qubits.
###### keywords:
Mutually unbiased bases; discrete phase space; Galois fields
## 1 Introduction
Quantum mechanics describes physical systems through the density operator
$\hat{\varrho}$. For continuous systems, this operator lives in an infinite-
dimensional complex Hilbert space and its relations with the physical
properties of the system are far from obvious. To overcome these conceptual
difficulties, a number of phase-space methods have been devised, which result
in a striking formal similarity with classical mechanics [1].
Textbook examples of this subject are usually presented in terms of continuous
variables, typically position and momentum. However, there are many quantum
systems that can be appropriately described in a finite-dimensional Hilbert
space. These include, among other, spins, multilevel atoms, optical fields
with a fixed number of photons, electrons or molecules with a finite number of
sites, etc. An elegant way of approaching these systems was proposed by Weyl
[2] in his description of quantum kinematics as an Abelian group of ray
rotations. Similar results were also obtained by Schwinger [3, 4, 5], who
showed that a set of unitary operators (defined through cyclic permutations of
state vectors) can be constructed such that they are the generators of a
complete operator basis, in terms of which all possible quantities related to
the physical system can be built.
The structure of the phase space associated to a $d$-dimensional system (a
qudit, in the modern parlance of quantum information) has been addressed by a
number of authors. A possible approach was taken by Hannay and Berry [6],
considering a grid constrained to admit only periodic probability
distributions, which implies that it is effectively a $2d\times
2d$-dimensional torus. The same strategy was adopted by Leonhardt [7, 8] and
used to deal with different aspects of quantum information [9, 10, 11]. This
method offers a way for treating even-dimensional systems, since the grid has
both integer and half-odd coordinates.
However, the mainstream of research has focused on a phase space pictured as a
$d\times d$ lattice. This line was started by Buot [12], who introduced a
discrete Weyl transform that generates a Wigner function on the toroidal
lattice $\mathbb{Z}_{d}$ (with $d$ odd). More recently, these ideas have been
developed further by other authors [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23, 24]. In particular, when the dimension is a power of a prime, one can
label the points in the $d\times d$ grid with elements of the finite Galois
field $\mathrm{GF}(d)$. At first sight, the use of elements of
$\mathrm{GF}(d)$ as coordinates could be seen as an unnecessary complication,
but it turns out to be an essential step: only by doing this we can endow the
phase space with similar geometrical properties as the ordinary plane. Note
also that though the restriction to powers of primes rules out many quantum
systems, this formulation is ideally suited for the outstanding case of $n$
qubits we deal in this paper.
In these finite descriptions, the Wigner function, being the Weyl
representative of the density operator, naturally emerges as a function that
takes values only at the points defining the discrete mesh of the phase space
(while preserving some properties that make it a special object in quantum
mechanics). A remarkable feature is that one can sum the Wigner function along
different axes (including skew ones) to obtain correct probability
distributions for observables associated with those axes. Although the axis
observables cannot be complementary in the usual sense (their commutator
cannot be proportional to the identity operator), they will have a closely
related property: every eigenstate of either one of them is a state of maximum
uncertainty with respect to the other.
This makes a deep connection with the notion of mutually unbiased bases (MUBs)
[25, 26], which were introduced as a central tool for quantum state
reconstruction [27]. They also play a relevant role in a proper understanding
of complementarity [28, 29, 30, 31], in cryptographic protocols [32, 33], and
in quantum error correction codes [34, 35]. Recently, they have also found
uses in quantum game theory, in particular to provide a convenient tool for
solving the so-called mean king problem [36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43].
It has been shown [44] that the maximum number of MUBs can be at most $d+1$.
Actually, it is known that if $d$ is prime or power of a prime the maximal
number of MUBs can be achieved [45]. Different explicit constructions of MUBs
in prime power dimensions have been suggested in a number of recent papers
[46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53]. Remarkably though, there is no known answer
for any other values of $d$, although there are some attempts to find a
solution in some simple cases, such as $d=6$ or when $d$ is a nonprime integer
squared [54, 55, 56, 57]. Recent work has suggested that the answer to this
question may well be related with the nonexistence of finite projective planes
of certain orders [58, 59] or with the problem of mutually orthogonal Latin
squares in combinatorics [60, 61].
The construction of MUBs is closely related to the possibility of finding
$d+1$ disjoint classes, each one having $d-1$ commuting operators [which
proves useful to arrange in a table with $(d-1)\times(d+1)$ entries], so the
corresponding eigenstates form sets of MUBs [62]. Nevertheless, these MUB
operators can be organized in several different nontrivial tables, leading to
different factorization properties of the MUB [63]. It has been recently
noticed [64] that such arrangements are related with special types of curves.
We have previously analyzed [65] those curves in the four-dimensional case
(corresponding to two qubits) and have shown that they can be obtained through
local transformations from rays (straight lines passing though the origin), so
that the six possible $3\times 5$ tables of operators lead to the same (and
unique) factorization of the MUBs.
In the present paper we go further and analyze the general situation of $n$
qubits. In particular, we classify the admissible curves in specific bundles
and show how the properties of these curves can be used to determine
nontrivial sets of MUBs.
## 2 Mutually unbiased bases and discrete phase space
### 2.1 Constructing mutually unbiased bases in prime dimensions
We start by considering a system living in a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}_{d}$,
whose dimension $d$ is assumed for now to be a prime number $p$. The different
outcomes of a maximal test constitute an orthogonal basis of $\mathcal{H}_{d}$
[66]. One can also look for orthogonal bases that, in addition, are “as
different as possible”. This is the idea behind MUBs and can be formally
stated as follows: two bases $\\{|u_{i}\rangle\\}$ and $\\{|v_{j}\rangle\\}$
are mutually unbiased when
$|\langle u_{i}|v_{j}\rangle|^{2}=\frac{1}{d}\,.$ (2.1)
Unbiasedness also applies to measurements: two nondegenerate tests are
mutually unbiased if the bases formed by their eigenstates are MUBs.
Therefore, the measurements of the components of a spin 1/2 along $x$, $y$,
and $z$ axes are all unbiased. It is also obvious that for these finite
quantum systems unbiasedness is tantamount of complementarity.
It is useful to choose a computational basis $|n\rangle$ ($n=0,\ldots,d-1$) in
$\mathcal{H}_{d}$ and introduce the basic operators
$X|n\rangle=|n+1\rangle\,,\qquad\qquad Z|n\rangle=\omega^{n}|n\rangle,$ (2.2)
where $\omega=\exp(2\pi i/d)$ is a $d$th root of the unity and addition and
multiplication must be understood modulo $d$. These operators $X$ and $Z$,
which are generalizations of the Pauli matrices, were studied long ago by Weyl
[2] and have been used recently by many authors in a variety of applications
[67, 68]. They generate a group under multiplication known as the generalized
Pauli group and obey
$ZX=\omega\,XZ,$ (2.3)
which is the finite-dimensional version of the Weyl form of the commutation
relations.
As anticipated in the Introduction, one can construct MUBs by finding $d+1$
disjoint classes (each one having $d-1$ commuting operators), such that the
corresponding eigenstates form sets of MUBs. We follow the explicit
construction in reference [52], which starts with the following sets of
operators:
$\\{X^{k}\\},\quad\\{Z^{k}X^{mk}\\},$ (2.4)
with $k=1,\ldots,d-1$ and $m=0,\ldots,d-1$. One can easily check that
$\displaystyle\mathop{\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits(X^{k}X^{k^{\prime}}{}^{\dagger})=d\,\delta_{k,k^{\prime}},\qquad\mathop{\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits(Z^{k}Z^{k^{\prime}}{}^{\dagger})=d\,\delta_{k,k^{\prime}},$
(2.5)
$\displaystyle\mathop{\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits[(Z^{k}X^{mk})(Z^{k^{\prime}}X^{m^{\prime}k^{\prime}})^{\dagger}]=d\,\delta_{k,k^{\prime}}\delta_{m,m^{\prime}}.$
These pairwise orthogonality relations indicate that, for every value of $m$,
we generate a maximal set of $d-1$ commuting operators and that all these
classes are disjoint. In addition, the common eigenstates of each class $m$
form different sets of MUBs.
### 2.2 Mutually unbiased bases for $n$ qubits
When the space dimension $d=p^{n}$ is a power of a prime it is natural to view
the system as composed of $n$ constituents (particles), each of dimension $p$.
We adapt the previous construction to this case, although with an eye on the
particular case of $n$ qubits (in the Appendix we summarize the basic notions
of finite fields needed for our purposes in this paper).
The main idea consists in labeling the states with elements of the finite
field $\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})$, instead of natural numbers. We denote by
$|\alpha\rangle$, with $\alpha\in\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})$, an orthonormal basis in
the Hilbert space of the system. Operationally, the elements of the basis can
be labeled by powers of a primitive element, and the basis reads
$\\{|0\rangle,\,|\sigma\rangle,\ldots,\,|\sigma^{2^{n}-1}=1\rangle\\}.$ (2.6)
These vectors are eigenvectors of the operators $Z_{\beta}$ belonging to the
generalized Pauli group, whose generators are now defined as
$Z_{\beta}=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})}\chi(\alpha\beta)\,|\alpha\rangle\langle\alpha|,\qquad\qquad
X_{\beta}=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})}|\alpha+\beta\rangle\langle\alpha|,\\\
$ (2.7)
so that
$Z_{\alpha}X_{\beta}=\chi(\alpha\beta)\,X_{\beta}Z_{\alpha},$ (2.8)
where $\chi$ is an additive character defined in (A.5).
The operators (2.7) can be factorized into tensor products of powers of
single-particle Pauli operators $\sigma_{z}$ and $\sigma_{x}$, whose
expression in the standard basis of the two-dimensional Hilbert space is
$\sigma_{z}=|1\rangle\langle 1|-|0\rangle\langle
0|,\qquad\qquad\sigma_{x}=|0\rangle\langle 1|+|1\rangle\langle 0|.$ (2.9)
This factorization can be carried out by mapping each element of
$\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})$ onto an ordered set of natural numbers as in equation
(A.7). A convenient choice for this is the selfdual basis, since the finite
Fourier transform factorizes then into a product of single-particle Fourier
operators, which leads to
$Z_{\alpha}=\sigma_{z}^{a_{1}}\otimes\ldots\otimes\sigma_{z}^{a_{n}},\qquad\qquad
X_{\beta}=\sigma_{x}^{b_{1}}\otimes\ldots\otimes\sigma_{x}^{b_{n}}$ (2.10)
where $(a_{1},\ldots,a_{n})$ and $(b_{1},\ldots,b_{n})$ are the corresponding
coefficients.
The simplest geometrical structures in the discrete phase space are straight
lines, i.e., collections of points
$(\alpha,\beta)\in\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})\times\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})$ satisfying the
relation
$\zeta\alpha+\eta\beta=\vartheta,$ (2.11)
where $\zeta,\eta$ and $\vartheta$ are fixed elements of $\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})$.
Two lines
$\zeta\alpha+\eta\beta=\vartheta,\qquad\qquad\zeta^{\prime}\alpha+\eta^{\prime}\beta=\vartheta^{\prime},$
(2.12)
are parallel if they have no common points, which implies that
$\eta\zeta^{\prime}=\zeta\eta^{\prime}$. If the lines (2.12) are not parallel
they cross each other. A ray is a line passing through the origin, so its
equation is
$\alpha=0,\qquad\mathrm{or}\qquad\beta=\lambda\alpha,$ (2.13)
or, in parametric form,
$\alpha(\kappa)=\mu\kappa,\qquad\qquad\beta(\kappa)=\nu\kappa,$ (2.14)
where $\kappa$ is the parameter running through the field. The rays are the
simplest nonsingular (i.e., with no selfintersection) additive structures in
phase space, in the sense that
$\displaystyle\alpha(\kappa+\kappa^{\prime})=\alpha(\kappa)+\alpha(\kappa^{\prime}),\qquad\qquad\beta(\kappa+\kappa^{\prime})=\beta(\kappa)+\beta(\kappa^{\prime}).$
(2.15)
This means that by summing the coordinates of the origin and of any point in a
ray we obtain another point on the same ray. In particular, this opens the
possibility of introducing operators that generate “translations” along these
rays [22].
The rays have a very remarkable property: the monomials $Z_{\alpha}X_{\beta}$
(labeled by phase-space points) belonging to the same ray commute
$Z_{\alpha_{1}}X_{\beta_{1}=\lambda\alpha_{1}}\,Z_{\alpha_{2}}X_{\beta_{2}=\lambda\alpha_{2}}=Z_{\alpha_{2}}X_{\beta_{2}=\lambda\alpha_{2}}\,Z_{\alpha_{1}}X_{\beta_{1}=\lambda\alpha_{1}},$
(2.16)
and thus, have a common system of eigenvectors
$\\{|\psi_{\upsilon,\lambda}\rangle\\}$, with
$\lambda,\upsilon\in\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})$:
$Z_{\alpha}X_{\lambda\alpha}|\psi_{\upsilon,\lambda}\rangle=\exp(i\xi_{\upsilon,\lambda})|\psi_{\upsilon,\lambda}\rangle,$
(2.17)
where $\lambda$ is fixed and $\exp(i\xi_{\upsilon,\lambda})$ is the
corresponding eigenvalue, so $|\psi_{\upsilon,0}\rangle=|\upsilon\rangle$ are
eigenstates of $Z_{\alpha}$ (displacement operators labeled by the ray
$\beta=0$, which we take as the horizontal axis). Indeed, we have that
$|\langle\psi_{\upsilon,\lambda}|\psi_{\upsilon^{\prime},\lambda^{\prime}}\rangle|^{2}=\delta_{\lambda,\lambda^{\prime}}\delta_{\upsilon,\upsilon^{\prime}}+\frac{1}{d}(1-\delta_{\lambda,\lambda^{\prime}}),$
(2.18)
and, in consequence, they are MUBs [27]. Since each ray defines a set of
$2^{n}-1$ commuting operators, if we introduce $2^{n}+1$ sets of commuting
operators (which from now on will be called displacement operators) as
$\\{X_{\beta}\\},\quad\\{Z_{\alpha}X_{\beta=\lambda\alpha}\\}\,,$ (2.19)
then we have a whole bundle of $2^{n}+1$ rays (which is obtained by varying
the “slope” $\lambda$) that allows us to construct a complete set of MUB
operators arranged in a $(2^{n}-1)\times(2^{n}+1)$ table.
We wish to emphasize that in our approach we do not assign a quantum state to
each line in phase space (as in reference [22]), but rather we use them to
label Pauli displacement operators.
## 3 Curves in discrete phase space
### 3.1 Additive curves and the commutativity condition
The rays are not the only additive structures that exist in the discrete phase
space. One can check that the parametric curves (passing through the origin)
$\alpha(\kappa)=\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\alpha_{m}\,\kappa^{2^{m}},\qquad\qquad\beta(\kappa)=\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\beta_{m}\,\kappa^{2^{m}},$
(3.1)
satisfy the condition (2.15) too. If we also require the displacement
operators labeled with the points of (3.1) to commute with each other, we must
impose
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\alpha\beta^{\prime})=\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\alpha^{\prime}\beta),$
(3.2)
where $\alpha^{\prime}=\alpha(\kappa^{\prime})$ and
$\beta^{\prime}=\beta(\kappa^{\prime})$. Then, the coefficients $\alpha_{m}$
and $\beta_{m}$ fulfill the following restrictions (the indices must be
understood modulus $n$)
$\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\alpha_{n-m}^{2^{m}}\,\beta_{n-m+q}^{2^{m}}=\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\beta_{n-m}^{2^{m}}\,\alpha_{n-m+q}^{2^{m}},\qquad
q=1,\ldots,n-1.$ (3.3)
This can be rewritten in an invariant form by summing up all Frobenius
automorphisms of (3.3):
$\sum_{m\neq k}\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\alpha_{m}\beta_{k})=0.$ (3.4)
Whenever the condition (3.4) holds true, we can associate to each curve (3.1),
with given coefficients $\vec{\alpha}=(\alpha_{0},\ldots,\alpha_{n-1})$ and
$\vec{\beta}=(\beta_{0},\ldots,\beta_{n-1})$, a state
$|\psi_{\vec{\alpha},\vec{\beta}}\rangle$.
The curves fulfilling equation (3.4) will be called additive commutative
curves. When such a curve contains $2^{n}-1$ different points (apart from the
origin), the monomials $Z_{\alpha}X_{\beta}$ form also a set of commuting
operators (as happened for the rays).
In fact, consider a subset $Z_{\alpha(\kappa)}X_{\beta(\kappa)}$, such that
$[Z_{\alpha(\kappa)}X_{\beta(\kappa)},Z_{\alpha(\kappa^{\prime})}X_{\beta(\kappa^{\prime})}]=0,\qquad\qquad\mathop{\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits(Z_{\alpha(\kappa)}X_{\beta(\kappa)}Z_{\alpha(\kappa^{\prime})}^{\dagger}X_{\beta(\kappa^{\prime})}^{\dagger})=0,$
(3.5)
for any $\kappa,\kappa^{\prime}\in\mathrm{GF}(p^{n})$, i.e. a disjoint set of
$d$ mutually commuting monomials, including
$Z_{\alpha(0)}X_{\beta(0)}=\leavevmode\hbox{\small
1\normalsize\kern-3.30002pt1}$. Then, the eigenstates of any two disjoint sets
of these mutually commuting monomials form MUBs.
To prove this important result, we first note that any set of commuting
monomials can be obtained by applying Clifford operations $U_{\lambda}$ to the
simplest set $\\{Z_{\kappa}\\}$:
$U_{\lambda}Z_{\kappa}U_{\lambda}^{\dagger}=\phi(\lambda,\kappa)\,D_{\lambda,\kappa},$
(3.6)
where $\phi(\lambda,\kappa)$ is an unessential phase factor
[$\phi(\lambda,0)=\phi(0,\kappa)=1$] and
$D_{\lambda,\kappa}=Z_{\alpha(\lambda,\kappa)}X_{\beta(\lambda,\kappa)}$
fulfill
$[D_{\lambda,\kappa},D_{\lambda,\kappa^{\prime}}]=0,\qquad\qquad\mathop{\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits(D_{\lambda,\kappa}D_{\lambda,\kappa^{\prime}}^{\dagger})=d\,\delta_{\kappa,\kappa^{\prime}},$
(3.7)
since the transformations $U_{\lambda}$ are nondegenerate. For two disjoint
set of commuting monomials $\\{D_{\lambda,\kappa}\\}$ and
$\\{D_{\lambda^{\prime},\kappa^{\prime}}\\}$ we have then
$\mathop{\mathrm{Tr}}\nolimits(D_{\lambda,\kappa}D_{\lambda^{\prime},\kappa^{\prime}}^{\dagger})=\left\\{\begin{array}[]{cc}d\,\delta_{\kappa,\kappa^{\prime}},&\quad\lambda=\lambda^{\prime},\\\
d\,\delta_{\kappa,0}\delta_{\kappa^{\prime},0},&\quad\lambda\neq\lambda^{\prime}\end{array}\right..$
(3.8)
Let $\\{|\upsilon\rangle\\}$ be the basis of eigenstates of $Z_{\kappa}$. It
is worth noting the following expansion
$|\upsilon\rangle\langle\upsilon|=\frac{1}{d}\sum_{\kappa}\chi(-\upsilon\kappa)Z_{\kappa}=\frac{1}{d}\sum_{\kappa}\chi(\upsilon\kappa)Z_{\kappa}^{\dagger}.$
(3.9)
Now, if we define the states
$|\psi_{\upsilon,\lambda}\rangle=U_{\lambda}|\upsilon\rangle$ and
$|\psi_{\upsilon^{\prime},\lambda^{\prime}}\rangle=U_{\lambda^{\prime}}|\upsilon^{\prime}\rangle$,
where $U_{\lambda}$ is as in equation (3.6), then a direct calculation using
(3.9) shows that (2.18) holds true for them and so they are indeed MUBs, as
announced.
Finding sets of MUBs can be thus reduced to the problem of arranging additive
curves in $2^{n}+1$ bundles of mutually nonintersecting curves.
Due to the condition (2.15), points of a curve form a finitely generated
Abelian group, which allows us to determine all the curve from any $n$ points
and, in particular, from the “first” $n$ consecutive points. For instance,
taking the parameter $\kappa$ polynomially ordered (that is,
$\kappa=\sigma,\sigma^{2},\ldots,\sigma^{2^{n}-1}$), we have that
$\alpha(\sigma^{k})+\alpha(\sigma^{k+1})=\alpha(\sigma^{k}+\sigma^{k+1})=\alpha[\sigma^{k}(1+\sigma)]=\alpha[\sigma^{k+L(1)}],$
where $L(\lambda)$ is the Jacobi logarithm [69]. Given a primitive polynomial,
sometimes is possible to evaluate $L(1)$ in a simple form.
For $\mathrm{GF}(2^{2})$ the only irreducible polynomial is $x^{2}+x+1=0$, and
this immediately leads to $L(1)=L(\sigma^{3})=2$, in such a way that
$\alpha(\sigma^{k})+\alpha(\sigma^{k+1})=\alpha(\sigma^{k+2})$ and two points
are enough to determine any additive curve. In the case of
$\mathrm{GF}(2^{3})$, if we use the irreducible polynomial $x^{3}+x+1=0$, we
obtain that $L(1)=L(\sigma^{7})=3$, so that
$\alpha(\sigma^{k})+\alpha(\sigma^{k+1})=\alpha(\sigma^{k+3})$ and we need
three points to generate the curve.
### 3.2 Nonsingularity condition
To classify all the additive commutative curves, we first discuss the
condition of nonsingularity (i.e., nonselfintersection), which means that
there are no $\kappa^{\prime}\neq\kappa$ such that
$\alpha(\kappa)=\alpha(\kappa^{\prime}),\qquad\qquad\beta(\kappa)=\beta(\kappa^{\prime}).$
(3.10)
If one of these equations would be fulfilled, then
$\mathfrak{S}^{m}[\varepsilon(\kappa)]=0$ (with $\varepsilon=\alpha$ or
$\beta$) for $m=0,\ldots,n-1$.
Let us introduce the following matrix that will play a relevant role in our
subsequent analysis:
$\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\varepsilon}}=\left(\begin{array}[]{cccc}\varepsilon_{0}&\varepsilon_{1}&\varepsilon_{2}&\ldots\\\
\varepsilon_{n-1}^{2}&\varepsilon_{0}^{2}&\varepsilon_{1}^{2}&\ldots\\\
\varepsilon_{n-2}^{4}&\varepsilon_{n-1}^{4}&\varepsilon_{0}^{4}&\ldots\\\
\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots\end{array}\right),$ (3.11)
where the rows are determined by the coefficients in (3.1) and the
corresponding expansions of $\mathfrak{S}^{m}[\varepsilon(\kappa)]$ (with
$\varepsilon=\alpha,\beta$ in our case). If $\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}$
and/or $\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}$ do not vanish simultaneously, the curve
(3.1) has no selfintersection.
The condition
$\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}=\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}=0,$ (3.12)
indicates that the ranks of the matrices $\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}$ and
$\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}$ are smaller than the dimension of the system, but
it does not guarantee that there exist $\kappa^{\prime}\neq\kappa$ satisfying
(3.10), because the solutions of $\alpha(\kappa)=\alpha(\kappa^{\prime})$ and
$\beta(\kappa^{\prime\prime})=\beta(\kappa^{\prime\prime\prime})$ can form
disjoint sets. Consequently, (3.12) is necessary but not sufficient to
determine if a curve is singular. Another necessary but not sufficient
condition of singularity is
$\det(\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}+\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}})=0$.
A curve that fulfills $\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}\neq 0$ and/or
$\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}\neq 0$ will be called a regular curve. For such
curves the coordinate $\alpha$ (when $\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}\neq 0$) or
$\beta$ (when $\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}\neq 0$) take all the values in the
field.
Nonsingular curves satisfying (3.12) will be called exceptional curves. The
conditions (3.12) mean that $\mathfrak{S}^{m}(\alpha)$ and
$\mathfrak{S}^{m}(\beta)$ are not linearly independent (for $m=0,\ldots,n-1$),
so neither $\alpha$ or $\beta$ run through the whole field (in other words,
the values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are degenerate). The number of linearly
independent powers of $\alpha$ (respectively $\beta$) is equal to the rank of
the matrix $\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}$ (respectively
$\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}$) and the quantities
$n-\mathop{\mathrm{rank}}\nolimits\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}$ (respectively
$n-\mathop{\mathrm{rank}}\nolimits\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}$) determine the
degree of degeneration of every allowed value of $\alpha$ (respectively
$\beta$).
It is interesting to note that the determinant of the matrix (3.11) takes only
the values zero and one; i.e.,
$\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\varepsilon}}\in\mathbb{Z}_{2}$, which can be easily
seen by observing that
$(\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\varepsilon}})^{2}=\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\varepsilon}}$.
## 4 Regular curves
### 4.1 Explicit forms
Given a regular curve, we can invert one of the relations (3.1) and, by
substituting into the other one, we find an explicit equation of the curve.
When $\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}\neq 0$ and
$\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}\neq 0$, the coordinates $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are
nondegenerate and the curve can be written either as
$\beta=\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\phi_{m}\,\alpha^{2^{m}};$ (4.1)
or
$\alpha=\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\psi_{m}\,\beta^{2^{m}}.$ (4.2)
However, when $\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}\neq 0$ but
$\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}=0$, the coordinate $\beta$ is degenerate and the
curve cannot be expressed in the form (4.2). We will refer to the
corresponding curve as $\alpha$-curve. Similarly, if
$\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}\neq 0$ but $\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}=0$,
the coordinate $\alpha$ is degenerate and the curve cannot be expressed in the
form (4.1): we will call it a $\beta$-curve.
### 4.2 Commutativity conditions
The commutativity condition (3.4) can be further simplified for regular
curves. When $\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}\neq 0$ (or
$\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}\neq 0)$ we obtain, by direct substitution of the
explicit forms (4.1) or (4.2) into (3.2), the following restrictions on the
coefficients $\phi_{m}$ (or $\psi_{m})$
$\phi_{j}=\phi_{n-j}^{2^{j}},\qquad\qquad\psi_{j}=\psi_{n-j}^{2^{j}},\qquad
j=1,\ldots,[(n-1)/2],$ (4.3)
where $[\ ]$ denotes the integer part. For even values of $n$, the additional
requirements $\phi_{n/2}=\phi_{n/2}^{2^{n/2}}$
($\psi_{n/2}=\psi_{n/2}^{2^{n/2}}$) should be fulfilled, which basically
implies that $\phi_{n/2}$ ($\psi_{n/2}$) belong to the subfield
$\mathrm{GF}(2^{n/2})$.
Because the regular curves are nonsingular per definition, we do not have to
carry out the whole analysis involving the parametric forms of curves and the
properties of the corresponding $\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}$ and
$\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}$, but just to write down explicit expressions using
directly (4.3).
Two regular curves defined explicitly as $\beta=f(\alpha,\vec{\phi})$ and
$\beta=f(\alpha,\vec{\phi}^{\prime})$, with
$\vec{\phi}=(\phi_{0},\ldots,\phi_{n-1})$ [or $\alpha=g(\beta,\vec{\psi})$ and
$\alpha=g(\beta,\vec{\psi}^{\prime})$, with
$\vec{\psi}=(\psi_{0},\ldots,\psi_{n-1})$] are not mutually intersecting
(except at the origin), if
$\det(\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\phi}}+\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\phi}^{\prime}})\neq
0,\qquad\qquad\det(\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\psi}}+\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\psi}^{\prime}})\neq
0,$ (4.4)
for $\alpha$\- and $\beta$-curves, respectively, and the matrices $\mathsf{W}$
have been defined in (3.11).
An $\alpha$-curve $\beta=f(\alpha,\vec{\phi})$ intersects with a $\beta$-curve
$\alpha=g(\beta,\vec{\psi})$ when the polynomial
$\beta=f[g(\beta,\vec{\psi}),\vec{\phi}]$ (or
$\alpha=g[f(\alpha,\vec{\phi}),\vec{\psi}]$) has at least one nonzero root.
It follows from (4.4) that the regular curves
$\beta=\phi_{0}\alpha+\sum_{m=1}^{n-1}\phi_{m}\alpha^{2^{m}},$ (4.5)
where $\phi_{m}$ ($m=1,\ldots,n-1$) are fixed and fulfill (4.3), and
$\phi_{0}$ runs through the whole field, belong to a bundle of nonintersecting
curves, since the matrices
$\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\phi}}+\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\phi}^{\prime}}$ take now the
diagonal form
$\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\phi}}+\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\phi}^{\prime}}=\mathop{\mathrm{diag}}\nolimits\left[\phi_{0}+\phi_{0}^{\prime},(\phi_{0}+\phi_{0}^{\prime})^{2},\ldots,(\phi_{0}+\phi_{0}^{\prime})^{2^{n-1}}\right],$
(4.6)
so that
$\det(\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\phi}}+\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\phi}^{\prime}})=(\phi_{0}+\phi_{0}^{\prime})^{2^{n}-1},$
(4.7)
and thus, $\det(\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\phi}}+\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\phi}^{\prime}})=1$
if $\phi_{0}\neq\phi_{0}^{\prime}$. To complete the bundle to $n+1$ curves we
add the ray $\alpha=0$, which obviously has no common points with (4.5).
Similarly, the curves
$\alpha=\psi_{0}\beta+\sum_{m=1}^{n-1}\psi_{m}\,\beta^{2^{m}}$ (4.8)
form bundles of nonintersecting curves, except that now we have to add the ray
$\beta=0$ to complete the bundle.
### 4.3 Examples
#### 4.3.1 Regular curve
Let us consider the following parametric curve in $\mathrm{GF}(2^{3})$
$\displaystyle\alpha=\sigma^{2}\kappa+\kappa^{2}+\sigma^{4}\kappa^{4},\qquad\qquad\beta=\sigma^{3}\kappa+\sigma^{6}\kappa^{2}+\sigma^{6}\kappa^{4},$
(4.9)
where $\sigma$ is the primitive element. The associated matrices are
$\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}=\left(\begin{array}[]{ccc}\sigma^{2}&1&\sigma^{4}\\\
\sigma&\sigma^{4}&1\\\
1&\sigma^{2}&\sigma\end{array}\right),\qquad\qquad\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}=\left(\begin{array}[]{ccc}\sigma^{3}&\sigma^{6}&\sigma^{6}\\\
\sigma^{5}&\sigma^{6}&\sigma^{5}\\\
\sigma^{3}&\sigma^{3}&\sigma^{5}\end{array}\right).$ (4.10)
One can check that
$\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}=\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}=1$, and the
explicit forms of the curve are
$\beta=\sigma^{6}\alpha+\sigma^{3}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{5}\alpha^{4},\quad\mathrm{or}\quad\alpha=\sigma^{6}\beta+\sigma^{3}\beta^{2}+\sigma^{5}\beta^{4},$
(4.11)
whose coefficients satisfy the condition (4.3). The set of commuting operators
corresponding to this curve is
$\\{Z_{\sigma^{6}}X_{\sigma^{5}},\,Z_{\sigma^{5}}X_{\sigma^{6}},\,Z_{\sigma^{4}}X_{\sigma^{2}},\,Z_{\sigma}X_{\sigma},\,Z_{\sigma^{7}}X_{\sigma^{7}},Z_{\sigma^{2}}X_{\sigma^{4}},\,Z_{\sigma^{3}}X_{\sigma^{3}}\\}.$
(4.12)
The curve belongs to a bundle of nonintersecting curves defined, for instance,
by $\beta=\phi_{0}\alpha+\sigma^{3}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{5}\alpha^{4}$.
#### 4.3.2 $\alpha$-curve
To the parametric curve
$\alpha=\sigma^{2}\kappa^{4},\qquad\qquad\beta=\sigma^{2}\kappa+\kappa^{2}+\sigma\kappa^{4},$
(4.13)
it corresponds the matrices
$\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}=\left(\begin{array}[]{ccc}0&0&\sigma^{2}\\\
\sigma^{4}&0&0\\\
0&\sigma&0\end{array}\right),\qquad\qquad\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}=\left(\begin{array}[]{ccc}\sigma^{2}&1&\sigma\\\
\sigma^{2}&\sigma^{4}&1\\\ 1&\sigma^{4}&\sigma\end{array}\right).$ (4.14)
Now we have $\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}=1$ and
$\det\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}=0$, which leads to the following explicit form
of the $\alpha$-curve
$\beta=\sigma^{6}\alpha+\sigma^{5}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{6}\alpha^{4},$ (4.15)
whose coefficients satisfy again the condition (4.3). The corresponding
$\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\phi}}$ matrix is degenerate in this case. The set of
commuting operators is
$\\{Z_{\sigma^{6}},\,Z_{\sigma^{3}}X_{\sigma^{2}},\,Z_{\sigma^{7}}X_{\sigma^{5}},\,Z_{\sigma^{4}}X_{\sigma^{2}},\,Z_{\sigma}X_{\sigma^{3}},\,Z_{\sigma^{5}}X_{\sigma^{3}},\,Z_{\sigma^{2}}X_{\sigma^{5}}\\},$
(4.16)
and the curve belongs to the bundle
$\beta=\psi_{0}\alpha+\sigma^{5}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{6}\alpha^{4}$.
## 5 Exceptional curves
The analysis of exceptional curves is considerably more involved. As we have
stressed above, the points on the curve do not take all the values in the
field and their admissible values are fixed by the structural equations
$\sum_{m=0}^{r_{\alpha}}\upsilon_{m}\,\alpha^{2^{m}}=0,\qquad\qquad\sum_{m=0}^{r_{\beta}}\tau_{m}\,\beta^{2^{m}}=0,$
(5.1)
where $r_{\alpha}=\mathop{\mathrm{rank}}\nolimits\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}\leq
n-1$ and
$r_{\beta}=\mathop{\mathrm{rank}}\nolimits\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}\leq n-1$,
which are a consequence of the linear dependence of $\alpha^{2^{m}}$ and
$\beta^{2^{m}}$. The coordinates $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of an exceptional curve
are $\deg\alpha=2^{n-r_{\alpha}}$ and $\deg\beta=2^{n-r_{\beta}}$ times
degenerate, respectively. In other words, if $(\alpha_{j},\beta_{j})$ is a
point of an exceptional curve, for each $\alpha_{j}$ there are
$2^{n-r_{\beta}}$ values of $\beta$, such that the points
$(\alpha_{j},\beta_{k})$ ($k=1,\ldots,2^{n-r_{\beta}}$) belong to the same
curve and, conversely, for each $\beta_{j}$ there are $2^{n-r_{\alpha}}$
values of $\alpha$, such that the points $(\alpha_{k},\beta_{j})$ also belong
to the same curve.
Due to the nonsingularity condition, there are $2^{n}$ different pairs of
points $(\alpha,\beta)$ belonging to the curve, so the condition
$r_{\alpha}+r_{\beta}\geq n$ is satisfied. For instance, for
$\mathrm{GF}(2^{2})$ the only possibility is $r_{\alpha}=r_{\beta}=1$, and the
only type of degeneration is $\deg\alpha=\deg\beta=2$. For
$\mathrm{GF}(2^{3})$ there are three possibilities: $r_{\alpha}=r_{\beta}=2$
($\deg\alpha=\deg\beta=2$), $r_{\alpha}=1,r_{\beta}=2$ ($\deg\alpha=4$,
$\deg\beta=2$), and $r_{\alpha}=2,r_{\beta}=1$ ($\deg\alpha=2$,
$\deg\beta=4$).
When a curve equation can be found [i.e., a relation of the type
$F(\alpha)=G(\beta)$, where $F(\alpha)$ and $G(\beta)$ are polynomials of
degrees $2^{(r_{\alpha}-1)}$ and $2^{(r_{\beta}-1)}$], it establishes a direct
correspondence between the roots of (5.1). To define uniquely the curve, the
equation $F(\alpha)=G(\beta)$ should be supplemented with the structural
equations. Nevertheless, such a relation exists only when the conditions
$r_{\alpha,\beta}\geq(n+1)/2$ hold.
There are two ways of approaching the classification of exceptional curves.
The first is a direct analysis of the parametric form (3.1) [whose
coefficients satisfy the commutativity relation (3.4) and the corresponding
determinants vanish]. We have to determine the rank of the matrices
$\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\alpha}}$ and $\mathsf{W}_{\vec{\beta}}$, find the
structural relations (5.1), and check the nonsingularity condition. The main
difficulty with this approach is the complicated form of (3.4), which is
related to that fact that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the
parametric form of a curve and points in the discrete phase space, in the
sense that the same curve can be defined by several different parametric
equations.
We shall take an alternative route and construct all the possible exceptional
curves by imposing ab initio the nonsingularity and commutativity conditions.
An important ingredient in this construction is the existence of a priori
information about the degree of degeneration in the $\alpha$ and $\beta$
directions. We shall outline the main idea and study in detail only the eight-
dimensional case.
### 5.1 Constructing exceptional curves
Let us consider a nonsingular curve with degenerations $2^{n-r_{\alpha}}$ and
$2^{n-r_{\beta}}$ along the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ axes, respectively. The
structural equations (5.1) can be represented as
$\alpha\,\prod_{j=1}^{2^{r_{\alpha}}-1}(\alpha+\alpha_{j})=0,\qquad\qquad\beta\,\prod_{j=1}^{2^{r_{\beta}}-1}(\beta+\beta_{j})=0,$
(5.2)
with all the roots $\alpha_{j}$ and $\beta_{j}$ different. Since only the
powers $\alpha^{2^{m}}$ and $\beta^{2^{m}}$ ($m=0,\ldots,r_{\alpha,\beta}$)
can appear in (5.2), we obtain the following restriction on the roots
$\alpha_{j}$ and $\beta_{j}$
$S_{k}(\alpha_{j})=0,\qquad\qquad S_{k}(\beta_{j})=0,\qquad k\neq
2^{r_{\alpha,\beta}}-2^{m}$ (5.3)
where
$S_{k}(\xi)=\sum_{i_{1}<i_{2}<\ldots<i_{k}}\xi_{i_{1}}\xi_{i_{2}}\ldots\xi_{i_{k}},$
(5.4)
are symmetrical functions of the roots. This restriction implies that only
$r_{\alpha}$ ($r_{\beta}$) roots $\alpha_{j}$ ($\beta_{j}$) are linearly
independent.
Condition (3.2) implies that, given a degree of degeneration and once one of
the structural equations is fixed, the other structural equation is not
arbitrary. In other words, having determined the admissible points along one
of the axis, all the admissible points of an additive commutative curve along
the other axis are uniquely defined.
The simplest situation corresponds to the case when degeneration along both
axes is the same: $\deg\alpha=\deg\beta=g=2^{n-r}$ ($r\geq n/2$), i.e., the
ranks of the corresponding matrices (3.11) are $r=r_{\alpha}=r_{\beta}$.
Suppose that the structural equation for $\alpha$ is fixed. Then, the
commutativity condition is equivalent to the following set of equations
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\alpha_{k}\beta_{j})=0,\qquad\qquad\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}j=1,\ldots,n-r,&\quad
k=1,\ldots,r,\\\ j=1,\ldots,r,&\quad k=1,\ldots,n-r,\end{array}\right.$ (5.5)
where $(\alpha_{k},\beta_{k})$ are linearly independent roots and the points
$(\alpha_{j},0)$ and $(0,\beta_{j})$, with $j=1,\ldots,2^{n-r}$, belong to the
curve.
Equations (5.5) mean that (5.2) can be always written as
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\alpha\,\xi)=0,\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\beta\
\zeta)=0,$ with $\xi$ and $\zeta$ being fixed elements of
$\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})$.
In the doubly degenerate case, $g=2$, the value of $\beta_{1}$ is uniquely
determined from the first condition in (5.5) and the curve can be represented
as a disjoint union of two straight lines
$\beta^{(1)}=\frac{\beta_{1}}{\alpha_{1}}\,\alpha,\quad\beta^{(2)}=\frac{\beta_{1}}{\alpha_{1}}\,\alpha+\beta_{1},$
(5.6)
with $\alpha=\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{2^{r}-1}$. It is worth noting that
(5.5) in this case is just a structural equation, so that
$\beta_{1}=\frac{\upsilon_{1}}{\upsilon_{0}}=\frac{S_{2^{r}-2}}{S_{2^{r}-1}},$
(5.7)
where $\upsilon_{k}$ are the coefficients in (5.1) and $S_{r}$ are the
symmetrical functions (5.3) of arguments $\alpha_{k}$ ($k=1,\ldots,2^{r}-1$).
Each different ordered set $\\{\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{r}\\}$, with
$\alpha_{j}\neq\alpha_{k}\neq 0$ determines thus an exceptional doubly
degenerate curve.
For higher degenerations, the curve is a disjoint union of $g$ straight lines
$\beta^{(1)}=\lambda\alpha,\;\beta^{(2)}=\lambda\alpha+\beta_{1},\ldots,\;\beta^{(g)}=\lambda\alpha+\beta_{g-1},$
(5.8)
where $\beta_{m}$ ($m=r+1,\ldots,g-1$) are obtained as the possible different
linear combinations of $\beta_{j}$ ($j=1,\ldots,r$) and
$\lambda=\frac{\beta_{1}}{\alpha_{1}}=\ldots=\frac{\beta_{r}}{\alpha_{r}}.$
(5.9)
The above ordering indicates that the points $(\alpha_{j},\beta_{j})$ belong
to the same straight line. Then, $\beta_{k}=\beta_{1}\alpha_{k}/\alpha_{1}$
($k=2,\ldots,r$) and $\beta_{1}$ are uniquely expressed in terms of admissible
values of $\alpha_{j}$ from (5.5), which is convenient to rewrite in terms of
the parameter $\lambda$:
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\lambda\alpha_{j}\,\alpha_{k})=0$, for
$j,k=1,\ldots,r$. It is clear that the exceptional curves constructed using
the equations (5.6) to (5.8) are nonsingular.
If the degeneration along $\alpha$ and $\beta$ axes are different (say,
$r_{\alpha}>r_{\beta}$), then the curves can be represented as a collection of
nonintersecting “parallel” curves
$\beta^{(1)}=f(\alpha),\;\beta^{(2)}=f(\alpha)+\delta_{1},\ldots,\;\beta^{(2^{n-r_{\alpha}})}=f(\alpha)+\delta_{2^{n-r_{\alpha}}-1},$
(5.10)
where $f(\alpha)$ is the function
$f(\alpha)=\sum_{k=0}^{n-r_{\alpha}-1}f_{k}\,\alpha^{2^{k}},$ (5.11)
and the commutativity condition leads to the restrictions
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\delta_{i}\alpha_{j})=0$, which fix the values
of $\delta_{i}$.
The intersection problem can be studied using the same criterion as for the
regular curves, taking into account that those conditions should be satisfied
only at the admissible points of the curve.
### 5.2 Examples
#### 5.2.1 Four-dimensional case
In the case of $\mathrm{GF}(2^{2})$ the only exceptional curves are doubly
degenerate, $r_{\alpha}=r_{\beta}=1$. Besides, the structural equation is of
second order: $\alpha(\alpha+\alpha_{1})=0$, so that any one of the three
possible exceptional curves can be represented as a union of straight lines:
$\beta^{(1)}=\alpha_{1}^{-2}\alpha,\qquad\qquad\beta^{(2)}=\alpha_{1}^{-2}\alpha+\alpha_{1}^{-1},$
(5.12)
with $\alpha=0,\alpha_{1}$. More explicitly, for a given value of $\alpha_{1}$
we have the following curve:
$(0,0),(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{1}^{-1}),(0,\alpha_{1}^{-1}),(\alpha_{1},0).$
(5.13)
In this case it is impossible to write down an equation that relates $\alpha$
and $\beta$.
As an example, consider the curve
$(0,0),(\sigma,\sigma^{2}),(0,\sigma^{2}),(\sigma,0),$ (5.14)
where $\alpha_{1}=\sigma$. The structural equations are then
$\alpha^{2}=\sigma\alpha,\qquad\qquad\beta^{2}=\sigma^{2}\beta.$ (5.15)
The implication of the curve type on the factorization of the basis will be
discussed in section 7.
#### 5.2.2 Eight-dimensional case
Two types of exceptional curves exist in the case of $\mathrm{GF}(2^{3})$: (i)
doubly degenerate in both directions, which corresponds to
$r_{\alpha}=r_{\beta}=2$; (ii) doubly degenerate in one direction and
quadruply degenerate in the other, which corresponds to
$r_{\alpha}=2,r_{\beta}=1$ or $r_{\alpha}=1,r_{\beta}=2$.
In the case (i), any exceptional curve can be represented as a union of two
lines
$\beta^{(1)}=\beta_{1}\alpha_{1}^{-1}\alpha,\quad\qquad\beta^{(2)}=\beta_{1}(\alpha_{1}^{-1}\alpha+1),$
(5.16)
where, according to equation (5.7),
$\beta_{1}=\frac{1}{\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}}+\frac{1}{\alpha_{1}}+\frac{1}{\alpha_{2}},$
(5.17)
and the admissible values of $\alpha$ are $0,\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}$, and
$\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}$. For a fixed set $\\{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}\\}$ the
following exceptional curve is defined
$\displaystyle(0,0),(\alpha_{1},0),(\alpha_{1},\beta_{1}),(\alpha_{2},\beta_{1}(\alpha_{1}^{-1}\alpha_{2}+1)),(\alpha_{2},\beta_{1}\alpha_{1}^{-1}\alpha_{2}),$
$\displaystyle(\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2},\beta_{1}\alpha_{1}^{-1}\alpha_{2}),(\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2},\beta_{1}(\alpha_{1}^{-1}\alpha_{2}+1)),(0,\beta_{1}).$
(5.18)
From the above equation we find that there are 21 exceptional curves due to
the permutational symmetry between $\alpha_{2}$ and $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}$.
As an example, consider
$(0,0),(\sigma^{4},0),(\sigma^{4},\sigma^{5}),(\sigma^{3},\sigma^{7}),(\sigma^{3},\sigma^{4}),(\sigma^{6},\sigma^{4}),(\sigma^{6},\sigma^{7}),(0,\sigma^{5}),$
(5.19)
where $\alpha_{1}=\sigma^{4},\alpha_{2}=\sigma^{3}$. The structural equations
are
$\sigma^{6}\alpha+\sigma^{4}\alpha^{2}+\alpha^{4}=0,\qquad\qquad\sigma^{2}\beta+\sigma^{6}\beta^{2}+\beta^{4}=0,$
(5.20)
and the curve has the form
$\beta^{2}+\sigma^{5}\beta=\sigma^{6}\alpha+\sigma^{2}\alpha^{2}.$ (5.21)
In the case (ii), one of coordinates (say, for instance, $\alpha$) is still
doubly degenerate, while the other one is quadruply degenerate. Then, the
coordinate $\beta$ takes only two values: $0$ and $\delta$, while the allowed
values of $\alpha$ are $0,\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}$, and $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}$,
so such a curve has the form
$\beta^{(1)}=f(\alpha),\qquad\qquad\beta^{(2)}=f(\alpha)+\delta,$ (5.22)
where
$f(\alpha)=\frac{\delta}{\alpha_{2}(\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2})}(\alpha_{1}\alpha+\alpha^{2}),$
(5.23)
and $\delta$ satisfies
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\delta\,\alpha_{1,2})=0$, which leads to
$\delta=\beta_{1}$.
Explicitly, the points of such a curve are
$(0,0),(\alpha_{1},0),(\alpha_{2},0),(\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2},0),(\alpha_{1},\delta),(\alpha_{2},\delta),(\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2},\delta),(0,\delta),$
(5.24)
so there are seven different curves of this type due to permutational symmetry
between $\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}$, and $\alpha_{1}+\alpha_{2}$.
As an example of such a degenerate curve, consider the points
$(0,0),(\sigma^{3},0),(\sigma^{5},0),(\sigma^{2},0),(\sigma^{3},\sigma^{6}),(\sigma^{5},\sigma^{6}),(\sigma^{2},\sigma^{6}),(0,\sigma^{6}),$
(5.25)
where $\alpha_{1}=\sigma^{3},\alpha_{2}=\sigma^{5}$. The corresponding
structural equations are
$\sigma^{3}\alpha+\sigma^{2}\alpha^{2}+\alpha^{4}=0,\qquad\qquad\sigma^{6}\beta+\beta^{2}=0.$
(5.26)
## 6 Local transformations
Local transformations induce nontrivial transformations in the curve, although
they preserve the factorization properties (in a given basis). We recall that
in any selfdual basis we can represent the monomial $Z_{\alpha}X_{\beta}$ in
the following way
$\displaystyle
Z_{\alpha}X_{\beta}=\otimes\prod_{j=1}^{n}\sigma_{z}^{a_{j}}\sigma_{x}^{b_{j}}\equiv\otimes\prod_{j=1}^{n}(a_{j},b_{j}),$
(6.1)
where $\otimes\prod_{j}$ denotes the tensor product over the index $j$. Under
local transformations (rotations of angle $\pi/2$ around $z,x$, and $y$ axes,
which we call $z$-, $x$\- and $y$-rotations) applied to the $j$th particle, it
transforms as
$\displaystyle z$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle(a_{j},b_{j})\mapsto(a_{j}+b_{j},b_{j}),$ $\displaystyle x$
$\displaystyle:$ $\displaystyle(a_{j},b_{j})\mapsto(a_{j},b_{j}+a_{j}),$ (6.2)
$\displaystyle y$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle(a_{j},b_{j})\mapsto(a_{j}+a_{j}+b_{j},b_{j}+a_{j}+b_{j})=(b_{j},a_{j}).$
To give a concrete example, suppose we consider a $z$-rotation. The operator
$\sigma_{z}$, corresponding to $(a_{j}=1,b_{j}=0)$, is transformed into
$(a_{j}=1+0=1,b_{j}=0)$; i.e., into itself, while the operator $\sigma_{x}$,
corresponding to $(a_{j}=0,b_{j}=1)$, is mapped onto $(a_{j}=0+1=1,b_{j}=1)$,
which coincides with $\sigma_{y}$. In the same way $\sigma_{y}$ is mapped onto
$\sigma_{x}$, while the identity ($a_{j}=0,b_{j}=0$) is mapped onto itself.
In terms of the field elements it is equivalent to
$\displaystyle z$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\displaystyle\alpha\mapsto\alpha^{\prime}=\alpha+\sum_{k}\theta_{k}\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\beta\theta_{k}),\\\
\beta\mapsto\beta^{\prime}=\beta,\end{array}\right.$ (6.5) $\displaystyle x$
$\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\alpha\mapsto\alpha^{\prime}=\alpha,\\\
\displaystyle\beta\mapsto\beta^{\prime}=\beta+\sum_{k}\theta_{k}\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\alpha\theta_{k}),\end{array}\right.$
(6.8) $\displaystyle y$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\displaystyle\alpha\mapsto\alpha^{\prime}=\alpha+\sum_{k}\theta_{k}\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits[(\alpha+\beta)\theta_{k}],\\\
\displaystyle\beta\mapsto\beta^{\prime}=\beta+\sum_{k}\theta_{k}\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits[(\alpha+\beta)\theta_{k}],\end{array}\right.$
(6.11)
where ${\theta}$ is the selfdual basis.
These transformations are nonlinear in the field elements: starting with a
standard set of MUB operators related to rays, we obtain another set of MUB
operators parametrized with points of curves, but leading to the same
factorization structure. Indeed, consider a ray as in equation (2.14). Then,
under $z$-, $x$-, and $y$-rotations we have
$\displaystyle z$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\displaystyle\alpha\mapsto\alpha^{\prime}=\mu\kappa+\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\kappa^{2^{m}}\nu^{2^{m}}\sum_{k}\theta_{k}^{2^{m}+1},\\\
\displaystyle\beta\mapsto\beta^{\prime}=\nu\kappa,\end{array}\right.$ (6.14)
$\displaystyle x$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\alpha\mapsto\alpha^{\prime}=\mu\kappa,\\\
\displaystyle\beta\mapsto\beta^{\prime}=\nu\kappa+\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\kappa^{2^{m}}\mu^{2^{m}}\sum_{k}\theta_{k}^{2^{m}+1},\end{array}\right.$
(6.17) $\displaystyle y$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{c}\displaystyle\alpha\mapsto\alpha^{\prime}=\mu\kappa+\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\kappa^{2^{m}}(\nu+\mu)^{2^{m}}\sum_{k}\theta_{k}^{2^{m}+1}\\\
\displaystyle\beta\mapsto\beta^{\prime}=\nu\kappa+\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\kappa^{2^{m}}(\nu+\mu)^{2^{m}}\sum_{k}\theta_{k}^{2^{m}+1}\end{array}\right.$
(6.20)
Note that the $z$\- and $x$-rotations produce regular curves
$\displaystyle z$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\alpha=\mu\nu^{-1}\beta\mapsto\alpha^{\prime}=\mu\nu^{-1}\beta+\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\beta^{2^{m}}\sum_{k}\theta_{k}^{2^{m}+1},$
$\displaystyle x$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\beta=\mu^{-1}\nu\alpha\mapsto\beta^{\prime}=\mu^{-1}\nu\alpha+\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\alpha^{2^{m}}\sum_{k}\theta_{k}^{2^{m}+1}.$
Meanwhile, the $y$-rotation may lead to exceptional curves. In this case we
always have $\kappa=(\mu+\nu)^{-1}(\alpha+\beta)$, and thus the explicit
equation of that curve is either
$\alpha=\mu(\nu+\mu)^{-1}(\alpha+\beta)+\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}(\alpha+\beta)^{2^{m}}\sum_{k}\theta_{k}^{2^{m}+1},$
(6.22)
or
$\beta=\nu(\nu+\mu)^{-1}(\alpha+\beta)+\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}(\alpha+\beta)^{2^{m}}\sum_{k}\theta_{k}^{2^{m}+1}.$
(6.23)
For instance, in the two-qubit case, starting from the ray $\beta=0$, we can
generate all the curves shown in table 1. In particular, it can be proven that
in there are only two equivalence classes of curves[65].
Table 1: Curves generated by applying the rotations indicated in the left column to the ray $\beta=0$ in the case of two qubits. Rotation | Curves
---|---
$x\otimes\leavevmode\hbox{\small 1\normalsize\kern-3.30002pt1}$ | $\beta=\sigma\alpha+\alpha^{2},\,\beta^{2}=\sigma^{2}\beta$
$y\otimes\leavevmode\hbox{\small 1\normalsize\kern-3.30002pt1}$ | $\sigma\beta+\beta^{2}=\sigma^{2}\alpha+\alpha^{2},\,\alpha^{2}=\sigma^{2}\alpha,\,\beta^{2}=\sigma\beta$
$\leavevmode\hbox{\small 1\normalsize\kern-3.30002pt1}\otimes x$ | $\beta=\sigma^{2}\alpha+\alpha^{2},\,\beta^{2}=\sigma\beta$
$\leavevmode\hbox{\small 1\normalsize\kern-3.30002pt1}\otimes y$ | $\sigma^{2}\beta+\beta^{2}=\sigma\alpha+\alpha^{2},\,\alpha^{2}=\sigma\alpha,\,\beta^{2}=\sigma^{2}\beta$
$x\otimes x$ | $\beta=\alpha$
$y\otimes y$ | $\beta=\sigma^{2}\alpha+\alpha^{2},\,\beta^{2}=\sigma\beta$
$x\otimes y$ | $\sigma\beta+\sigma^{2}\beta^{2}=\alpha+\sigma^{2}\alpha^{2},\,\alpha^{2}=\sigma\alpha,\,\beta^{2}=\sigma\beta$
$y\otimes x$ | $\alpha=\sigma\beta+\beta^{2},\,\alpha^{2}=\sigma^{2}\alpha$
## 7 Factorization structure and curve bundles
In this section we discuss bundles leading to MUBs with different
factorization structures. As we have stated before, given a basis in the
field, any operator, labeled by a point of a curve, is factorized into a
product of one-particle Pauli operators. For qubit systems the selfdual is the
most appropriate, for the Fourier operator is factorized, and thus, the
factorization of $Z_{\alpha}$ and $X_{\alpha}$ is straightforward. Now, let us
divide each monomial $Z_{\alpha}X_{\beta}$, into two parts, so that the first
part contains $k$ Pauli operators and the second part $n-k$ operators. If any
first “block” of the set of $d-1$ commuting generalized Pauli operators
commutes with all the other “blocks”, we will say that the corresponding curve
is factorized into two sets. Obviously, the second blocks would then also
commute between them. Moreover, inside the first or second blocks may exist
some “sub-blocks” that commute with corresponding sub-blocks, etc. In the end,
we can represent any curve $\Gamma\in\mathrm{GF}(2^{n})$ in the following
factorized form:
$\Gamma=\\{m_{1},m_{2},\ldots,m_{N}\\},\qquad\qquad 0<m_{1}\leq
m_{2}\leq\ldots\leq m_{N},\;\sum_{i}m_{i}=n,$ (7.1)
where $m_{i}\in\mathbb{N}$ is the number of particles in the $i$-th block that
cannot be factorized anymore. It is clear that
$\\{m_{1},m_{2},\ldots,m_{N}\\}$ is just a partition of the integer $n$, so
the maximum number of terms is $n$, which corresponds to a completely
factorized curve, $\Gamma=\underbrace{\\{1,1,\ldots,1\\}}_{n}$, and the
minimum number of terms is one, corresponding to a completely nonfactorized
curve, $\Gamma=\\{n\\}$.
One can construct bundles that contain only regular curves, as it was shown in
section 4. A systematic construction of bundles containing both regular and
exceptional curves is a more involved task, which can be carried out
numerically for low dimensions.
As an example, consider the ray $\beta=0$ over $\mathrm{GF}(2^{2})$, so the
corresponding set of operators is
$\\{Z_{\sigma},Z_{\sigma^{2}},Z_{\sigma^{3}}\\}$. In the selfdual basis
$(\sigma,\sigma^{2})$ this set is factorized into
$(\sigma_{z}\leavevmode\hbox{\small
1\normalsize\kern-3.30002pt1},\leavevmode\hbox{\small
1\normalsize\kern-3.30002pt1}\sigma_{z},\sigma_{z}\sigma_{z})$. Then, the
curve $\beta=0$ is represented as $\Gamma=\\{1,1\\}$, i.e., both particles are
factorized. The ray $\beta=\sigma\alpha$, whose points label the set
$\\{Z_{\sigma}X_{\sigma^{2}},Z_{\sigma^{2}}X_{\sigma^{3}},Z_{\sigma^{3}}X_{\sigma}\\}$,
has the following factorization
$(\sigma_{z}\sigma_{x},\sigma_{x}\sigma_{y},\sigma_{y}\sigma_{z})$, so that it
can be represented as $\Gamma=\\{2\\}$, which means that there are no
factorized blocks. In the case of three qubits the possible partitions are
$\\{1,1,1\\}$ (e.g., the ray $\beta=0$), $\\{1,2\\}$ (e.g., the regular curve
$\beta=\sigma^{6}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{3}\alpha^{4}$), and $\\{3\\}$ (e.g., the
ray $\beta=\sigma^{3}\alpha$).
The representation (7.1) is invariant under local transformations. The
corresponding basis preserves the factorization of the operator set, and local
transformations preserve the factorization structure of the curve. This means
that all the completely factorized curves can be obtained from a single
factorized ray, say $\beta=0$. Nevertheless, the curves with the same
factorization structure are not necessarily equivalent under local
transformations (except in the trivial two-qubit case [65]).
A bundle may contain curves with different factorizations. We can characterize
different bundles with a set of numbers that indicate the number of completely
factorized curves ($\underbrace{\\{1,1,\ldots,1\\}}_{n}$ structure),
completely factorized except a single two-particle block (curve of the type
$\\{\underbrace{1,1,\ldots,1}_{n-2},2\\}$), etc., until completely
nonfactorized curves $\\{n\\}$. In other words, we assign to the bundle the
set of numbers
$(k_{1},k_{2},\ldots,k_{p(n)}),\qquad\qquad\sum_{j}k_{j}=2^{n}+1,$ (7.2)
which indicate the number of curves factorized in $n$ one-dimensional blocks,
$k_{1}$; the number of curves factorized in $n-2$ one-dimensional blocks and
one two-dimensional block, $k_{2}$, etc, and $p(n)$ is the number of
partitions of an integer $n$.
### 7.1 Curves over $\mathrm{GF}(2^{2})$
As we have discussed, an additive commutative curve over $\mathrm{GF}(2^{2})$
can be expressed as
$\alpha(\kappa)=\alpha_{0}\kappa+\alpha_{1}\kappa^{2},\qquad\qquad\beta(\kappa)=\beta_{0}\kappa+\beta_{1}\kappa^{2},$
(7.3)
where the commutativity condition (3.3) impose the following restrictions on
the coefficients $\alpha_{j}$ and $\beta_{j}$
$\alpha_{1}\beta_{0}+(\alpha_{1}\beta_{0})^{2}=\alpha_{0}\beta_{1}+(\alpha_{0}\beta_{1})^{2}.$
(7.4)
In this simple case, the whole analysis can be carried out from the parametric
form. Nevertheless, it is more convenient to separate types of curves on
regular and exceptional, according to our discussion in sections 4 and 5.
All the possible additive commutative structures can be divided into two
types:
a) 12 regular curves, which can be constructed according to the general rule
(4.3), among which there are four rays
$\beta=\lambda\alpha,\qquad\qquad\alpha=0,$ (7.5)
and 8 curves
$\alpha\mathrm{-curves}:\;\beta=\eta\alpha+\alpha^{2},\qquad\qquad\beta\mathrm{-curves}:\;\alpha=\eta\beta+\beta^{2}.$
(7.6)
b) 3 exceptional curves that can be represented as a union of two parallel
lines (5.12) or in the parametric form
$\alpha=\mu(\kappa+\kappa^{2}),\qquad\beta=\mu^{2}(\sigma\kappa+\sigma^{2}\kappa^{2}).$
(7.7)
Every point of these exceptional curves is doubly degenerate and the
admissible values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are $\\{0,\mu\\}$ and
$\\{0,\mu^{2}\\}$, respectively.
It is important to stress that it is possible to obtain all the curves of form
(7.5), (7.6), and (7.7) from the rays after some (nonlinear) operations,
corresponding to local transformations of operators [65]. The families of such
transformations are the following: 8 curves (the rays $\beta=\alpha$ and
$\beta=0$ among them) can be obtained from the single ray $\alpha=0$
(corresponding to the vertical axis) and the other 5 curves (the ray
$\beta=\sigma^{2}\alpha$ among them) from the ray $\beta=\sigma\alpha$.
The simplest curve bundle contains just rays. There are three rays
($\beta=\alpha$, $\beta=0$, and $\alpha=0$) with completely factorizable
structure $\\{1,1\\}$ and two rays ($\beta=\sigma\alpha$ and
$\beta=\sigma^{2}\alpha$ with nonfactorizable structure $\\{2\\}$. Since any
other bundle can be obtained from the ray bundle by applying some local
transformations, the only bundle structure is $(3,2)$, i.e., in any bundle
there are three factorizable curves and two nonfactorizable (having EPR-states
as basis states).
### 7.2 Curves over $\mathrm{GF}(2^{3})$
A generic additive commutative curve over $\mathrm{GF}(2^{3})$ is given by
$\alpha=\alpha_{0}\kappa+\alpha_{1}\kappa^{2}+\alpha_{2}\kappa^{4},\qquad\qquad\beta=\beta_{0}\kappa+\beta_{1}\kappa^{2}+\beta_{2}\kappa^{4}.$
(7.8)
The commutative condition in this case is much more complicated than for
$\mathrm{GF}(2^{2})$, so a full analysis of all the possible curves becomes
cumbersome if we start with (7.8). Instead, we can follow the procedure of
sections 4 and 5.
A generic regular curves has always one of the following forms
$\displaystyle\beta=\phi_{0}\alpha+\phi^{2}\alpha^{2}+\phi\alpha^{4},\qquad\qquad\alpha$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\psi_{0}\beta+\psi^{2}\beta^{2}+\psi\beta^{4}.$
(7.9)
for $\alpha$\- and $\beta$-curves, respectively. All in all, we get 100
different regular curves. There are 21 doubly degenerate exceptional curves of
the form (5.2.2) and 14 exceptional curves (5.24), which are quadruply
degenerate in one direction and doubly degenerate in the other.
The simplest way of forming bundles of commutative curves is given in (4.5).
Then, four bundles of nine curves each
$\beta=\phi_{0}\alpha+\phi^{2}\alpha^{2}+\phi\alpha^{4},\qquad\qquad\alpha=0,$
(7.10)
where $\phi_{0}\in\mathrm{GF}(2^{3})$ and
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\phi)=0$, have the factorization structure
$(3,0,6)$. The choice $\phi=0$ leads to the ray structure (2.13). Among them,
only three rays ($\beta=0,\alpha=0,\beta=\alpha$) have the structure
$\\{1,1,1\\}$, while the other six rays have the structure $\\{3\\}$.
All the other bundles with $\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\phi)=0$ (i.e.,
$\phi$ takes the values $\sigma$, $\sigma^{2}$, and $\sigma^{4}$) can be
generated from the bundle with $\phi=0$ by applying local transformations. In
particular, $\phi=\sigma$ is generated by an $x$-rotation of the first qubit,
$\phi=\sigma^{2}$ by an $x$-rotation of the second qubit, and
$\phi=\sigma^{4}$ by an $x$-rotation of the first and second qubits.
Another four bundles of nine curves
$\beta=\phi_{0}\alpha+\phi^{2}\alpha^{2}+\phi\alpha^{4},\qquad\qquad\alpha=0,$
(7.11)
where $\phi_{0}\in\mathrm{GF}(2^{3})$ and
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\phi)=1$ generate all the structures $(1,6,2)$.
For instance, in the bundle with $\phi=1$ the curves with
$\phi_{0}=0,\sigma^{7}=1$ have the factorization $\\{3\\}$ and all the other
values of $\phi_{0}\in\mathrm{GF}(2^{3})$ generate the curves with the
factorization $\\{1,2\\}$. The ray $\alpha=0$ has the factorization
$\\{1,1,1\\}$.
As in the previous case, all the bundles with
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\phi)=1$
($\phi=\sigma^{3},\sigma^{5},\sigma^{6}$) can be obtained form the bundle with
$\phi=1$ by some local transformations: $\phi=\sigma^{3}$ by an $x$-rotation
of the first qubit, $\phi=\sigma^{6}$ by an $x$-rotation of the second qubit
and $\phi=\sigma^{5}$ by an $x$-rotation of the third qubits.
The aforementioned local rotations can be also viewed as a relabeling of the
points of the curves $\beta=\phi_{0}\alpha+\alpha^{2}+\alpha^{4}$ according to
$\alpha\mapsto\sigma^{k}\alpha$ and $\beta\mapsto\sigma^{-k}\beta$, with
$k=2,4,1$, respectively. On the other hand, $k=3,5,6$ correspond to nonlocal
transformations and lead to the bundles of curves corresponding to the
$(3,0,6)$ structure.
It is possible to obtain one more type of bundles with different factorization
structure and constituted only by regular curves. To this end we recall that
the nonintersection condition between two regular curves has the form
$(\phi_{0}+\phi_{0}^{\prime})^{7}+\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits[(\phi_{0}+\phi_{0}^{\prime})(\phi+\phi^{\prime})]=1,$
(7.12)
so $\phi_{0}$ and $\phi_{0}^{\prime}$ never coincide. Now, let us take three
nonintersecting regular curves satisfying (7.12)
$\displaystyle\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits[(\phi_{0}+\phi_{0}^{\prime})(\phi+\phi^{\prime})]$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 0,$
$\displaystyle\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits[(\phi_{0}^{\prime}+\phi_{0}^{\prime\prime})(\phi^{\prime}+\phi^{\prime\prime})]$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 0,$ (7.13)
$\displaystyle\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits[(\phi_{0}+\phi_{0}^{\prime\prime})(\phi+\phi^{\prime\prime})]$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 0,$
and construct a set of curves according to
$\beta=(\phi_{0}^{a}+\phi_{0}^{b})\alpha+(\phi^{a}+\phi^{b})^{2}\alpha^{2}+(\phi^{a}+\phi^{b})\alpha^{4},$
(7.14)
where $\phi_{0}^{a}$ , $\phi_{0}^{b}$ and $\phi^{a}$, $\phi^{b}$ are
coefficients of the previously defined curves. In this way we generate five
additional new curves:
$\displaystyle\beta$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\phi_{0}+\phi_{0}^{\prime})\alpha+(\phi+\phi^{\prime})^{2}\alpha^{2}+(\phi+\phi^{\prime})\alpha^{4},$
$\displaystyle\beta$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\phi_{0}+\phi_{0}^{\prime\prime})\alpha+(\phi+\phi^{\prime\prime})^{2}\alpha^{2}+(\phi+\phi^{\prime\prime})\alpha^{4},$
$\displaystyle\beta$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\phi_{0}^{\prime}+\phi_{0}^{\prime\prime})\alpha+(\phi^{\prime}+\phi^{\prime\prime})^{2}\alpha^{2}+(\phi^{\prime}+\phi^{\prime\prime})\alpha^{4},$
(7.15) $\displaystyle\beta$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\phi_{0}+\phi_{0}^{\prime}+\phi_{0}^{\prime\prime})\alpha+(\phi+\phi^{\prime}+\phi^{\prime\prime})^{2}\alpha^{2}+(\phi+\phi^{\prime}+\phi^{\prime\prime})\alpha^{4},$
$\displaystyle\beta$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 0,$
and one has to add the last curve $\alpha=0$ to complete the set of nine
curves.
We observe that the three “initial” curves can be obtained in the same way
using some of the curves in (7.2). This implies that any curve constructed in
this way should satisfy the condition
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\phi_{0}\,\phi)=0.$ (7.16)
All these sets of curves lead to the factorization structure $(2,3,4)$. One
example of such type of bundle is
$\begin{array}[]{lcl}\\{1,1,1\\}&\mapsto&\alpha=0,\beta=0\\\
\\{1,2\\}&\mapsto&\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\beta=\sigma^{6}\alpha+\sigma^{3}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{5}\alpha^{4},\\\
\beta=\sigma^{2}\alpha+\sigma^{5}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{6}\alpha^{4},\\\
\beta=\sigma^{4}\alpha+\sigma^{3}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{5}\alpha^{4}\end{array}\right.\\\
\\{3\\}&\mapsto&\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\beta=\sigma^{3}\alpha,\\\
\beta=\sigma^{5}\alpha+\sigma^{5}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{6}\alpha^{4},\\\
\beta=\sigma\alpha+\sigma^{2}\alpha^{2}+\sigma\alpha^{4},\\\
\beta=\alpha+\sigma^{2}\alpha^{2}+\sigma\alpha^{4}.\end{array}\right.\end{array}$
(7.17)
There is one more type of bundles with the structure $(0,9,0)$, i.e., which
contains only curves with the factorization $\\{1,2\\}$. Such bundles always
contain exceptional curves. One example of those bundles is
a) Regular curves
$\begin{array}[]{ll}\alpha=\sigma^{2}\beta+\sigma^{3}\beta^{2}+\sigma^{5}\beta^{4},&\alpha=\sigma^{6}\beta+\sigma^{3}\beta^{2}+\sigma^{5}\beta^{4},\\\
\beta=\sigma^{2}\alpha+\sigma^{3}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{5}\alpha^{4},&\beta=\sigma^{6}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{3}\alpha^{4},\\\
\alpha=\beta+\sigma^{6}\beta^{2}+\sigma^{3}\beta^{4},&\beta=\alpha+\sigma^{3}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{5}\alpha^{4},\\\
\alpha=\sigma^{3}\beta^{2}+\sigma^{5}\beta^{4},&\end{array}$ (7.18)
b) Exceptional curves
$\displaystyle\beta^{2}+\sigma^{5}\beta$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\sigma^{2}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{6}\alpha,\qquad\qquad\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\sigma^{4}\beta)=0,\quad\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\sigma^{5}\alpha)=0;$
$\displaystyle\beta^{2}+\sigma^{2}\beta$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\sigma^{6}\alpha^{2}+\sigma^{5}\alpha,\qquad\qquad\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\sigma^{6}\beta)=0,\quad\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\sigma^{2}\alpha)=0,$
where the structural equations are written in the trace form.
The rays with $\\{1,2\\}$ factorization structure cannot be obtained from rays
by local transformations. Moreover, not all the curves with factorization
$\\{3\\}$ can be obtained from the rays of the same type.
All these structures can be obtained form each other by nonlocal
transformations, which can be always reduced to a combination of CNOT gates
and local transformations. To each bundle with a given factorization structure
corresponds a set of nonlocal transformations preserving such structure. Such
a symmetry can be used to determine the optimum tomographic procedure and will
be discussed elsewhere.
The phase-space approach presented here also provides an alternative to the
graph-state classification of all the possible stabilizers states for
$n$-qubit systems. In fact, each additive curve represents a basis in the
$2^{n}$ dimensional Hilbert space, so that the stabilizer state is one element
of such basis. Not each curve can be directly associated with a graph state
[70], but it can be reduced to an appropriate graph state through local
Clifford transformations [71]. While the classification of the graph states
represents a formidable task for large numbers of qubits, the phase-space
approach allows working with algebraic structures. Although the local
equivalence is still an open problem, at least we can determine some elements
of equivalence classes under local Clifford transformations in a relatively
simple form. Besides, several nonlocal qubit operations as SWAP or CNOT gates
can be nicely represented in terms of curves transformations curves. The
above-mentioned problems will be analyzed in future work.
## 8 Conclusions
It has relatively recently been realized that several different types of MUBs,
with respect to their factorization properties, exist for a system of $n$
qubits. Such bases are related to different arrangements of generalized Pauli
monomials into sets of commuting operators. The construction of a whole set of
MUBs is an involved problem, especially for large number of qubits. The
simplest MUB construction was discovered by Wootters and it is related to
straight lines in the discrete phase space. We have shown that all the other
MUBs are connected with a special type of discrete curves. Although, in
principle, we can classify all the possible additive commutative curves and
even determine which are related through local transformations, arranging them
in bundles of nonintersecting curves is still an involved problem.
Nevertheless, we can find some of such bundles according to a “recipe”
[specifically equations (4.5) and (4.8)], which represents an essential
progress in this field.
The authors would like to acknowledge fruitful discussions with Dr. Iulia
Ghiu, from University of Bucharest. This work was supported by the Grant No
45704 of Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT), the Swedish
Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education
(STINT), the Swedish Research Council (VR), the Swedish Foundation for
Strategic Research (SSF), and the Spanish Research Directorate (Grant
FIS2005-06714). A. B. K. was also supported by the Spanish Sabbatical Program
(Grant SAB2006-0064).
## Appendix A Galois fields
In this appendix we briefly recall the minimum background needed in this
paper. The reader interested in more mathematical details is referred, e.g.,
to the excellent monograph by Lidl and Niederreiter [69].
A commutative ring is a set $R$ equipped with two binary operations, called
addition and multiplication, such that it is an Abelian group with respect the
addition, and the multiplication is associative. Perhaps, the motivating
example is the ring of integers $\mathbb{Z}$ with the standard sum and
multiplication. On the other hand, the simplest example of a finite ring is
the set $\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ of integers modulo $n$, which has exactly $n$
elements.
A field $F$ is a commutative ring with division, that is, such that 0 does not
equal 1 and all elements of $F$ except 0 have a multiplicative inverse (note
that 0 and 1 here stand for the identity elements for the addition and
multiplication, respectively, which may differ from the familiar real numbers
0 and 1). Elements of a field form Abelian groups with respect to addition and
multiplication (in this latter case, the zero element is excluded).
The characteristic of a finite field is the smallest integer $p$ such that
$p\,1=\underbrace{1+1+\ldots+1}_{\mbox{\scriptsize$p$ times}}=0$ (A.1)
and it is always a prime number. Any finite field contains a prime subfield
$\mathbb{Z}_{p}$ and has $d=p^{n}$ elements, where $n$ is a natural number.
Moreover, the finite field containing $p^{n}$ elements is unique and is called
the Galois field $\mathrm{GF}(p^{n})$.
Let us denote as $\mathbb{Z}_{p}[x]$ the ring of polynomials with coefficients
in $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$. Let $P(x)$ be an irreducible polynomial of degree $n$
(i.e., one that cannot be factorized over $\mathbb{Z}_{p}$). Then, the
quotient space $\mathbb{Z}_{p}[X]/P(x)$ provides an adequate representation of
$\mathrm{GF}(p^{n})$. Its elements can be written as polynomials that are
defined modulo the irreducible polynomial $P(x)$. The multiplicative group of
$\mathrm{GF}(p^{n})$ is cyclic and its generator is called a primitive element
of the field.
As a simple example of a nonprime field, we consider the polynomial
$x^{2}+x+1=0$, which is irreducible in $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$. If $\sigma$ is a root
of this polynomial, the elements
$\\{0,1,\sigma,\sigma^{2}=\sigma+1=\sigma^{-1}\\}$ form the finite field
$\mathrm{GF}(2^{2})$ and $\sigma$ is a primitive element.
The map $\alpha\mapsto\alpha^{p}$, where $\alpha\in\mathrm{GF}(p^{n})$ is a
linear automorphism of $\mathrm{GF}(p^{n})$:
$(\alpha+\beta)^{n}=\alpha^{n}+\beta^{n},$ and
$(\alpha\beta)^{n}=\alpha^{n}\beta^{n}$. It is called the Frobenius
automorphism and will be represented in the form
$\mathfrak{S}^{k}(\alpha)=\alpha^{p^{k}}.$ (A.2)
The elements of the prime field are invariant under action of the this
automorphism.
Another basic map is the trace
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\alpha)=\alpha+\alpha^{2}+\ldots+\alpha^{p^{n-1}}=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\mathfrak{S}^{k}(\alpha),$
(A.3)
which satisfies
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\alpha+\beta)=\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\alpha)+\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\beta),$
(A.4)
and also leaves the prime field invariant. In terms of it we define the
additive characters as
$\chi(\alpha)=\exp\left[\frac{2\pi
i}{p}\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\alpha)\right],$ (A.5)
and posses two important properties:
$\chi(\alpha+\beta)=\chi(\alpha)\chi(\beta),\qquad\qquad\sum_{\alpha\in\mathrm{GF}(p^{n})}\chi(\alpha\beta)=p^{n}\delta_{0,\beta}.$
(A.6)
Any finite field $\mathrm{GF}(p^{n})$ can be also considered as an
$n$-dimensional linear vector space. Given a basis $\\{\theta_{k}\\}$,
($k=1,\ldots,n$) in this vector space, any field element can be represented as
$\alpha=\sum_{k=1}^{n}a_{k}\,\theta_{k},$ (A.7)
with $a_{k}\in\mathbb{Z}_{p}$. In this way, we map each element of
$\mathrm{GF}(p^{n})$ onto an ordered set of natural numbers
$\alpha\Leftrightarrow(a_{1},\ldots,a_{n})$.
Two bases $\\{\theta_{1},\ldots,\theta_{n}\\}$ and
$\\{\theta_{1}^{\prime},\ldots,\theta_{n}^{\prime}\\}$ are dual when
$\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(\theta_{k}\theta_{l}^{\prime})=\delta_{k,l}.$
(A.8)
A basis that is dual to itself is called selfdual.
There are several natural bases in $\mathrm{GF}(p^{n})$. One is the polynomial
basis, defined as
$\\{1,\sigma,\sigma^{2},\ldots,\sigma^{n-1}\\},$ (A.9)
where $\sigma$ is a primitive element. An alternative is the normal basis,
constituted of
$\\{\sigma,\sigma^{p},\ldots,\sigma^{p^{n-1}}\\}.$ (A.10)
The choice of the appropriate basis depends on the specific problem at hand.
For example, in $\mathrm{GF}(2^{2})$ the elements $\\{\sigma,\sigma^{2}\\}$
are both roots of the irreducible polynomial. The polynomial basis is
$\\{1,\sigma\\}$ and its dual is $\\{\sigma^{2},1\\}$, while the normal basis
$\\{\sigma,\sigma^{2}\\}$ is selfdual.
## References
* [1] W. P. Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space, Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2001.
* [2] H. Weyl, The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics, Dover, New York, 1950.
* [3] J. Schwinger, Unitary operator basis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 46 (1960) 570–576.
* [4] J. Schwinger, Unitary transformations and the action principle, Prod. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 46 (1960) 883–897.
* [5] J. Schwinger, The special canonical group, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 46 (1960) 1401–1415.
* [6] J. H. Hannay, M. V. Berry, Quantization of linear maps on a torus-Fresnel diffraction by aperiodic grating, Physica D 1 (1980) 267–290.
* [7] U. Leonhardt, Quantum-state tomography and discrete Wigner function, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 (1995) 4101–4105.
* [8] U. Leonhardt, Discrete wigner function and quantum-state tomography, Phys. Rev. A 53 (1996) 2998–3013.
* [9] C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, M. Saraceno, E. Knill, R. Laflamme, C. Negrevergne, Interpretation of tomography and spectroscopy as dual forms of quantum computation, Nature (London) 418 (2002) 59–62.
* [10] C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, Quantum computers in phase space, Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002) 062309.
* [11] J. P. Paz, Discrete Wigner functions and the phase-space representation of quantum teleportation, Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002) 062311.
* [12] F. A. Buot, Method for calculating $\mathrm{Tr}\mathcal{H}^{n}$ in solid-state theory, Phys. Rev. B 10 (1973) 3700–3705.
* [13] W. K. Wootters, A Wigner-function formulation of finite-state quantum mechanics, Ann. Phys. (NY) 176 (1987) 1–21.
* [14] D. Galetti, A. F. R. de Toledo Piza, An extended Weyl-Wigner transformation for special finite spaces, Physica A 149 (1988) 267–282.
* [15] O. Cohendet, P. Combe, M. Sirugue, M. Sirugue-Collin, A stochastic treatment of the dynamics of an integer spin, J. Phys. A 21 (1988) 2875–2884.
* [16] D. Galetti, A. F. R. de Toledo Piza, Discrete quantum phase spaces and the mod $n$ invariance, Physica A 186 (1992) 513–523.
* [17] P. Kasperkovitz, M. Peev, Wigner-Weyl formalism for toroidal geometries, Ann. Phys. (NY) 230 (1994) 21–51.
* [18] T. Opatrný, V. Bužek, J. Bajer, G. Drobný, Propensities in discrete phase spaces: $q$-function of a state in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, Phys. Rev. A 52 (1995) 2419–2427.
* [19] D. Galetti, M. A. Marchiolli, Discrete coherent states and probability distributions in finite-dimensional spaces, Ann. Phys. (NY) 249 (1996) 454–480.
* [20] T. Opatrný, D.-G. Welsch, V. Bužek, Parametrized discrete phase-space functions, Phys. Rev. A 53 (1996) 3822–3835.
* [21] A. M. F. Rivas, A. M. O. de Almeida, The Weyl representation on the torus, Ann. Phys. (NY) 276 (1999) 223–256.
* [22] K. S. Gibbons, M. J. Hoffman, W. K. Wootters, Discrete phase space based on finite fields, Phys. Rev. A 70 (2004) 062101.
* [23] A. Vourdas, Galois quantum systems, J. Phys. A 38 (2005) 8453–8472.
* [24] A. Vourdas, Quantum systems with finite Hilbert space: Galois fields in quantum mechanics, J. Phys. A 40 (2007) R285–R331.
* [25] P. Delsarte, J. M. Goethals, J. J. Seidel, Bounds for systems of lines and Jacobi polynomials, Philips Res. Rep. 30 (1975) 91–105.
* [26] W. K. Wootters, Quantum mechanics without probability amplitudes, Found. Phys. 16 (1986) 391–405.
* [27] W. K. Wootters, B. D. Fields, Optimal state-determination by mutually unbiased measurements, Ann. Phys. (NY) 191 (1989) 363–381.
* [28] K. Kraus, Complementary observables and uncertainty relations, Phys. Rev. D 35 (1987) 3070–3075.
* [29] J. Lawrence, Č. Brukner, A. Zeilinger, Mutually unbiased binary observable sets on $n$ qubits, Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002) 032320.
* [30] S. Chaturvedi, Aspects of mutually unbiased bases in odd-prime-power dimensions, Phys. Rev. A 65 (2002) 032320.
* [31] D. Petz, Complementarity in quantum systems, Rep. Math. Phys. 59 (2007) 209–224.
* [32] H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, A. Peres, Quantum cryptography with 3-state systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 3313–3316.
* [33] R. Asplund, G. Björk, Reconstructing the discrete Wigner function and some properties of the measurement bases, Phys. Rev. A 64 (2001) 012106.
* [34] D. Gottesman, Class of quantum error-correcting codes saturating the quantum Hamming bound, Phys. Rev. A 54 (1996) 1862–1868.
* [35] A. R. Calderbank, E. M. Rains, P. W. Shor, N. J. A. Sloane, Quantum error correction and orthogonal geometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 405–408.
* [36] Y. Aharonov, B.-G. Englert, The mean king’s problem: spin 1, Z. Naturforsch. 56a (2001) 16–19.
* [37] B.-G. Englert, Y. Aharonov, The mean king’s problem: Prime degrees of freedom, Phys. Lett. A 284 (2001) 1–5.
* [38] P. K. Aravind, Solution to the king’s problem in prime power dimensions, Z. Naturforsch. 58a (2003) 85–92.
* [39] A. Hayashi, M. Horibe, T. Hashimoto, Mean king’s problem with mutually unbiased bases and orthogonal latin squares, Phys. Rev. A 71 (2005) 052331.
* [40] A. Klappenecker, M. Rötteler, New tales of the mean king, arXiv:quant-ph/0502138.
* [41] J. P. Paz, A. J. Roncaglia, M. Saraceno, Qubits in phase space: Wigner-function approach to quantum-error correction and the mean-king problem, Phys. Rev. A 72 (2005) 012309.
* [42] T. Durt, About Weyl and Wigner tomography in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, Open Sys. Inf. Dyn. 13 (2006) 403–413.
* [43] G. Kimura, H. Tanaka, M. Ozawa, Solution to the mean king’s problem with mutually unbiased bases for arbitrary levels, Phys. Rev. A 73 (2006) 050301(R).
* [44] I. D. Ivanovic, Geometrical description of quantal state determination, J. Phys. A 14 (1981) 3241–3245.
* [45] A. R. Calderbank, P. J. Cameron, W. M. Kantor, J. Seidel, $\mathbb{Z}_{4}$-kerdock codes, orthogonal spreads, and extremal Euclidean line-sets, Proc. London Math. Soc. 75 (1997) 436–480.
* [46] A. Klappenecker, M. Rötteler, Constructions of mutually unbiased bases, in: G. Mullen, A. Poli, H. Stichtenoth (Eds.), Finite Fields and Applications, Vol. 2948 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, 2003, pp. 137–144.
* [47] J. Lawrence, Mutually unbiased bases and trinary operator sets for n qutrits, Phys. Rev. A 70 (2004) 012302.
* [48] K. R. Parthasarathy, On estimating the state of a finite level quantum system, Infin. Dimens. Anal. Quantum Probab. Relat. Top. 7 (2004) 607–617.
* [49] A. O. Pittenger, M. H. Rubin, Wigner functions and separability for finite systems, J. Phys. A 38 (2005) 6005–6036.
* [50] T. Durt, About mutually unbiased bases in even and odd prime power dimensions, J. Phys. A 38 (2005) 5267–5284.
* [51] M. Planat, H. Rosu, Mutually unbiased phase states, phase uncertainties and Gauss sums, Eur. Phys. J. D 36 (2005) 133–139.
* [52] A. B. Klimov, L. L. Sánchez-Soto, H. de Guise, Multicomplementary operators via finite Fourier transform, J. Phys. A 38 (2005) 2747–2760.
* [53] O. P. Boykin, M. Sitharam, P. H. Tiep, P. Wocjan, Mutually unbiased bases and orthogonal decompositions of Lie algebras, Quantum Info. Comp. 7 (2007) 371–382.
* [54] M. Grassl, On SIC-POVMs and MUBs in dimension 6, arXiv:quant-ph/0406175 (2004).
* [55] C. Archer, There is no generalization of known formulas for mutually unbiased bases, J. Math. Phys. 46 (2005) 022106.
* [56] P. Wocjan, On the maximal number of real mutually unbiased bases, arXiv.org quant-ph/0502024.
* [57] P. Butterley, W. Hall, Numerical evidence for the maximum number of mutually unbiased bases in dimension six, Phys. Lett. 369 (2007) 5–8.
* [58] M. Saniga, M. Planat, H. Rosu, Mutually unbiased bases and finite projective planes, J. Opt. B 6 (2004) L19–L20.
* [59] I. Bengtsson, MUBs, polytopes and finite geometries, AIP Conf. Proc. 750 (2005)
* [60] G. Zauner, Quantendesigns: Grundzüge einer nichtkommutativen Designtheorie, Ph.D. thesis, University of Vienna (1999).
* [61] W. K. Wootters, Quantum measurements and finite geometry, Found. Phys. 36 (2006) 112–126.
* [62] S. Bandyopadhyay, P. O. Boykin, V. Roychowdhury, F. Vatan, A new proof for the existence of mutually unbiased bases, Algorithmica 34 (2002) 512–528.
* [63] J. L. Romero, G. Björk, A. B. Klimov, L. L. Sánchez-Soto, Structure of the sets of mutually unbiased bases for $n$ qubits, Phys. Rev. A 72 (2005) 062310\.
* [64] G. Björk, J. L. Romero, A. B. Klimov, L. L. Sánchez-Soto, Mutually unbiased bases and discrete Wigner functions, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 24 (2007) 371–378.
* [65] A. B. Klimov, J. L. Romero, G. Björk, L. L. Sánchez-Soto, Geometrical approach to mutually unbiased bases, J. Phys. A 40 (2007) 3987–3998.
* [66] A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.
* [67] D. Gottesman, A. Kitaev, J. Preskill, Encoding a qubit in an oscillator, Physical Review A 64 (2001) 012310.
* [68] S. Bartlett, H. de Guise, B. C. Sanders, Quantum encodings in spin systems and harmonic oscillators, Phys. Rev. A 65 (5) (2002) 052316.
* [69] R. Lidl, H. Niederreiter, Introduction to finite fields and their applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
* [70] R. Raussendorf, D. E. Brown, H. J. Briegel, Measurement-based quantum computation on cluster states, Phys. Rev. A 68 (2003) 022312.
* [71] M. Van den Nest, J. Dehaene, B. de Moor, Graphical description of the action of local Clifford transformations on graph states, Phys. Rev. A 69 (2004) 022316\.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-04T09:22:53 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.105258 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "A. B. Klimov, J. L. Romero, G. Bjork and L. L. Sanchez-Soto",
"submitter": "Luis L. Sanchez. Soto",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0726"
} |
0806.0916 | # Phantom threat to cosmic censorship
E Babichev1,2, S Chernov2,3, V Dokuchaev2 and Yu Eroshenko2 1APC, Universite
Paris 7, rue Alice Domon Duquet, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France 2Institute for
Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Prospekt 60-letiya Oktyabrya 7a, Moscow 117312, Russia 3P. N. Lebedev
Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
Leninsky Prospekt 53, 119991 Moscow, Russia
###### Abstract
The third law of black hole thermodynamics is violated in the test fluid
approximation for the process of phantom energy accretion onto a rotating or
an electrically charge black hole. The black hole mass is continuously
decreasing but the angular momentum or electric charge is remaining constant
in this process. As a result, a black hole reaches the extreme state during a
finite time with a threat of black hole transformation into the naked
singularity and violation of the cosmic censorship conjecture. We demonstrate
this by using new analytical solutions for spherically symmetric stationary
distribution of a test perfect fluid with an arbitrary equation of state in
the Reissner-Nordström metric. Our speculative assumption, however, is that
the cosmic cosmic censorship conjecture remains valid even for phantom energy
case if one takes into account the back reaction of an accreting fluid onto a
near extreme black hole. Some hint for the validity of this hypothesis comes
from the specific case of the ultra-hard fluid accretion onto the rotating
black hole. In this case the energy density of an accreting fluid diverges at
the event horizon of an extreme black hole, thus violating the test fluid
approximation.
###### pacs:
04.20.Dw, 04.70.Bw, 04.70.Dy, 95.35.+d
## 1 Introduction
The problem of matter accretion onto the compact objects in the Newtonian
gravity was formulated in a self-similar manner by Bondi [1]. In the framework
of General Relativity a steady-state accretion of test gas onto a
Schwarzschild black hole was investigated by Michel [2]. The detailed studies
of spherically symmetric accretion of different types of fluids onto black
holes were further undertaken in a number of works, see e. g. [3]. In [4] (see
also [5] for further discussion) it was shown that accretion of a phantom
fluid onto the Schwarzschild black hole results in a diminishing of black hole
mass due to a negative flux of energy through the event horizon. Usually in
the General Relativity it is assumed that matter has a suitable form. By
suitable, one can imply that the stress-energy tensor of matter satisfy
particular energy conditions, i.e. the weak energy condition (see for details,
e.g. [6]). Meanwhile the phantom energy violates by definition the weak energy
condition $\rho+p<0$, where $\rho$ is an energy density and $p$ is a pressure.
It is believed that phantoms generically contain ghosts [7] and thus should be
denied as nonphysical. It turns out, however, that it is possible to construct
a physically reasonable model of phantom, which is stable in the ultraviolet
limit, thus giving no catastrophic instabilities of vacuum [8]. Thus the study
of phantoms seems to be not fully meaningless from the physical point of view.
Violation of weak energy condition by phantom brings unusual consequences: in
the cosmological context the Big Rip singularity can be formed [9]; while the
accreting of phantom leads to the diminishing of a black hole mass [4, 5].
In this paper, we find a solution for the steady-state accretion of a test
perfect fluid with an arbitrary equation of state, $p=p(\rho)$, onto the
charged black hole, when the event horizon for the Reissner-Nordström metric
exists, $m^{2}>e^{2}$. A similar analysis was performed in [10]. We show that
a phantom energy accretion leads to the decreasing of a black hole mass. This
result is consistent with [4] for Schwarzschild case. On the other hand, we
show that when the Reissner-Nordström metric describes a naked singularity
with $m^{2}<e^{2}$, a perfect fluid does not accrete at all onto the the naked
singularity, instead, a static atmosphere is formed.
As we show below, when neglecting the gravitational back reaction of the
accreting fluid on the background metric, the extreme state of electrically
charged black hole is reached by phantom energy accretion during the finite
time. It is natural to ask then, whether it is possible to convert a Reissner-
Nordström black hole into a naked singularity by accretion of phantom fluid.
When phantom accretes onto a Schwarzschild black hole, the latter becomes
smaller and smaller with time and might completely disappear, i.e. in the Big
Rip scenario. However, in the case of phantom energy accretion onto a charged
black hole, when the mass becomes smaller than the charge, $m^{2}<e^{2}$, we
might naively think that black hole transforms to a naked singularity by
phantom energy accretion. This would also imply that the third law of black
hole thermodynamics breaks down as well [11]. Such a process of a Kerr-Newman
black hole transformation into a naked singularity by accretion of phantom
energy was first discussed in [12].
The key conjecture of general relativity is the cosmic censorship by R.
Penrose [13] prohibiting the appearance of naked singularity in the
gravitational collapse of suitable matter. At the same time, the inevitable
formation of singularity inside a black hole horizon is guaranteed by
singularity theorems [14, 15]. It is worthwhile to note that by “usual means”
it seems to be impossible to make a naked singularity from a black hole. For
example, the Kerr-Newman black hole cannot be transformed into a naked
singularity by capturing test particles with an electrical charge or orbital
angular momentum [11, 16] and can be only approached to the extreme state in a
limiting process.
We argue, however, that a test fluid approximation is inevitably violated when
the Reissner-Nordström black hole or naked singularity is near to the extreme
state. If this true, the back reaction of the accreting fluid on the
background geometry may prevent black transformation into the naked
singularity.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 we construct a general formalism
for the steady-state spherically symmetric accretion of a test perfect fluid
onto the Reissner-Nordström black hole. In Sec. 3 we apply these results to
the the particular examples of perfect fluids, the linear equation of state
and the Chaplygin gas. The formation of fluid atmosphere around naked
singularities is described in Sec. 4. The approaching to the extremal case by
accretion of phantom and a possible violation of the third law of
thermodynamics is studied in Sec. 5. We conclude and discuss the obtained
results of the paper in Sec. 6.
## 2 Steady-state accretion of perfect fluid
In this Section we consider the steady-state accretion of a test perfect fluid
with equation of state, $p=p(\rho)$, onto Reissner-Nordsröm black hole. We
will closely follow the approach of Ref. [4] with the necessary modifications
when needed.
The Reissner-Nordsröm metric is given by,
$ds^{2}=fdt^{2}-f^{-1}dr^{2}-r^{2}(d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\\!\theta\,d\phi^{2}),$
(1)
where
$f(r)=1-\frac{2m}{r}+\frac{e^{2}}{r^{2}}.$ (2)
In the case of $m^{2}>e^{2}$ the are two roots of the equation $f=0$:
$r_{\pm}=m\pm\sqrt{m^{2}-e^{2}},$ (3)
The larger root $r=r_{+}$ corresponds to the event horizon of the Reissner-
Nordsröm black hole. The opposite case, $m<|e|$, corresponds to the naked
singularity without the event horizon. The marginal case $m=|e|$ corresponds
to the extreme black hole.
The energy-momentum of a perfect fluid is
$T_{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)u_{\mu}u_{\nu}-pg_{\mu\nu},$ (4)
where $\rho$ and $p$ are a fluid energy density and a pressure
correspondingly, and $u^{\mu}=dx^{\mu}/ds$ is a fluid four-velocity with
normalization, $u^{\mu}u_{\mu}=1$. We assume that the pressure, is an
arbitrary function of density only, $p=p(\rho)$. To find the integrals of
motion we first use a projection of energy-momentum conservation on the four-
velocity, $u_{\mu}T^{\mu\nu}_{\quad;\nu}=0$. This gives an equation for
“particle” conservation,
$u^{\mu}\rho_{,\mu}+(\rho+p)u^{\mu}_{\;;\mu}=0.$ (5)
Integrating Eq. (5) we find the first integral of motion (the energy flux
conservation):
$ur^{2}\exp\left[\;\,\int\limits_{\rho_{\infty}}^{\rho}\\!\\!\frac{d\rho^{\prime}}{\rho^{\prime}+p(\rho^{\prime})}\right]=-Am^{2},$
(6)
where $u<0$ in the case of inflow motion, and a dimensionless constant $A>0$
is an integration constant which is related to the energy flux.
Integration of the time component of energy-momentum conservation law
$T^{\mu\nu}_{\;\;\;;\nu}=0$ gives the second integral of motion for stationary
spherically symmetric accretion in the Reissner-Nordsröm metric (the
relativistic Bernoulli energy conservation equation):
$(\rho+p)(f+u^{2})^{1/2}r^{2}u=C_{1},$ (7)
where $u=dr/ds$ and $C_{1}$ is an integration constant. From (6) and (7) one
can easily obtain:
$(\rho+p)(f+u^{2})^{1/2}\exp\left[-\int\limits_{\rho_{\infty}}^{\rho}\frac{d\rho^{\prime}}{\rho^{\prime}+p(\rho^{\prime})}\right]=C_{2},$
(8)
where $C_{2}\equiv-C_{1}(Am^{2})^{-1}=\rho_{\infty}+p(\rho_{\infty})$.
Equations (6) and (8) along with an equation of state $p=p(\rho)$ describe a
solution for accretion flow onto the Reissner-Nordström black hole. These
equations are valid for a perfect fluid with an arbitrary equation of state
$p=p(\rho)$ and may be applied, in particular, for the accretion of Chaplygin
gas [17] or dark energy described by the generalized linear equation of state
[18].
Note that while the constant $C_{2}$ is fixed simply by the boundary
conditions at the infinity, the numerical constant $A$ in Eq. (6) is fixed by
an additional physical requirement of the smooth transition through the
critical sound point. This provides a continuous solution for an accretion
from infinity down to the black hole horizon. Following to Michel [2], we
finds relations at the critical point:
$u_{*}^{2}=\frac{mr_{*}-e^{2}}{2r_{*}^{2}},\quad
c_{s}^{2}(\rho_{*})=\frac{mr_{*}-e^{2}}{2r_{*}^{2}-3mr_{*}+e^{2}},$ (9)
where $c_{s}(\rho)\equiv(\partial p/\partial\rho)^{1/2}$ is a sound velocity,
and the subscript ’$*$’ means that the values are estimated at the critical
point. From (9) one can find:
$\frac{r_{*}^{(\pm)}}{m}=\frac{1+3c_{s*}^{2}}{4c_{s*}^{2}}\left\\{1\pm\left[1-\frac{8c_{s*}^{2}(1+c_{s*}^{2})}{(1+3c_{s*}^{2})^{2}}\frac{e^{2}}{m^{2}}\right]^{1/2}\right\\},$
(10)
where $c_{s*}\equiv c_{s}(r_{*})$. From this equation it follows that in
general there are two critical (sound) surfaces. The critical points exist
only if,
$\frac{e^{2}}{m^{2}}\leq\frac{\left(1+3c_{s}^{2}\right)^{2}}{8c_{s}^{2}\left(1+c_{s}^{2}\right)}.$
(11)
It is worthwhile to note that in contrast to the case of accretion onto a
Schwarzschild black hole, there are formally two different critical points,
with plus and minus signs in Eq. (10). The limit $e\to 0$ suggests that the
point inner critical point, $r_{*}^{(-)}$, is unphysical, since
$r_{*}^{(-)}=0$ in the limit $e=0$. Note, that in a general case $e\leq m$ the
inner critical point is in between of two horizons, $r_{+}\geq r_{*}^{(-)}\geq
r_{-}$. The point $r_{*}$ with the plus sign, $r_{*}^{(+)}$, is a physical
one, since it corresponds to the critical point. It is easy to see that
$r_{*}^{(+)}\geq r_{+}$ for $e\leq m$.
One can see that for $c_{s}^{2}<1$ there is a range of parameter $e$, such
that the solution $r_{*}^{(\pm)}$ is real even for a naked singularity,
$e^{2}>m^{2}$. However, as we will see below, the existence of this point does
not mean that the steady-state accretion actually takes place. In fact, there
is no steady-state accretion onto naked singularity.
For accretion of a “superluminal” fluid [19], with $c_{s}>1$, the critical
point is inside the black hole horizon. It is interesting to note that for the
extreme black hole, $e=m$, a critical point for “superluminal” fluid is always
coincides with the horizon, $r_{*}(c_{s}>1)=m$. For a naked singularity,
$e^{2}>m^{2}$, a critical point exists only for the limiting range of
$c_{s*}$.
Using (10) and (9) one can find $\rho_{*}$ from Eq. (8). Then for any equation
of state, $p=p(\rho)$, the energy density at critical point $\rho_{*}$ can be
found from (6) and (9), and finally the parameter $A$ is fixed.
From (6) and (8) one can find relations for a fluid velocity $u_{+}=u(r_{+})$
and density $\rho_{+}=\rho(r_{+})$ at the event horizon:
$A\,\frac{m^{2}}{r_{+}^{2}}\left[\frac{\rho_{+}+p(\rho_{+})}{\rho_{\infty}+p(\rho_{\infty})}\right]=\exp\left[2\,\int\limits_{\rho_{\infty}}^{\rho_{+}}\\!\\!\frac{d\rho^{\prime}}{\rho^{\prime}+p(\rho^{\prime})}\right].$
(12)
The black hole mass changes at a rate $\dot{m}=-4\pi r^{2}T_{0}^{\;r}$ due to
the fluid accretion. With the help of (6) and (8) this expression may be
written as
$\dot{m}=4\pi Am^{2}[\rho_{\infty}+p(\rho_{\infty})].$ (13)
From this equation it is clear that accretion of a phantom energy, defined by
a condition $\rho_{\infty}+p(\rho_{\infty})<0$, is always accompanied with a
diminishing of the black hole mass. This is in accordance with previous
findings [4]. The result is valid for any equation of state $p=p(\rho)$ with
$\rho+p(\rho)<0$.
## 3 Analytic solutions
In this Section we present several analytic solutions for the steady-state
accretion of a perfect fluid onto a charged black hole.
### 3.1 Generalized linear equation of state
As a first example we consider the case of the generalized linear equation of
state,
$p=\alpha(\rho-\rho_{0}),$ (14)
where $\alpha$ and $\rho_{0}$ are constants. This equation was introduced in
[4] (see also [18]) to avoid hydrodynamical instability for a perfect fluid
with the negative pressure. One can easily see that the constant $\alpha$ in
(14) is the square of the sound speed of small perturbations,
$\alpha=c_{s}^{2}$, and it must be positive to avoid catastrophic
hydrodynamical instability. Using (9) and (10), one can calculate from (6) the
dimensionless constant $A$ for the linear equation of state
$A=\alpha^{1/2}\frac{r_{*}^{2}}{m^{2}}\left(\frac{2\alpha
r_{*}^{2}}{mr_{*}-e^{2}}\right)^{\\!\frac{\scriptstyle 1-\alpha}{\scriptstyle
2\alpha}}.$ (15)
To find the velocity and energy density profile versus $r$ in the model (14)
we need the joint solution of equations (6) and (8):
$f+u^{2}=\left(-\frac{ux^{2}}{A}\right)^{2\alpha},\quad\frac{\rho+p}{\rho_{\infty}+p(\rho_{\infty})}=\left(-\frac{A}{ux^{2}}\right)^{1+\alpha}.$
(16)
It is possible to find analytical solutions of these equations for specific
values of $\alpha$, namely, $\alpha=1/4$, $1/3$, $1/2$, $2/3$, $1$ and $2$.
For example, for $\alpha=1/3$ we find for a radial distribution of energy
density
$\rho=\frac{\rho_{0}}{4}+\left(\rho_{\infty}-\frac{\rho_{0}}{4}\right)\left(\frac{1+2z}{3f}\right)^{2},$
(17)
where
$z=\left\\{\
\begin{array}[]{lr}\displaystyle{\cos\frac{2\pi-\beta}{3}\,},&r_{+}\leq x\leq
r_{*};\\\ \\\ \displaystyle{\cos\frac{\beta}{3}},&x>r_{*}\end{array}\right.$
(18)
and
$\beta=\arccos\left(1-\frac{27}{2}A^{2}\frac{f^{\,2}}{x^{4}}\right).$ (19)
Phantom energy in this particular case corresponds to
$\rho_{0}>4\rho_{\infty}$. At the horizon $x=x_{+}=r_{+}/m$ we have
$\rho_{+}=\frac{\rho_{0}}{4}+\left(\rho_{\infty}-\frac{\rho_{0}}{4}\right)\frac{A^{2}}{x_{+}^{4}}.$
(20)
Analogously, in the case of ultra-hard equation of state with $\alpha=1$ we
have
$u^{2}=\frac{(x-x_{-})x_{+}^{4}}{(x+x_{+})(x^{2}+x_{+}^{2})x^{2}};$ (21)
$\rho=\frac{\rho_{0}}{2}+\left(\rho_{\infty}-\frac{\rho_{0}}{2}\right)\frac{(x+x_{+})(x^{2}+x_{+}^{2})}{(x-x_{-})x^{2}},$
(22)
where $x=r/m$. Now at the horizon we find
$\rho_{+}=\frac{\rho_{0}}{2}+\left(\rho_{\infty}-\frac{\rho_{0}}{2}\right)\frac{2x_{+}}{\sqrt{m^{2}-e^{2}}}.$
(23)
From this equation it is seen that in the case of ultra-hard fluid an energy
density at the horizon $\rho_{+}$ is diverging at $e\to m$. As a result, the
test fluid approximation is violated in the limit $e\to m$.
### 3.2 Chaplygin gas
Figure 1: Examples of the radial energy density distribution of the Chaplygin
gas accreting onto the Schwarzschild ($e=0$) and Reissner-Nordström black hole
($e\neq 0$). A horizontal line $\rho(r)=\rho_{\infty}$ is the vacuum energy
density ($\xi=1$). Curves below this line correspond to phantom fluid
($\xi<1$). There are marked the values of energy density
$\rho_{+}=\rho(r_{+})$ at the black hole event horizon $r_{+}$.
As an other solvable example we consider the Chaplygin gas with an equation of
state,
$p=-\frac{\alpha}{\rho},$ (24)
where constant $\alpha>0$ corresponds to the hydrodynamically stable fluid.
The Chaplygin gas with $\rho^{2}<\alpha$ represents a phantom energy with
superluminal speed of sound. Respectively, the case of $\rho^{2}>\alpha$
corresponds to a dark energy with $\rho+p>0$ and $0<c_{s}^{2}<1$.
In the Reissner-Nordström metric with an equation of state (24) we find for
the critical point:
$f_{*}=\frac{\xi-1}{\xi},\quad
r_{*}=\xi\left[1\pm\left(1-\frac{1}{\xi}\frac{e^{2}}{m^{2}}\right)^{1/2}\right],\quad
A=\frac{x_{*}^{2}}{\xi^{1/2}},$ (25)
where $\xi=\rho_{\infty}^{2}/\alpha$. The sonic point exists if
$\xi\geq\xi_{\rm min}=(e/m)^{2}$. At $\xi<\xi_{\rm min}$ the accretion is
subsonic and the value of A is indefinite. The minimum value of A for a
supersonic accretion is $A_{\rm\min}=(e/m)^{3}$, corresponding to
$r_{*}=\xi_{\rm min}$. For a radial dependence of dimensional energy density
$y=\rho/\rho_{\infty}$ and radial 4-velocity $u$ we find
$\frac{\rho}{\rho_{\infty}}=\left[\frac{f+A(1-\xi)x^{-4}}{(1-\xi)+\xi
f}\right]^{1/2},\quad
u=-\frac{A}{x^{2}}\left[\frac{1-\xi}{1-\xi(\rho/\rho_{\infty})^{2}}\right]^{1/2}.$
(26)
The value of energy density at the event horizon is
$\rho(r_{+})/\rho_{\infty}=Am^{2}/r_{+}^{2}$. Solution (26) in the specific
case $\xi=1$ corresponds to the vacuum state with $p=-\rho=-\rho_{\infty}$ and
$u=0$. See in Fig. 1 some examples of radial energy density distribution of
accreting Chaplygin gas around black hole.
In the case $e^{2}>m^{2}$, by putting $u=A=0$ in the equation (26), we obtain
the static Chaplygin gas energy density distribution around the naked
singularity (without the influx).
## 4 Lightweight atmosphere around naked singularity
In contrast to the case of the Reissner-Nordström black hole, there is no
stationary accretion of a perfect fluid onto a naked singularity with
$e^{2}>m^{2}$. Formally this happens because no stationary solution for the
accretion onto the naked singularity exists. Instead, a static atmosphere of
lightweight perfect fluid around the Reissner-Nordström naked singularity is
established with a zero influx. Assuming $u=0$ from Eq. (8) we find a static
distribution of a test perfect fluid with an arbitrary equation of state
$p=p(\rho)$ around the Reissner-Nordström naked singularity
$\frac{\rho+p}{\rho_{\infty}+p(\rho_{\infty})}\exp\left[-\int\limits_{\rho_{\infty}}^{\rho}\frac{d\rho^{\prime}}{\rho^{\prime}+p(\rho^{\prime})}\right]=f^{-1/2}.$
(27)
In a particular case of linear equation of state (14) we obtain for the static
atmosphere
$\rho(r)=\frac{\alpha\rho_{0}}{1+\alpha}+\left(\rho_{\infty}-\frac{\alpha\rho_{0}}{1+\alpha}\right)f^{\,-{\frac{\scriptstyle
1+\alpha}{\scriptstyle 2\alpha}}}.$ (28)
In Fig. 2 the distribution of energy density for the thermal radiation
($\alpha=1/3$, $\rho_{0}=0$) and the phantom energy ($\alpha=1/3$,
$\rho_{0}=6\rho_{\infty}$) around the Reissner-Nordström naked singularity
with $e=2m$ is shown. For an ordinary matter with $\rho_{0}=0$ and $\alpha>0$
the energy density tends to zero at the singularity, $\rho\propto
r^{1+1/\alpha}$ at $r\to 0$. In the case of phantom, the energy density is
finite at $r=0$, and so phantom fluid overcomes the naked singularity
repulsiveness.
Figure 2: An example of energy density distribution for the thermal radiation
($\alpha=1/3$, $\rho_{0}=0$) and the phantom energy ($\alpha=1/3$,
$\rho_{0}=6\rho_{\infty}$) in a static atmosphere around the Reissner-
Nordström naked singularity with $e=2m$. The inverse energy density profile of
thermal radiation near the singularity is a manifestation of the repulsive
character of naked singularity.
## 5 Approaching to extreme state
An approaching to the extreme black hole state by capturing of particles with
an electric charge and/or angular momentum is possible only in the limiting
process during an infinite time [11, 20, 21]. At the same time, during
accretion of a neutral phantom energy the electric charge of the Reissner-
Nordström BH is unchanged, $e=const$, while a black hole mass diminishes. As a
result the black hole is approaching to the near extreme state due to the
growing of ratio $e/m(t)$. In the test fluid approximation, a black hole
reaches the extreme state after the finite time $t=t_{\rm NS}$, defined by
$e=m(t_{\rm NS})$. Using Eq. (13), the time $t_{\rm NS}$ for a black hole BH
with initial mass $m=m(0)$ and electric charge $e=const$ may be calculated
from relation:
$\int_{0}^{t_{\rm NS}}\dot{m}\,dt=e-m(0).$ (29)
If we neglect the cosmological evolution of $\rho_{\infty}$, then from (13),
(15) and (29) for a particular case of a stationary phantom energy with the
ultra-hard equation of state (with $c_{s}=1$) we obtain
$t_{\rm NS}=\frac{q^{3}-3q^{2}+2-2(1-q^{2})^{3/2}}{3q^{4}}\,\tau,$ (30)
where $q=e/m(0)$ and
$\tau=-\\{4\pi[\rho_{\infty}+p(\rho_{\infty})]m(0)\\}^{-1}$ is a
characteristic accretion time. A corresponding relation for time $t_{\rm NS}$
needed to bring the Kerr black hole with an angular momentum $J=const$ to the
near extreme state by accretion of phantom energy in the test fluid
approximation is
$\int_{0}^{t_{\rm NS}}\dot{m}\,dt=\sqrt{J}-m(0).$ (31)
From this relation in a case of accretion of phantom energy with the ultra-
hard equation of state ($c_{s}=1$) by using (13) and (31) with $A=2r_{+}/m$
from [22] we find
$t_{\rm
NS}=\\!\frac{1}{6\tilde{a}^{1/2}}\\!\\!\left[1\\!-\\!\frac{1-\sqrt{1\\!-\\!\tilde{a}^{2}}}{\tilde{a}^{3/2}}\\!+\\!2F(\frac{1}{2}\arccos\tilde{a},2)\right],$
(32)
where $\tilde{a}=J/m^{2}(0)$ and $F(\phi,k)$ is an elliptic integral of the
first kind.
The finiteness of time $t_{\rm E}$ in (30) and (32) demonstrates violation of
the the third law of black hole thermodynamics in the considered test fluid
approximation.
According to [22] an energy density of the accreting fluid with $c_{s}=1$ at
the event horizon of the Kerr black hole is
$\left[\frac{\rho_{+}-\rho_{0}/2}{\rho_{\infty}-\rho_{0}/2}\right]=\frac{1}{r_{+}^{2}+a^{2}\cos^{2}\theta}\left(\frac{4r_{+}^{2}m}{\sqrt{m^{2}-a^{2}}}-a^{2}\sin^{2}\theta\right),$
(33)
where $\rho_{+}=\rho(r_{+})$. This energy density is diverging at $a\to m$.
The similar energy density in the case of Reissner-Norsdström:
$\rho=\frac{\rho_{0}}{2}+\left(\rho_{\infty}-\frac{\rho_{0}}{2}\right)\frac{r^{4}-B^{2}m^{4}}{r^{2}(r^{2}-2mr+e^{2})},$
(34)
where $B=r_{+}$. The energy density at the horizon of near extreme Reissner-
Norsdström black hole is
$\rho_{+}=\frac{\rho_{0}}{2}+\left(\rho_{\infty}-\frac{\rho_{0}}{2}\right)\frac{2r_{+}}{\sqrt{m^{2}-e^{2}}}\to\pm\infty\quad\hbox{at}\quad
m\to e.$ (35)
Respectively, it can be easily verified from (27), (28) and (33) that energy
density of light atmosphere around the near extreme electrically charged or
rotating naked singularity with $\epsilon\ll 1$ is also diverging at $r=m$.
Thus the test fluid approximation breaks down in the case $\alpha=1$ (i.e.,
$c_{s}=1$). This divergent behavior of the energy density is remained also in
a more general case $\alpha>1$. Indeed, the corresponding values of $u$ and
$\rho$ at the horizon in the case of a linear equation of state are according
to (16) are
$u_{+}\\!=\\!\left(\frac{A}{x_{+}^{2}}\right)^{\alpha/(\alpha-1)}\\!\\!,\quad\rho_{+}\\!=\\!\frac{\alpha}{\alpha+1}\rho_{0}+\left[\rho_{\infty}\\!-\\!\frac{\alpha}{\alpha\\!+\\!1}\rho_{0}\right]\left(\frac{x_{+}^{2}}{A}\right)^{(\alpha\\!+\\!1)/(\alpha-1)}\\!\\!.$
(36)
It can be seen from (15) that $A\to(4\epsilon)^{1/4}$ at $\epsilon\to 0$,
where the extreme parameter $\epsilon=(m^{2}-e^{2})/m^{2}$. As a result at the
horizon $u\to 0$ and $\rho\to\infty$ in the limit $e\to m$.
Analogous violation of a test fluid approximation occurs at a radius $r=m$ in
a static atmosphere around the near extreme naked singularity with
$-\epsilon\ll 1$ due to divergence of the energy density. Namely, from (28) it
can be verified that
$\rho(m)\propto\left[\rho_{\infty}-\alpha\rho_{0}/(1+\alpha)\right]|\epsilon|^{\,-{\frac{\scriptstyle
1+2\alpha}{\scriptstyle 4\alpha}}}$ at $-\epsilon\ll 1$. Additionally, for
phantom energy case, when
$\left[\rho_{\infty}-\alpha\rho_{0}/(1+\alpha)\right]<0$, the strong energy
domination condition is violated, $\rho(m)\to-\infty$ at $-\epsilon\to 0$. A
similar divergence of energy density occurs at radius $r=m$ in a stationary
atmosphere around the near extreme Kerr naked singularity [23].
Meanwhile, in the case of $0<\alpha<1$ the energy density of the accreting
fluid remains finite even for the extreme black hole. Nevertheless, the
validity of the test fluid approximation is still questionable. We assume,
however, that back reaction of the accretion flow will prevent the
transformation of black hole into the naked singularity. Similar idea of the
importance of back reaction was proposed in [hod08] for absorption of scalar
particles with large angular momentum by a near extreme black hole.
## 6 Conclusion and discussion
In this paper we considered the stationary distribution of the test perfect
fluid with an arbitrary equation of state, $p=p(\rho)$, in the Reissner-
Nordström metric. Similarly to the well-known case of the stationary accretion
of perfect fluid onto the Schwarzschild black hole, the corresponding solution
for the accretion exists also in the case of Reissner-Nordström black hole. On
the contrary, there is no stationary accretion of the perfect fluid onto the
Reissner-Nordström naked singularity, $e>m$. Instead, the static atmosphere of
the fluid is formed around the naked singularity. In both cases of the black
hole and the naked singularity we found the analytical solution to the problem
of the steady state configurations of the perfect fluids with an arbitrary
equation of state, $p=p(\rho)$. As the particular cases, we considered fluid
with the linear equation of state, $p=\alpha(\rho-\rho_{0})$ and the Chaplygin
gas, $p=\alpha/\rho$.
When the accreting fluid is phantom, $\rho+p<0$, the mass of the Reissner-
Nordström black hole decreases. This result is in the agreement with the
previous findings [4, 5]. This immediately leads us to the question, whether
it is possible to transform the Reissner-Nordström black hole into the naked
singularity by by accretion of phantom. Formally it seems so, since the
accreting phantom decreases the black hole mass, while the electric charge of
the black hole remains the same. Thus, one can expect that at some finite
moment of time a black hole will turn into the naked singularity. Indeed, as
we have shown in Sec. 5, it takes the finite time for the Reissner-Nordström
black hole to reach the extreme case. The similar result also holds for the
Kerr black hole.
However, this naive picture, taken out in the test fluid approximation, does
not seem realized if one takes into account the back reaction of perfect fluid
onto the background metric. First of all, in the case of ultra-hard equation
of state, $p=\rho$, the fluid density diverges at the horizon, $r=r_{+}$, when
black hole is approaching to the extremal state, $m\to e$. Thus, the test
fluid approximation breaks down and the results is not applicable. In other
cases, when $c_{s}^{2}\neq 1$, the situation is more subtle and beyond the
scope of this paper. Our preliminary investigations show, however, that in
general case, the test fluid approximation breaks down at the extreme case. We
expect that black hole cannot be converted into the naked singularity even by
the accretion of phantom energy, and thus the third law of thermodynamics is
not violated in this case.
We would like to stress, that although the test fluid approximation seems to
break down for the near-extreme state of the black hole/naked singularity, for
the far-from-the-extreme state black hole (in particular, for the
Schwarzschild solution), the parameters of the perfect fluid and the boundary
condition at the infinity can be tuned so, that the test fluid approximation
describes well the problem under consideration. In particular, we stress, that
the phantom energy accretion indeed leads to decreasing of the black hole
mass.
Recently Gao et al [25] contested the validity of this result, claiming that
the inclusion of the back reaction would result in the opposite process,
namely, the mass of a black hole increases in the process of phantom
accretion. The particular solution was presented in [25] to support this
point. However, the conclusion of [25] is doubtful. First of all, it is only
valid for imperfect fluids, thus making impossible the application of their
arguments to the perfect fluids, for which the effect of black hole mass
decreasing was found. The perfect fluid does not accrete in the solution of
Gao et al, and the heat flux is introduced by hand to support this kind of
configuration. Note that the heat flux ingredient is crucial to cook up this
solution. Without the heat flux the system must evolve to the more physical
configuration, which is likely to be the stationary accretion [4]. Even when
the heat flux is introduced, it is unclear whether such an artificial
configuration is stable with respect to the small perturbations. Finally, it
is worthwhile to note that the temperature of the fluid diverges at the black
hole event horizon for the solution by Gao et al.
If the back reaction does not prevent the process of phantom accretion onto a
charged black hole or rotating black hole, then it is a way to violate the
cosmic censorship. Otherwise, the phantom energy must be totally forbidden on
the more fundamental basis, as for instance, a quantum instability.
We would like to thank V. Beskin, V. Lukash, Ya. Istomin, A. Vikman and K.
Zybin for useful discussions and C. Gao for correspondence. The work of EB was
supported by the EU FP6 Marie Curie Research and Training Network
“UniverseNet” (MRTN-CT-2006-035863). The work of other coauthors was supported
in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant 06-02-16342 and the
Russian Ministry of Science grant LSS 959.2008.2.
## References
## References
* [1] Bondi H 1952 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 112 195
* [2] Michel F C 1972 Ap. Sp. Sc. 15 153
* [3] Carr B J and Hawking S W 1974 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 168 399; Harada T and Carr B 2005 Phys. Rev. D 72 044021; Begelman M C 1978 Astron. Astrophys. 70 583; Ray D 1980 Astron. Astrophys. 82 368; Thorne K S, Flammang R A and Zytkow A N 1981 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 194 475; Bettwieser E and Glatzel W 1981 Astron. Astrophys. 94 306; Chang K M 1985 Astron. Astrophys. 142 212; Pandey U S 1987 Astrophys. Sp. Sc. 136 195; Beskin V 1997 Physics-Uspekhi 40 659; Beskin V 2004 Les Houches Lect. Notes 78 85, arXiv:astro-ph/0212377; Shatskiy A 2007 Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 131 851 [2007 JETP 104 743 (translated from)]; Babichev E, Dokuchaev V and Eroshenko Yu 2005 Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 127 597 [2005 JETP 100 528 (translated from)]; Harada T, Maeda H and Carr B J 2006 Phys. Rev. D 74 024024; Maeda H, Harada T, Carr B J Phys. Rev. D D77 024023\.
* [4] Babichev E, Dokuchaev V and Eroshenko Yu 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 021102
* [5] Gonzalez-Diaz P and Siguenza C 2004 Phys. Lett. B 589 78; Nojiri S and Odintsov S 2004 Phys. Rev. D 70 103522; Madrid J Jimenez 2006 Phys. Lett. B 634 106; Martin-Moruno P, Madrid J Jimenez and Gonzalez-Diaz P 2006 Phys. Lett. B 640 117; Izquierdo G and Pavon D 2006 Phys. Lett. B 639 1; Sadjadi H Mohseni 2007 Phys. Lett. B 645 108; Faraoni V and Jacques A 2007 Phys. Rev. D 76 063510; de Freitas Pacheco J A and Horvath J E 2007 Class. Quant. Grav. 24 5427;
* [6] Wald R M arXiv:gr-qc/9710068v3
* [7] Cline J M, Jeon S and Moore G D 2004 Phys. Rev. D 70 043543
* [8] Rubakov V A 2006 Theor. Math. Phys. 149 1651
* [9] Caldwell R R 2002 Phys. Lett. B 545 23; Caldwell R R, Kamionkowski M and Weinberg N N 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 071301
* [10] Mubasher Jamil, Muneer Ahmad Rashid, Asghar Qadir: arXiv:0808.1152v1 [astro-ph]
* [11] Bardeen J M, Carter B and Hawking S. W 1973 Commun. Math. Phys. 31 161
* [12] Madrid J A Jimenez and Gonzalez-Diaz P F arXiv:astro-ph/0510051v1
* [13] Penrose R 1969 Riv. Nuovo Cim. 1 252
* [14] Hawking S W and Penrose R 1970 Proc. Roy, Soc. A 314 529
* [15] Hawking S W and Ellis G F R The large scale structure of space-time (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973)
* [16] Wald R 1974 Ann. Phys. 82 548; Cohen J M and Gautreau R 1979 Phys. Rev. D 19 2273; Burko L M 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 121101
* [17] Kamenshchik A, Moschella U and Pasquierm V 2001 Phys. Lett. B 511 265
* [18] Babichev E, Dokuchaev V and Eroshenko Yu 2005 Class. Quant. Grav. 22 143
* [19] Babichev E, Mukhanov V and Vikman A JHEP 02, 101 (2008)
* [20] Bardeen J M 1970 Nature 226 64
* [21] Roman T A 1988 Gen. Rel. Grav. 20 359
* [22] Petrich L I, Shapiro S L and Teukolsky S A 1988 Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 1781
* [23] Babichev E, Chernov S, Dokuchaev V and Eroshenko Yu arXiv:0807.0449 [gr-qc]
* [24] Hod S 2008 Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 121101
* [25] Gao C, Chen X, Faraoni V and Shen You-Gen arXiv:0802.1298 [gr-qc]
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-05T07:28:54 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.116844 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "E. O. Babichev, V. I. Dokuchaev, Yu. N. Eroshenko",
"submitter": "Vyacheslav Ivanovich Dokuchaev",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0916"
} |
0806.0978 | # Twisted exterior derivatives for enveloping algebras
Zoran Škoda Theoretical Physics Division, Institute Rudjer Bošković,
Bijenička cesta 54, P.O.Box 180, HR-10002 Zagreb, Croatia zskoda@irb.hr
###### Abstract
We extend the representations of finite-dimensional Lie algebra by derivations
of the completed symmetric algebra of its dual to the derivations of a bigger
algebra which includes the exterior algebra on the Lie algebra. This enables a
construction of a twisted version of the exterior differential calculus with
the enveloping algebra in the role of the coordinate algebra. In this twisted
version, the commutators between noncommutative differentials and coordinates
are formal power series in partial derivatives. The square of the
corresponding exterior derivative is zero like in the classical case, but the
Leibniz rule is deformed.
###### keywords:
universal enveloping algebra, exterior calculus, exterior derivative, deformed
Leibniz rule, star product, Weyl algebra
###### Contents
1. 1 Introduction
2. 2 The twisted algebra of differential forms
3. 3 Exterior derivative
## 1 Introduction
1.1. Viewing the enveloping algebras of Lie algebras as deformations of
symmetric algebras in our earlier article with S. Meljanac [5] we have also
deformed the (completed) Weyl algebra of differential operators, found
deformed analogues of partial derivatives, and studied the deformations of
Leibniz rules, all parametrized by certain datum which comes in many disguises
as “orderings”, “representations by (co)derivations”, “realizations by vector
fields” and “coalgebra isomorphisms between $S(\mathfrak{g})$ and
$U(\mathfrak{g})$”(cf. also [1, 6] and [4], Chap. 10). In the present article
I will extend that picture to consistently include the exterior calculus in a
unique way, given the datum mentioned above.
1.2. We fix an $n$-dimensional Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ over a field
${\bm{k}}$ of characteristic zero, with basis
$\hat{x}_{1},\ldots,\hat{x}_{n}$, considered also as the generators of its
universal enveloping algebra $U(\mathfrak{g})$ and with the structure
constants $C^{s}_{ij}$ satisfying
$[\hat{x}_{i},\hat{x}_{j}]=C^{s}_{ij}\hat{x}_{s}$. The antipode of
$U(\mathfrak{g})$ will be denoted $\gamma$. To distinguish the elements of
$\mathfrak{g}$ in the symmetric algebra $S(\mathfrak{g})$, we denote them
differently, by $x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}$ to emphasise that $x_{i}$-s commute,
while $\hat{x}_{i}$-s (in $U(\mathfrak{g})$) do not. The dual basis of
$\mathfrak{g}^{*}$ is denoted by $\partial^{1},\ldots,\partial^{n}$.
Throughout the article we fix a homomorphism of Lie algebra
$\bm{\phi}:\mathfrak{g}\to\operatorname{Der}(\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*}))$, or
equivalently its extension to a Hopf action
$\bm{\phi}:U(\mathfrak{g})\to\operatorname{End}(\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*}))$.
We require that the $n\times n$ matrix oevr $\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$ whose
$(i,j)$-th entry is $\phi^{j}_{i}:=\bm{\phi}(-\hat{x}_{i})(\partial^{j})$
whose entries are formal power series, is invertible and even “close to the
identity” symbolically written $\phi^{j}_{i}=\delta^{j}_{i}+O(\partial)$, and
meaning that the image of the matrix $(\phi^{i}_{j})$ under the ’evaluation at
$0$ map’, that is under the projection
$\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})\to\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})/\cup
S^{n>0}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})\cong{\bm{k}}$, is the unit matrix. It is an easy
fact ([5]) that the data for the map $\bm{\phi}$ are equivalent to giving only
the matrix $\phi=(\phi^{j}_{i})$ which satisfies the formal differential
equation
$\phi^{l}_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{l})}(\phi^{k}_{i})-\phi^{l}_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{l})}(\phi^{k}_{j})=C^{s}_{ij}\phi^{k}_{s}.$
(1)
On the other hand, the datum $\bm{\phi}$ is equivalent to a coalgebra
isomorphism $\xi=\xi_{\bm{\phi}}:S(\mathfrak{g})\to U(\mathfrak{g})$ (example:
the symmetrization or coexponential map) which equals the identity when
restricted to ${\bm{k}}\oplus\mathfrak{g}\subset S(\mathfrak{g})$. This
isomorphism enables us to transport the linear operators from
$S(\mathfrak{g})$ to $U(\mathfrak{g})$, and the images of the partial
derivatives $\partial^{i}$ are the deformed derivatives
$\hat{\partial}^{i}=(\partial^{i}\\!\blacktriangleright):=\xi\circ\partial^{i}\circ\xi^{-1}$
satisfying the deformed Leibniz rules studied in [5]. This rule extends to a
Hopf action $\blacktriangleright$ of $\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g})$ on
$U(\mathfrak{g})$. The left Hopf action
$\bm{\phi}:U(\mathfrak{g})\to\operatorname{End}(\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*}))$
and the corresponding right Hopf action $\gamma\circ\bm{\phi}$ (where
$\gamma:U(\mathfrak{g})\to U(\mathfrak{g})^{\mathrm{o}p}$ is the antipode)
induce the left and right smash product algebra structures
$\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})\sharp U(\mathfrak{g})\cong
U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$ on the tensor products
$\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})\otimes U(\mathfrak{g})\cong
U(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$. It appears that the
correspondence $\hat{x}_{i}\mapsto\sum_{j=1}^{n}x_{j}\phi^{j}_{i}$,
$\partial^{j}\mapsto\partial^{j}$ entends uniquely to an isomorphism of
algebras from the “$\bm{\phi}$-twisted Weyl algebra”
$U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$ to the $n$-th (semi)completed
classical Weyl algebra $\hat{A}_{n,{\bm{k}}}$ whose underlying vector space is
identified with $S(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g})$; the inverse of
that map is ensured by the invertibility of the matrix $\phi=(\phi^{j}_{i})$.
We can also take another point of view: $\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})\cong
S(\mathfrak{g})^{*}$ can be considered as a topological Hopf algebra in
pairing with $U(\mathfrak{g})$ via $\langle
u,P\rangle_{\bm{\phi}}=P(\xi^{-1}_{\bm{\phi}}(u))(0)$ where $u\in
U(\mathfrak{g})$ and $P\in S^{*}(\mathfrak{g})$ (considered as a differential
operator – the evaluation at zero identifies the differential operators with
functionals). This pairing is made Hopf pairing by force: introducing the
deformed ’dual’ topological coproduct on $\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g})$ (agreeing
with our “deformed Leibniz rules”). Then the action $\blacktriangleright$
above satisfies (in Sweedler notation) $P\blacktriangleright u=\sum\langle
P,u_{(2)}\rangle_{\bm{\phi}}u_{(1)}$. The smash product algebra for such an
action coming from a Hopf pairing is called a Heisenberg double. Thus we have
a Heisenberg double
$\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})\sharp_{\blacktriangleright}U(\mathfrak{g})$ for
that left Hopf action of topological Hopf algebra $\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$
on $U(\mathfrak{g})$ which is canonically isomorphic (via tautological map) to
the algebra $\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})\sharp U(\mathfrak{g})$ above, but
interpreted as a smash product algebra for the right Hopf action of the Hopf
algebra $U(\mathfrak{g})$ on $\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$.
## 2 The twisted algebra of differential forms
In our constructions it will be useful to distinguish notationally the
generators of two different copies of the classical exterior algebra
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})$: in the first by
$d\hat{x}^{1},\ldots,d\hat{x}^{n}$ and in the second by
$dx_{1},\ldots,dx_{n}$. Both bases correspond to
$\hat{x}_{1},\ldots,\hat{x}_{n}$ under
$\mathfrak{g}\hookrightarrow\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})$.
2.1. Theorem. Any Lie homomorphism
$\bm{\phi}:\mathfrak{g}\to\operatorname{Der}(\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*}))$
uniquely extends to a Lie homomorphism
$\tilde{\bm{\phi}}:\mathfrak{g}\to\operatorname{Der}(\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*}))$
satisfying
$\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{i})(d\hat{x}_{l})=\sum_{k,r,s=1}^{n}d\hat{x}_{k}(\phi^{-1})^{k}_{s}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{r})}\phi^{s}_{l}\right)\phi^{r}_{i}.$
(2)
Consequently, there is a further extension to a Hopf action
$\tilde{\bm{\phi}}:U(\mathfrak{g})\to\operatorname{End}_{\bm{k}}(\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})).$
In particular the left and right smash product algebras
$U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp_{\gamma\circ\tilde{\bm{\phi}}}(\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}))\cong(\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}))\sharp_{\tilde{\bm{\phi}}}U(\mathfrak{g})$
, are well-defined. These two algebras are canonically isomorphic by the
bijectivity of the antipode $\gamma$ and we will call them the extended
algebra of $\bm{\phi}$-twisted differential forms (’extended’ for the presence
of partial derivatives in the algebra). In this algebra,
$\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\gamma\hat{u})(\omega)=[\ldots[\omega,\hat{x}_{1}]\ldots\hat{x}_{n}]$
for $\omega\in\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$ and
$\hat{u}=\hat{x}_{1}\ldots\hat{x}_{n}\in U(\mathfrak{g})$.
Proof. Every derivation of $\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$ is continuous ([3]);
the same statement holds for
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$; also the
restriction to $\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$ satisfies the chain rule. We need
to prove
$\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{i})\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{j})-\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{j})\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{i})-\sum_{k}C^{k}_{ij}\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{k})=0$.
Regarding that the restrictions of $\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{i})$ and
$\bm{\phi}(\hat{x}_{i})$ to $\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g})$ agree, it is sufficient to
show when applying on the generators $d\hat{x}_{l}$ of
$\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g})$. To calculate
$\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{i})\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{j})(d\hat{x}_{l})$
notice that $\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{j})(d\hat{x}_{l})$ is a sum of
products of four terms: $d\hat{x}_{k}$ and 3 terms involving $\phi$, so that
the application of the Leibniz rule will give 4 different summands. Thus
$\begin{array}[]{lcl}\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{i})\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{j})(d\hat{x}_{l})&-&\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{j})\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{i})(d\hat{x}_{l})-\sum_{k}C^{k}_{ij}\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{k})(d\hat{x}_{l})=\\\
&=&d\hat{x}_{c}(\phi^{-1})^{c}_{d}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{r})}\phi^{d}_{b}\right)\phi^{r}_{j}(\phi^{-1})^{b}_{a}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{s})}\phi^{a}_{l}\right)\phi^{s}_{i}-(i\leftrightarrow
j)\\\
&&+d\hat{x}_{c}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{r})}(\phi^{-1})^{c}_{j}\right)\phi^{r}_{j}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{s})}\phi^{a}_{l}\right)\phi^{s}_{i}-(i\leftrightarrow
j)\\\
&&+d\hat{x}_{c}(\phi^{-1})^{c}_{a}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{r})}\phi^{a}_{l}\right)\phi^{r}_{j}-(i\leftrightarrow
j)\\\
&&+d\hat{x}_{c}(\phi^{-1})^{c}_{a}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{s})}\phi^{a}_{l}\right)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{r})}\phi^{s}_{i}\right)\phi^{r}_{j}-(i\leftrightarrow
j)\\\
&&-\sum_{k}C^{k}_{ij}d\hat{x}_{c}(\phi^{-1})^{c}_{a}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{s})}\phi^{a}_{l}\right)\phi^{s}_{k}\end{array}$
The first two rows on the right hand side cancel by the rule for the
derivative of a matrix, the third is zero by symmetry under $(i\leftrightarrow
j)$, and the last two rows cancel by (1). We also need to check that the
extension by Leibniz rules to higher exterior powers is consistent with the
antisymmetry relations:
$\tilde{\bm{\phi}}(\hat{x}_{i})(d\hat{x}_{r}d\hat{x}_{s})=d\hat{x}_{k}d\hat{x}_{s}(\phi^{-1})^{k}_{a}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{b})}\phi^{a}_{r}\right)\phi^{b}_{i}+d\hat{x}_{r}d\hat{x}_{k}(\phi^{-1})^{k}_{a}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{b})}\phi^{a}_{s}\right)\phi^{b}_{i},$
and the right-hand side is evidently antisymmetric in $(r\leftrightarrow s)$.
2.2. Proposition. The extended algebra of twisted differential forms
$U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp_{\gamma\circ\tilde{\bm{\phi}}}(\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}))$
is generated by the $3n$ symbols $d\hat{x}_{i}$, $\hat{x}_{i}$ and
$\partial^{i}$, for $i=1,\ldots,n$, subject to the relations
$\begin{array}[]{ccc}[\hat{x}_{i},\hat{x}_{j}]=C^{k}_{ij}\hat{x}_{k},&[\partial^{i},\partial^{j}]=0,&[\partial^{j},\hat{x}_{i}]=\phi^{j}_{i},\\\
\left[\partial^{j},d\hat{x}_{i}\right]=0,&[d\hat{x}_{i},\hat{x}_{j}]=d\hat{x}_{s}(\phi^{-1})^{s}_{r}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{l})}\phi^{r}_{i}\right)\phi^{l}_{j}.&\end{array}$
(3)
2.3. Theorem. If $\phi=(\phi^{i}_{j})$ is close to the identity, the
correspondence
$\hat{x}_{i}\mapsto\sum_{j}x_{j}\phi^{j}_{i},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\partial^{i}\mapsto\partial^{i},\,\,\,\,\,\,\,d\hat{x}_{i}\mapsto\sum_{j}dx_{j}\phi^{j}_{i}$
extends uniquely to an isomorphism
$U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp_{\gamma\circ\tilde{\bm{\phi}}}(\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*}))\longrightarrow\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{A}_{n,{\bm{k}}}.$
(4)
Here we use the convention that on the left hand side the generators of
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})$ are $d\hat{x}_{i}$ and on the right hand side
$dx_{i}$; this ensure that when we use the isomorphism as the identification
no confusion happens (regarding that it does not send $d\hat{x}_{i}$ to
$dx_{i}$).
2.3.1. Sometimes it is also good to take the point of view of the
intermediate algebra
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes(U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*}))$
which is also isomorphic to
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{A}_{n,{\bm{k}}}$: here the generators of
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})$ are also $dx_{i}$ and the isomorphism on
$U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$ is
$\hat{x}_{i}\mapsto\sum_{k}x_{k}\phi^{k}_{j}$ and
$\partial^{i}\mapsto\partial^{i}$.
2.3.2. As in [5], we denote the composition $U(\mathfrak{g})\hookrightarrow
U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})\cong\hat{A}_{n,{\bm{k}}}$ by
$()^{\phi}$. Thus $\hat{x}_{i}^{\phi}=\sum_{k}x_{\alpha}\phi^{\alpha}_{i}$. We
can extend this notation to the differential, but not to derivatives (because
our isomorphism sends $\partial^{i}$ to $\partial^{i}$ (independent of
$\bm{\phi}$, in a sense) while the operator $\hat{\partial}^{i}$ does depend
on $\bm{\phi}$ crucially, so this would lead to the confusion). Thus
$d\hat{x}_{i}=\sum_{k}dx_{\alpha}\phi^{\alpha}_{i}\in\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{A}_{n,{\bm{k}}}$.
Now if we commute in the image
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{A}_{n,{\bm{k}}}$ we get the same
commutators as above (3), e.g.
$[d\hat{x}^{\phi}_{i},\hat{x}_{j}^{\phi}]=d\hat{x}_{s}^{\phi}(\phi^{-1})^{s}_{r}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial(\partial^{l})}\phi^{r}_{i}\right)\phi^{l}_{j}$.
Thus the theorem 2 may be interpreted as a realization of the extended algebra
of twisted differential forms in terms of ordinary differential forms and
partial derivatives (allowing infinite series).
## 3 Exterior derivative
3.1. The operator
$\hat{d}:=\sum_{k,j}d\hat{x}_{k}(\phi^{-1})^{k}_{j}\hat{\partial}^{j}:U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp(\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*}))\to
U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp(\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*}))$
is called the $\bm{\phi}$-twisted exterior derivative. It is clear that this
operator does not depend on the choice of basis. If we realize $\hat{x}_{i}$
as $\hat{x}^{\phi}_{i}\in\hat{A}_{n,{\bm{k}}}$ then in this realization, the
abstract $\hat{d}$ can also be written as
$\hat{d}=\sum_{k,j}d\hat{x}_{k}^{\phi}(\phi^{-1})^{k}_{j}\hat{\partial}^{j}=\sum_{j}dx_{j}\hat{\partial}^{j}$
but is different from the usual exterior derivative
$d=\sum_{k}dx_{k}\partial^{k}$. Namely, we need to warn the reader that
$(\phi^{-1})^{k}_{j}=(\phi^{-1})^{k}_{j}(\partial)$ is the element of
$\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$ while
$\hat{\partial}^{i}=\partial^{i}\blacktriangleright$ is an operator, not
considered here an element of the same copy of $\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$. In
[5] we defined $\hat{\partial}^{i}$ as an operator on $U(\mathfrak{g})$. Here
it is an operator on a bigger space: it agrees with usual $\hat{\partial}$ on
$U(\mathfrak{g})$ while it commutes with $\partial^{j}$ and $d\hat{x}_{j}$. We
also need to distinguish $\hat{d}$ and $d$ as $d$ may act on the
$\bm{\phi}$-realizations of differential forms.
3.2. Example. In symmetric ordering (that is, when $\xi$ is the symmetrization
(coexponential) map, cf. [4, 5])
$\begin{array}[]{l}\hat{d}(\hat{x}_{i}\hat{x}_{j})=\hat{x}_{j}dx_{i}+\hat{x}_{i}dx_{j}+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{k}C^{k}_{ij}dx_{k}\\\
d(\hat{x}^{\phi}_{i}\hat{x}^{\phi}_{j})=(d\hat{x}_{i}^{\phi})\hat{x}_{j}^{\phi}+\hat{x}_{i}^{\phi}(d\hat{x}_{j}^{\phi})\end{array}$
3.3. Proposition. $\hat{d}$ preserves the subalgebra
$\Lambda^{*}_{U}(\mathfrak{g})=\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes
U(\mathfrak{g})\subset\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes(U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*}))\cong
U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp(\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*}))$
generated by all $dx_{i}$ and $\hat{x}_{i}$, while $d$ preserves the
subalgebra $\Lambda^{*}_{\phi}(\mathfrak{g})=\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes
U(\mathfrak{g})^{\phi}\subset\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{A}_{n,{\bm{k}}}$,
generated by all $d\hat{x}^{\phi}_{i}$ and $\hat{x}^{\phi}_{i}$. Of course
usual $d$ also preserves the algebra of classical differential forms
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes S(\mathfrak{g})$ generated by $dx_{i}$ and
$x_{i}$.
Notice that $\Lambda^{*}_{U}(\mathfrak{g})$ does not depend on the realization
$\bm{\phi}$, while $\hat{d}$ does! Of course,
$\Lambda^{*}_{\bm{\phi}}(\mathfrak{g})$ depends on the realization. In our
notation $U(\mathfrak{g})^{\phi}$ is the $\bm{\phi}$-realization of
$U(\mathfrak{g})$ and it is generated by $\hat{x}_{i}$, $i=1,\ldots,n$.
3.3.1. We say that $\Lambda^{*}_{U}(\mathfrak{g})$ is the algebra of
$U$-twisted differential forms and $\Lambda^{*}_{\bm{\phi}}(\mathfrak{g})$ the
algebra of $\bm{\phi}$-twisted differential forms. Both may be considered
subalgebras of the extended algebra of $\bm{\phi}$-twisted differential forms,
or equivalently of the “intermediate algebra” (2); or of
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{A}_{n,{\bm{k}}}$.
3.4. Theorem. $\hat{d}^{2}=0$.
Proof. Regarding that $d\hat{x}_{k}$ commute with elements in
$S(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$,
$\hat{d}^{2}=\sum_{k,l,j,m}d\hat{x}_{k}d\hat{x}_{l}(\phi^{-1})^{k}_{j}\hat{\partial}^{j}(\phi^{-1})^{l}_{m}\hat{\partial}^{m}=\sum_{j,m}dx_{j}dx_{m}\hat{\partial}^{j}\hat{\partial}^{m}$
is a contraction of the antisymmetric tensor $d\hat{x}_{k}d\hat{x}_{l}$ and
the symmetric tensor
$\sum_{m}(\phi^{-1})^{k}_{j}\hat{\partial}^{j}(\phi^{-1})^{l}_{m}\hat{\partial}^{m}$,
hence zero.
3.5. Proposition. The usual Fock space action of $A_{n,{\bm{k}}}$ (and
$\hat{A}_{n,{\bm{k}}}$) on $S(\mathfrak{g})$ extends to an action of
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes\hat{A}_{n,{\bm{k}}}$ on
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes S(\mathfrak{g})$ tautological in the first
tensor factor. The $\bm{\phi}$-deformed Fock space action of
$U(\mathfrak{g})\sharp\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$ on $U(\mathfrak{g})$ extends
to an action of the intermediate subalgebra
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes(\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})\sharp
U(\mathfrak{g}))$ on its subalgebra $\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes
U(\mathfrak{g})$ tautological on the subalgebra
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes U(\mathfrak{g})\rangle$.
In the latter case, keep in mind that the elements in
$\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})$ commute with the elements in
$\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g}^{*})$, but the elements in $U(\mathfrak{g})$ do not
commute with any of the two. The cyclic vectors for the two extended Fock
spaces are still $|0\rangle=1_{S(\mathfrak{g})}$ and $1_{U(\mathfrak{g})}$.
3.6. Theorem. Let $\hat{f}\in\Lambda^{*}_{U}(\mathfrak{g})$.
(i) Symbolically
$(\Lambda^{*}_{\bm{\phi}}(\mathfrak{g}))^{\phi}|0\rangle=\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes
S(\mathfrak{g})$. More precisely, the linear map sending
$\hat{f}\in\Lambda^{*}_{U}(\mathfrak{g})$ to $\hat{f}^{\phi}|0\rangle$ sends
$\Lambda^{*}_{U}(\mathfrak{g})$ into $\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes
S(\mathfrak{g})$. This projection at vacuum in $\bm{\phi}$-realization is an
isomorphism of vector spaces (we asume $\bm{\phi}$ close to identity) with
inverse ${\rm
id}_{\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})}\otimes\xi:\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes
S(\mathfrak{g})\to\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes U(\mathfrak{g})$.
(ii) $\hat{d}(d\hat{x}_{s}\hat{f})=-d\hat{x}_{s}\hat{d}\hat{f}$, and
$\hat{d}(dx_{s}\hat{f})=-dx_{s}\hat{d}\hat{f}$;
(iii) $(\hat{d}\hat{f})|0\rangle=d(\hat{f}|0\rangle)$, where $d$ on the right
hand side denotes the usual exterior derivative.
3.7. Corollary. (Poincaré lemma) If $\hat{f}\in\Lambda^{*}_{U}(\mathfrak{g})$
and $\hat{d}(\hat{f})=0$ then $\hat{f}=0$.
This follows from the classical Poincaré lemma, the isomorphism in 3 (i) and
the property 3 (iii). In fact, one can “tensor this identity with
$\hat{S}(\mathfrak{g})$”: if $\hat{d}\hat{f}=0$ for $\hat{f}$ any element in
the extended algebra of $\bm{\phi}$-twisted forms, we also have $\hat{f}=0$.
Indeed, $\hat{d}$ is not affecting additional derivatives in the game.
3.8. (Star product on $U$-twisted forms) Using the isomorphism ${\rm
id}_{\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})}\otimes\xi_{\bm{\phi}}=:\tilde{\xi}$ we can
easily extend the star product $\star=\star_{\bm{\phi}}$ on $S(\mathfrak{g})$
to an associative product on
$\Lambda^{*}_{U}(\mathfrak{g})=\Lambda^{*}(\mathfrak{g})\otimes
U(\mathfrak{g})$ given by $f\star
g=\tilde{\xi}^{-1}(\tilde{\xi}(f)\cdot_{\Lambda^{*}_{U}(\mathfrak{g})}\tilde{\xi}(g))$.
For the deformed derivatives $\hat{\partial}^{i}$ the following holds ([5]):
$\hat{\partial}^{i}(\xi(f)\star\xi(g))=\xi(\partial^{i}(f\star g))$. This may
be used to easily derive
Proposition. If $\hat{f},\hat{g}\in\Lambda^{*}_{U}(\mathfrak{g})$ then
$\hat{d}(\tilde{\xi}(f)\tilde{\xi}(g))=\tilde{\xi}(d(f\star g)).$
This identity may probably be used to compare to the approach of [2] to the
diff. forms for enveloping algebras in the setup of star products (and
Drinfel’d twists).
## References
* [1] G. Amelino-Camelia, M. Arzano, Coproduct and star product in field theories on Lie-algebra non-commutative space-times, Phys. Rev. D65:084044 (2002) hep-th/0105120.
* [2] P. Aschieri, F. Lizzi, P. Vitale, Twisting all the way: from classical mechanics to quantum fields, arXiv:0708.3002.
* [3] N. Bourbaki, Algebra, Chapter 3
* [4] N. Durov, S. Meljanac, A. Samsarov, Z. Škoda, A universal formula for representing Lie algebra generators as formal power series with coefficients in the Weyl algebra, Journal of Algebra 309, Issue 1, pp.318–359 (2007) math.RT/0604096.
* [5] S. Meljanac, Z. Škoda, Leibniz rules for enveloping algebras,
www.irb.hr/korisnici/zskoda/scopr4.dvi
(an old/obsolete version at arXiv:0711.0149).
* [6] E. Petracci, Universal representations of Lie algebras by coderivations, Bull. Sci. Math. 127 (2003), no. 5, 439–465; math.RT/0303020
* [7] S. Meljanac, M. Stojić, New realizations of Lie algebra kappa-deformed Euclidean space, Eur.Phys.J. C47 (2006) 531–539; hep-th/0605133.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-05T14:24:17 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.122718 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"authors": "Zoran \\v{S}koda",
"submitter": "Zoran Skoda",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0978"
} |
0806.1220 | # Quantum-Fluctuation-Driven Coherent Spin Dynamics in Small Condensates
Xiaoling Cui1,2, Yupeng Wang1 and Fei Zhou2 1Beijing National Laboratory for
Condensed Matter Physics and Institute of Physics,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, P. O. Box 603, Beijing 100190, China
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, B. C., Canada V6T1Z1
###### Abstract
We have studied quantum spin dynamics of small condensates of cold sodium
atoms. For a condensate initially prepared in a mean field ground state, we
show that coherent spin dynamics are purely driven by quantum fluctuations of
collective spin coordinates and can be tuned by quadratic Zeeman coupling and
magnetization. These dynamics in small condensates can be probed in a high-
finesse optical cavity where temporal behaviors of excitation spectra of a
coupled condensate-photon system reveal the time evolution of populations of
atoms at different hyperfine spin states.
Recently, single-atom detection in optical cavities has been realized in
experiments by having atoms and cavity photons in a strongly coupling
regimeMabuchi96 ; Hood98 . This remarkable achievement has been applied to
study optically transported atoms in cavitiesSauer04 ; furthermore the
coupling between a small Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) and cavity photons and
resultant collective excitations have also been successfully
investigatedBrennecke07 . The sensitivity that a cavity-based atom detector
has, together with a translating optical lattice which can effectively
transport ultra cold atoms from a magnetic-optical trap to a cavity make it
possible to study the physics of small BECs. Especially, this potentially
opens the door to explore coherent dynamics of ultra-cold atoms in relatively
small condensates. The physics of BECs of small numbers of atoms can be
qualitatively different from the physics of big condensates and represents a
new domain of cold-atom research. In small condensates, various intrinsic
beyond-mean-field dynamics can be relevant within an experimentally accessible
time scale. These new physical phenomena however have been quite difficult to
study using the standard absorption-imaging approach to cold atoms because of
relatively fewer atoms are involved in small condensates. Cavity
electrodynamics in a strong coupling regime and high sensitivities to intra-
cavity atoms on the other hand are ideal for investigating small condensates
where the beyond-mean-field dynamics are mostly visible. In this letter, we
focus on the basic concepts of beyond-mean-field coherent spin dynamics in
BECs with typically a few tens to a few hundreds of atoms and detailed
analysis of detecting these fascinating properties of small condensates in
optical cavities with high-finesse. Research on this subject could
substantially advance our understanding of the nature of quantum-fluctuation
dynamicsSong08 , in this particular case, dynamics purely driven by
fluctuations with wavelengths of the size of condensates. Secondly, results
obtained can help to better recognize limitations of precise measurements of
various interaction constants based on mean-field coherent dynamicsChang04 .
Thirdly, our results should shed some light on the feasibility of
investigating fluctuation dynamics of small condensates using optical cavities
and also pave the way for future studies of dynamics of coupled small
condensates.
To understand spin dynamics of a small condensate, we first study the
evolution of a condensate of $N$ hyperfine spin-one sodium atoms which is
initially prepared in a mean field ground state,
$\displaystyle|{\bf n}\rangle=\frac{({\bf
n}\cdot\psi^{{\dagger}})^{N}}{\sqrt{N!}}|0\rangle.$ (1)
Here ${\bf n}$ is a unit director and three components of $\psi^{\dagger}$,
$\psi^{\dagger}_{\alpha}$, $\alpha=x,y,z$ are creation operators for three
spin-one states, $|x\rangle=(|1\rangle-|-1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$,
$|y\rangle=(|1\rangle+|-1\rangle)/i\sqrt{2}$ and $|z\rangle=|0\rangle$
respectively. And in this representation,
$S_{\alpha}=-i\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\psi^{\dagger}_{\beta}\psi_{\gamma}$
is the total spin operator. States in Eq.1 with ${\bf n}={\bf e}_{z}$ minimize
the interaction energy of the following Hamiltonian for spin-one atoms in the
presence of a quadratic Zeeman coupling along the $z$-direction,
$H=\frac{c_{2}}{N}\mathbf{S}^{2}+q(\psi^{\dagger}_{x}\psi_{x}+\psi^{\dagger}_{y}\psi_{y}).$
(2)
Here $c_{2}$ is a spin interaction constant and $q$ is the quadratic Zeeman
couplingHo98 ; Ohmi98 ; Law98 ; Stenger98 . Mean field ground states are
stationary solutions to the multi-component Gross-Pitaevskii equations for
spin-one atoms and dynamics of these initial states demonstrated below are
therefore a beyond-mean field phenomenon. When deriving Eq.2 for a trapped
condensate, we assume that spin dynamics are described by a single mode, i.e.
$\psi_{\alpha}({\bf r},t)=\sqrt{\rho({\bf r})}\psi_{\alpha}(t)$; for a small
condensate of less than one thousand weakly interacting atoms, this
approximation is always valid. $c_{2}$ is typically a few nano kelvin for
sodium atoms; $q=(\mu_{B}B)^{2}/(4\Delta_{hf})$ and the hyperfine splitting is
$\Delta_{hf}=(2\pi)1.77GHz$ ($\mu_{B}$ is the Bohr magneton and $\hbar$ is set
to be unity).
To illustrate the nature of non-mean-field dynamics and crucial role played by
quantum fluctuations, we expand the full Hamiltonian in Eq.2 around a mean
field ground state. In the lowest order expansion, we approximate
$\psi^{\dagger}\approx\sqrt{N}{\bf e_{z}}+\psi^{\dagger}_{x}{\bf
e}_{x}+\psi^{\dagger}_{y}{\bf e}_{y}$, and $\psi^{\dagger}_{x,y}$ are much
less than $\sqrt{N}$; the Hamiltonian then can be expressed in terms of the
bilinear terms
$H_{B}=\sum_{\alpha=x,y}\frac{q+4c_{2}}{2N}P_{\alpha}^{2}+\frac{qN}{2}\theta_{\alpha}^{2}+...$
(3)
where for $\alpha=x,y$,
$\theta_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}(\psi^{{\dagger}}_{\alpha}+\psi_{\alpha})$
and $P_{\alpha}=i\sqrt{\frac{N}{2}}(\psi^{{\dagger}}_{\alpha}-\psi_{\alpha})$
are pairs of conjugate operators which satisfy the usual commutation relations
$[\theta_{\alpha},P_{\beta}]=i\delta_{\alpha,\beta}$. Semiclassically,
collective coordinates $\theta_{\alpha}$, $\alpha=x,y$ represent projections
of $\psi^{{\dagger}}$ or order parameter ${\bf n}$ in the $xy$ plane, and
$P_{x(y)}\sim S_{y(x)}$ is the spin projection along the $y(x)$-direction. The
bilinear Hamiltonian is equivalent to a harmonic oscillator moving along the
direction of $\theta_{x,y}$ with a mass $m_{eff}=\frac{N}{q+4c_{2}}$, a
harmonic oscillator frequency $\omega=\sqrt{q(q+4c_{2})}$ and effective spring
constant $qN$; the mass at $q=0$ is induced by scattering between atoms. The
excitation spectrum is $E_{n}=(n+1/2)\omega$, $n=0,1,2...$ . When $q=0$, the
Hamiltonian describes a particle moving in a free space.
Figure 1: a) (color online) Time evolution of $N_{0}(t)$, the atom population
at $|1,0\rangle$ state for different quadratic Zeeman coupling $q$. Initially,
all $N=200$ atoms occupy $|1,0\rangle$ state which corresponds to a mean field
ground state. The inset is $t_{c}$, the time for the first dip in the $q=0$
data, as a function of the number of atoms $N$. b) Time evolution of
$N_{0}(t)$ for different magnetization $m$ (here $q=0$). All initial states
are again mean-field ground states for given $m$. Inset is for $m=0.98$. In
this and Fig.2,3, $c_{2}=(2\pi)50Hz$.
In the ground state of the bilinear Hamiltonian of Eq.3,
$\langle\theta_{\alpha}\rangle$ $=\langle P_{\alpha}\rangle=0$ and ${\bf n}$
and $\langle{\bf S}\rangle$ have no projections in the $xy$ plane. However,
quantum fluctuations of $\theta_{x,y}$-coordinates in the ground state can be
estimated as $\langle\theta_{\alpha}\theta_{\alpha}\rangle$
$=\frac{1}{2N}\sqrt{\frac{q+4c_{2}}{q}}$. This is a measure of how strongly
${\bf n}$ fluctuates in the $xy$-plane. As expected, these quantum
fluctuations are substantial only when $q$ is small and are suppressed by a
quadratic Zeeman field which effectively pins the order parameter along the
$z$-direction. A direct calculation also shows that the amplitude of quantum
fluctuations $\langle\theta^{2}_{\alpha}\rangle_{MF}$ in the mean field ground
state defined in Eq.1 is $1/2N$. This indicates that the mean field ground
state is a good approximation only when $q\gg 4c_{2}$. On the other hand, as
$q$ decreases and the effective spring constant gets smaller, the deviation
becomes more and more severe. When $q$ approaches zero, quantum fluctuations
$\theta_{\alpha}$ in the harmonic oscillator ground state become divergent
implying that the mean field ground state is no longer a good approximation.
Indeed, the the energy of mean field ground state is
$E_{MF}=\frac{q}{2}+c_{2}$ which is much higher than $\frac{1}{2}\omega$ when
$q\ll c_{2}$; such a state corresponds to a highly excited wave packet,
because of a relatively narrow spread along $\theta_{\alpha}$-directions and
consequently an enormous kinetic energy associated with momenta $P_{\alpha}$.
We therefore expect that dynamics in this limit could dramatically differ from
a stationary solution. Since the total number of atoms $N$ is equal to
$\sum_{\alpha}\psi^{{\dagger}}_{\alpha}\psi_{\alpha}$, the population of atoms
at $|z\rangle$ (or $|1,0\rangle$) state
$N_{0}=\langle\psi^{\dagger}_{z}\psi_{z}\rangle$ is directly related to
quantum fluctuations of $\theta_{\alpha}$ and $P_{\alpha}$,
$\displaystyle
N_{0}=N+{1}-\sum_{\alpha}\left(\frac{N}{2}\langle\theta_{\alpha}^{2}\rangle+\frac{1}{2N}\langle
P_{\alpha}^{2}\rangle\right).$ (4)
Eq.4 shows that the time evolution of $N_{0}(t)$ is effectively driven by
quantum fluctuations in $\theta_{\alpha}$ and $P_{\alpha}$; a study of
$N_{0}(t)$ probes underlying quantum- fluctuation dynamics.
For an initial state prepared in a mean field ground state with ${\bf n}={\bf
e}_{z}$ where all atoms condense in $|1,0\rangle$ state, one finds that
$\langle\theta^{2}_{\alpha}\rangle=\frac{1}{2N}$ and
$\langle{P^{2}_{\alpha}}\rangle=\frac{N}{2}$. The evolution of such a
symmetric Gaussian wave packet subject to the bilinear Hamiltonian can be
solved exactly using the standard theory for harmonic oscillators. The wave
packet will remain to be a Gaussian one with the width oscillating as a
function of time. Qualitatively, because of the symmetry, only harmonic states
with even-parity are involved in dynamics and therefore the oscillation
frequency is $2\omega$. Furthermore during oscillations, the kinetic energy
stored in initial wave packets is converted into the potential one and vice
versa. Especially when $q\ll c_{2}$, oscillations are driven by the enormous
initial kinetic energy associated with $P_{\alpha}$; the oscillation amplitude
can be estimated by equaling the total energy $E_{MF}$ to the potential energy
which leads to $\langle\theta_{\alpha}^{2}\rangle$ $\sim c_{2}/(Nq)$. A
straightforward calculation yields the time dependence of
$\langle\theta^{2}_{\alpha}\rangle$ and $\langle P^{2}_{\alpha}\rangle$ that
leads to
$\frac{N_{0}}{N}=1-\frac{8c_{2}^{2}}{q(q+4c_{2})N}\sin^{2}wt.$ (5)
The oscillating term in Eq.5 shows the deviation from the stationary behavior
due to quantum fluctuations in $\theta_{\alpha}$-coordinates. The deviation is
insignificant when $q$ is not too small; however when $q$ is of the order of
$c_{2}/N$, we expect that the non-mean field dynamics becomes very visible.
Note that the approach outlined here neglects all higher order anharmonic
interactions and therefore is only valid when the relative amplitude of
fluctuations is small; that is when $q\gg c_{2}/N$.
When $q$ approaches zero, the short time dynamics following the bilinear
Hamiltonian is equivalent to a particle of a mass $m_{eff}=N/4c_{2}$ that is
initially localized within a spread $\langle\theta_{\alpha}^{2}\rangle=1/2N$
having a ballistic expansion with a typical velocity give as ${\langle
v^{2}_{\alpha}\rangle}=8c^{2}_{2}/N$. The time dependence of spread
$\langle\theta^{2}_{\alpha}\rangle$ therefore is $1/2N+(8c^{2}_{2}/N)t^{2}$.
So at $t\sim\sqrt{N}/c_{2}$, the number of atoms not occupying the initially
prepared $|1,0\rangle$ state becomes of order of $N$. This limit was first
addressed by Law et al. in the context of four-wave-mixing theoryLaw98 , and
also in early worksZhou01 ; Diener06 ; to describe the physics after this
characteristic time scale requires analysis of full quantum dynamics. This
time scale however becomes quite long for a few million atoms which makes it
difficult to observe quantum dynamics in large condensates.
In the following, we are going to present our numerical results on dynamics
and focus on its dependence on quadratic Zeeman coupling $q$ and magnetization
$m$. For a condensate of $N=200$ atoms, we numerically integrate the time-
dependent N-body Schrodinger equation of the quantum Hamiltonian in Eq.2. The
time evolution of $N_{0}$ driven by quantum fluctuations is shown in Fig.1a).
As $q$ increases far beyond $0.2c_{2}$, $N_{0}$ oscillates as a function of
time with frequency $2\omega$ and the amplitude of oscillations decreases; the
damping is not visible over tens of oscillations. When $q$ is below
$0.2c_{2}$, anharmonic effects become substantial and oscillations are no
longer perfect; when $q=c_{2}/40$, oscillations are strongly damped after a
few cycles and revived afterwards. For $q=0$, $N_{0}$ drops to a minimum of
about $0.38N$ when $t=t_{c}=0.53\sqrt{N}/c_{2}$ and remains to be a constant
before reviving to be $0.8N$ at about $10t_{c}$. For sodium atoms with a
typically density $2\times 10^{14}cm^{-3}$, $c_{2}=(2\pi)50Hz$; $t_{c}=23.8ms$
for $N=200$ and increases to a few seconds when $N$ reaches $2\times 10^{6}$.
We have also studied the quantum dynamics of a mean field condensate with a
finite magnetization along the $z$-direction, ${\bf m}=m{\bf e}_{z}$. States
which minimize the mean field energy of the Hamiltonian in Eq.2 with $q=0$ are
$\displaystyle|m\rangle=\frac{[(\cos\eta{\bf e}_{x}+i\sin\eta{\bf
e}_{y})\cdot\psi^{\dagger}]^{N}}{\sqrt{N!}}|0\rangle$ (6)
where $\sin 2\eta=m$, $m(\in[-1,1])$ is the normalized magnetization. By
expanding the Hamiltonian around these mean field states, one obtains a
harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian defined in terms of conjugate operators,
$\theta_{z}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2N}}(\psi^{{\dagger}}_{z}+\psi_{z})$ and
$P_{z}=i\sqrt{\frac{N}{2}}(\psi^{{\dagger}}_{z}-\psi_{z})$. The effective mass
is $m_{eff}=\frac{N}{2c_{2}(1+\sqrt{1-m^{2}})}$ and the harmonic oscillator
frequency $\omega=2|m|c_{2}$. States shown in Eq.6 have a narrow width along
the direction of $\theta_{z}$, $\langle\theta^{2}_{z}\rangle=1/2N$ and
therefore carry large conjugate momenta $P_{z}$; the corresponding large
kinetic energy drives a unique non-mean field quantum spin dynamics. The
harmonic expansion again is only valid when $m$ is large and fluctuations are
weak. Simulations of the full Hamiltonian have been carried out in this case;
in Fig.1b), we show the time dependence of $N_{0}(t)$ for different
magnetization. Only when $m$ is close to unity, weakly damped oscillations are
observed.
Figure 2: (a,b,c) (color online) Eigenfrequencies $\Delta_{p}$ as a function
of $t$ for different detuning $\Delta_{c}$ when the relative population at
state $|1,0\rangle$, $\rho_{0}(t)$ evolves. At $t=0$, all atoms occupy
$|1,0\rangle$ state and $N=200$. d) $\Delta_{p}$ as a function of time $t$ for
$\Delta_{c}=0$.
We propose a method to probe quantum spin dynamics of a small condensate of
spin-one sodium atoms using cavity quantum electrodynamics. For a Bose-
Einstein condensate with N atoms coupled to a quantized field of a cavity, a
single cavity photon can coherently interact with atoms which leads to a
collective coupling of $g\sqrt{N}$Tavis68 . In experimentsSauer04 ;
Brennecke07 , atoms are transported into a cavity via a moving optical
lattice; excitations are measured by individual recordings of cavity
transmission when frequencies of an external probe light are scanned. Here we
consider a multi-component BEC coupled to a single cavity mode; the
eigenfrequencies of the coupled system uniquely depend on populations at three
hyperfine states. By measuring the energy spectrum of this coupled system, one
obtains temporal behaviors of atom populations at different states.
We restrict ourselves to excitations which involve a single cavity photon
interacting with atoms in a BEC. We study atomic transitions from
$3S_{\frac{1}{2}}\rightarrow 3P_{\frac{1}{2}}$ in sodium atoms. The
Hamiltonian consists the following terms,
$\displaystyle{H}_{cavity}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\sum_{i}\hbar
w_{g_{i}}\hat{g}_{i}^{{\dagger}}\hat{g}_{i}+\sum_{j}\hbar
w_{e_{j}}\hat{e}_{j}^{{\dagger}}\hat{e}_{j}+\sum_{p}\hbar
w_{c}\hat{c}_{p}^{{\dagger}}\hat{c}_{p}$ (7)
$\displaystyle-i\hbar\sum_{p}\sum_{i,j}g_{ij}^{p}\hat{e}_{j}^{{\dagger}}\hat{c}_{p}\hat{g}_{i}+h.c.,$
where $i$ labels three states $|F=1,m_{F}=0,\pm 1\rangle$ in
$3S_{\frac{1}{2}}$ orbital and $j$ eight states
$|F^{\prime}=1,m_{F^{\prime}}\rangle$, $|F^{\prime}=2,m_{F^{\prime}}\rangle$
in $3P_{\frac{1}{2}}$ orbital. $\hat{g}_{i}^{{\dagger}}$ and
$\hat{e}_{j}^{{\dagger}}$ create atoms in one of $3S_{\frac{1}{2}}$ and
$3P_{\frac{1}{2}}$ states respectively with corresponding frequencies
$w_{g_{i}}$,$w_{e_{j}}$. $\hat{c}_{p}^{{\dagger}}$ creates a photon with
frequency $w_{c}$ and polarization $p$ in the cavity mode.
$g_{ij}^{p}(=D_{ij}^{p}\sqrt{\hbar w_{c}/2\epsilon_{0}V})$ is the coupling
strength for a transition $i\rightarrow j$ driven by a cavity photon with
polarization $p$, which depends on the dipole matrix element $D_{ij}^{p}$, the
effective mode volume $V$.
Figure 3: Eigenfrequencies $\Delta_{p}$ as a function of time $t$ driven by
dynamics of population $\rho_{0}(t)$ in the presence of quadratic Zeeman
coupling $q=0.05c_{2}$ (or $B=95mG$). Again at $t=0$, all atoms occupy
$|1,0\rangle$ state and $N=200$, $\Delta_{c}=0$.
For simplicity, we set the energy of $3S_{\frac{1}{2}}$ states to be zero,
i.e. $w_{g_{i}}=0$; the energy of excited states is
$w_{e}^{1,2}=w_{a}\pm\Delta$ with $2\Delta$ being the hyperfine splitting
between $F^{\prime}=2$ and $F^{\prime}=1$ states. For atomic transitions
induced by left-circularly($\sigma^{+}$) polarized photons, the selection rule
is $\Delta F=0,\pm 1,\Delta m_{F}=1$. In a cavity, a state with a cavity
photon (labeled as 1c),$N_{m_{F}}$ atoms at $3S_{\frac{1}{2}}$
$|1,m_{F}\rangle$ states and no atoms at excited states (labeled as $0_{j}$)
is expressed as $|1_{c};N_{1},N_{0},N_{-1};0_{j}\rangle$; it is coupled to the
following states with one of atoms excited to $3P_{\frac{1}{2}}$ states
(labeled $1_{F^{\prime}}$) and no cavity photons (as $0_{c}$),
$|0_{c};N_{1}-1,N_{0},N_{-1};1_{F^{\prime}=2}\rangle$,
$|0_{c};N_{1},N_{0}-1,N_{-1};1_{F^{\prime}=1}\rangle$,
$|0_{c};N_{1},N_{0}-1,N_{-1};1_{F^{\prime}=2}\rangle$,
$|0_{c};N_{1},N_{0},N_{-1}-1;1_{F^{\prime}=1}\rangle$,
$|0_{c};N_{1},N_{0},N_{-1}-1;1_{F^{\prime}=2}\rangle$. We diagonalize the
Hamiltonian matrix and obtain six eigenfrequencies $\omega_{p}$ for this
coupled system. Three are $3P_{\frac{1}{2}}$ orbitals without mixing with
$3S_{\frac{1}{2}}$ states, $w_{p}=w_{a}\pm\Delta$; the other three depend on
relative populations of atoms at each spin state, $\rho_{m_{F}}=N_{m_{F}}/N$,
$m_{F}=0,\pm 1$. The latter three eigen frequencies are determined by the
eigen value equation,
$\displaystyle(\Delta_{p}-\Delta_{c})(\Delta_{p}^{2}-\Delta^{2})-\Delta_{p}Ng_{1}^{2}F_{1}-\Delta
Ng_{1}^{2}F_{2}=0.$ (8)
Here $\Delta_{p}=w_{p}-w_{a}$, $m=\rho_{+1}-\rho_{-1}$ is the normalized
magnetization, and $g_{1}$ is the coupling between $3S_{\frac{1}{2}}$
$|F=1,m_{F}=1\rangle$ and $3P_{\frac{1}{2}}$
$|F^{\prime}=2,m_{F^{\prime}}=2\rangle$ by $\sigma^{+}$ light; $F_{1}=(2+m)/3$
and $F_{2}=(1+m)/2-\rho_{0}/6$. Apparently eigenfrequencies
$\Delta_{p1,p2,p3}$ are a function of $\rho_{m_{F}}$ and therefore can be used
to probe the variation in $\rho_{0,\pm 1}$ due to coherent spin dynamics.
$\Delta_{p1,p2,p3}$ depend on a dimensionless parameter
$r=\frac{\sqrt{6}}{3}\frac{\sqrt{N}g_{1}}{\Delta}$. When detuning
$\Delta_{c}=0$ and as $r\rightarrow\infty$, $\Delta_{p1,p2,p3}$ are around
$0,\pm\frac{\sqrt{6}}{3}\sqrt{N}g_{1}$ respectively. Eigenfrequency
$\Delta_{p2}$ varies from $-3\Delta/4$ to $-\Delta/2$ when $\rho_{0}$
increases from $0$ to $1$; the variation amplitude
$\delta=\Delta_{p}(\rho_{0}=1)-\Delta_{p}(\rho_{0}=0)$ reaches a saturated
value $\Delta/4$. For sodium atoms, $\Delta=(2\pi)94.4MHz$; cavity parameters
are chosen according to Ref.Brennecke07 and $g_{1}=(2\pi)10MHz$. In Fig. (2),
we show the evolution of $\Delta_{p}$ in time for different detuning
$\Delta_{c}$ when atoms are initially prepared at state $|1,0\rangle$ of
$3S_{1/2}$. The evolution of $\Delta_{p}(t)$ which can be probed by a
$\sigma^{+}$ beam maps out population $N_{0}(t)$ driven by underlying quantum
fluctuations. In Fig. (3), we further show the time dependence of $\Delta_{p}$
due to oscillatory quantum spin dynamics for $q=0.05c_{2}$($B\approx 95mG)$,
$N=200$ and $\Delta_{c}=0$.
In conclusion, we have illustrated the nature of coherent spin dynamics driven
by quantum-fluctuations in small condensates. The time evolution of population
of atoms at different hyperfine spin states is shown to reveal intrinsic
dynamics of quantum fluctuations of order parameters and spin projections.
These dynamics can be probed by studying eigenfrequencies of a coupled
condensate-photon system in a high-finesse optical cavity available in
laboratories. We thank Gerard Milburn, Junliang Song for stimulating
discussions. This work is in part supported by NSFC, $973$-Project (China),
and NSERC (Canada), CIFAR and A. P. Sloan foundation.
## References
* (1) H. Mabuchi, Q. A. Turchette, M. S. Chapman and H. J. Kimble, Optics Letters 21, 1393 (1996).
* (2) C. J. Hood et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4157 (1998).
* (3) J. A. Sauer et al., Phys. Rev. A 69, 051804(2004).
* (4) F. Brennecke et al., Nature 450, 268 (2007).
* (5) Other fluctuation-driven spin dynamics were studied in J. L. Song, F. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 77, 033628 (2008).
* (6) M. S. Chang et al., Nature Physics 1, 111 (2005).
* (7) T. L. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 742 (1998).
* (8) T. Ohmi, K. Machinda, J.Phys.Soc.Jpn. 67, 1822 (1998).
* (9) C. K. Law et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5257 (1998).
* (10) J. Stenger et al., Nature 396, 345(1998)
* (11) F. Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 080401 (2001).
* (12) R. B. Diener and J. L. Ho, cond-mat/0608732(2006).
* (13) M. Tavis, F. W. Cummings, Phys. Rev. 170, 379 (1968).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-06T19:59:48 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.128981 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Xiaoling Cui, Yupeng Wang and Fei Zhou",
"submitter": "Xiaoling Cui",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1220"
} |
0806.1244 | # Progress Towards Understanding Quarkonia at PHENIX
###### Abstract
Quarkonia (J/$\psi$, $\psi^{\prime}$, $\chi_{C}$, $\Upsilon$) production
provides a sensitive probe of gluon distributions and their modification in
nuclei; and is a leading probe of the hot-dense (deconfined) matter created in
high-energy collisions of heavy ions. We will discuss the physics of quarkonia
production in the context of recent $p+p$ measurements at PHENIX. We next
discuss Cold-Nuclear Matter (CNM) effects as seen in our measurements in
$d+Au$ collisions - both for intrinsic physics such as gluon saturation and
final-state dissociation, and as a baseline for studies in nucleus-nucleus
collisions. Then we review the latest nucleus-nucleus results in the light of
the expected CNM effects, and discuss two leading scenarios for the observed
suppression patterns. Finally we show the latest data from PHENIX, including
new $d+Au$ data from the 2007-2008 run; and then look into the future.
## 1 Introduction
We discuss our present understanding of Quarkonia ($J/\psi$, $\psi^{\prime}$,
$\chi_{C}$, $\Upsilon$) based on the measurements by PHENIX at RHIC. We
discuss 1) production, 2) cold nuclear matter (CNM) effects, 3) the effect of
the Quark Gluon Plasma (QGP), and then comment on prospects for the future as
RHIC luminosities increase and detector upgrades are installed. As shown in
Figure 1, the numbers of $J/\psi$ obtained in recent runs has increased
dramatically, with over 70,000 in the just completed $d+Au$ run.
Fig. 1.: Approximate Number of $J/\psi$s per year for different types of
collisions at PHENIX. Close symbols are for dimuons at forward rapidity, and
open symbols are for dielectrons at mid rapidity.
## 2 How are Quarkonia Produced
Quarkonia are produced primarily via gluon-fusion, but it has proven difficult
for theoretical predictions to reproduce both the cross section and the
polarization of the $J/\psi$. The configuration of the initially produced
$c\bar{c}$ state remains unclear, and casts uncertainty on what CNM effects it
will experience in nuclei. NRQCD models produce a $c\bar{c}$ in a color-octet
state and are able to reproduce the cross section, but predict large
transverse polarization at large $p_{T}$ \- unlike the data from E866/NuSea[1]
and CDF[2] which show only small longitudinal polarization. However, a recent
color-singlet model[3] claims good agreement for both cross section and
polarization.
Another complication in quarkonia production, particularly for the $J/\psi$,
is that about $\sim{40\%}$ of the $J/\psi$s come from decays of higher mass
resonances, namely the $\psi^{\prime}$ and $\chi_{C}$. Until recently, these
fractions have been inferred from measurements at other energies. Now PHENIX
has started to quantify these itself with initial results indicating $8.6\pm
2.5\%$ from the $\psi^{\prime}$ and $<42\%$ from the $\chi_{C}$. Another
PHENIX measurement[5] shows that $4{{+3}\atop{-2}}\%$ of the $J/\psi$s come
from decays of B-mesons, a contribution which is strongest at larger $p_{T}$.
## 3 What Cold Nuclear Matter (CNM) Effects are Important
For Quarkonia produced in nuclei, e.g. in $p+A$ or $d+A$ collisions, several
interesting effects - usually called cold nuclear matter (CNM) effects, can
occur. These include modifications of the initial gluon density either
according to traditional nuclear shadowing models[7, 8] that involve fits to
deep-inelastic scattering and other data, or gluon saturation models[9]. In
addition the initial-state projectile gluon may lose energy before it
interacts to form a $J/\psi$. Both of these effects can cause suppression of
the produced $J/\psi$s per nucleon-nucleon collision at large rapidity (or
small x) relative to that observed in p+p collisions. Finally, the $J/\psi$s
can be suppressed by dissociation of the $c{\bar{c}}$ by the nuclear medium in
the final state.
Fig. 2.: Nuclear dependence of $J/\psi$ production for three different
energies vs $x_{2}$ and $x_{F}$. Where $x_{F}=x_{1}-x_{2}$ and $x_{1}$ and
$x_{2}$ are the momentum fractions in $d$ and $Au$ respectively. $\alpha$ is a
representation of the nuclear dependence in terms of a power law, i.e.
$\sigma_{A}=\sigma_{N}A^{\alpha}$.
Fig. 3.: Nuclear modification factor versus rapidity for $d+Au$ collisions.
The yellow band bordered by black lines represents a fit to a model that
contains EKS[7] shadowing and a dissociation cross section.
A new analysis of the 2003 PHENIX $d+Au$ data, along with the new 2005
baseline $p+p$ data have been put together to produce new nuclear modification
factors for CNM[6], as shown in Figure 3, where they are compared to similar
data at lower energies. The lack of scaling with $x_{2}$ shown in the left
panel of the figure suggests that traditional shadowing models, which should
have a universal $x_{2}$ dependence, are not the dominant physics. The
approximate scaling with $x_{F}$ (right panel), at least for the lower energy
data that extends to large $x_{F}$, hints that initial-state energy loss or
gluon saturation may be the dominant physics.
In Figure 3 an approximate constraint using a simple CNM model (with shadowing
and dissociation)[10] is shown. This model can then be used to give an
extrapolated constraint for $Au+Au$ collisions, as shown in Figures 5 and 5.
Clearly the $d+Au$ data from 2003 used to constrain the CNM extrapolation here
suffers from large uncertainties, and results in a large uncertainty for
$Au+Au$ collisions. For $Au+Au$ at mid-rapidity the CNM band is almost
consistent with the observed suppression - except for the most central
collisions ($n_{part}\sim{340}$); while at forward rapidity the suppression
seen for $Au+Au$ is substantially stronger. The just completed 2008 $d+Au$ run
has approximately 30 times more $J/\psi$’s than before and, once analyzed,
will dramatically improve the knowledge of the CNM baseline in $A+A$
collisions, and allow precision studies of the additional physics beyond CNM
that comes from the hot-dense matter created in heavy-ion collisions. The CNM
constraint is expected to narrow by approximately a factor of three with the
new $d+Au$ data.
Fig. 4.: Extrapolation of the simple CNM model shown in Figure 3 to Au+Au
collisions at mid rapidity. Results for both EKS[7] and NDSG[8] shadowing are
shown.
Fig. 5.: Extrapolation of the simple CNM model shown in Figure 3 to Au+Au
collisions at forward rapidity. Results for both EKS[7] and NDSG[8] shadowing
are shown.
## 4 How does the QGP affect Quarkonia
Quarkonia are thought to be a definitive probe of the QGP through the
screening process in the deconfined colored medium[11]. Different quarkonia
states, because of their different binding energies, are expected to ”melt” at
different temperatures of the medium. E.g. in some lattice calculations the
$J/\psi$ would melt at $1.2T_{C}$, but the $\Upsilon$ only at over $2T_{C}$.
Nuclear modification factors observed by PHENIX in $Au+Au$ collisions are
shown in Figure 7. The suppression at mid-rapidity is about the same as that
observed for lower energies at the SPS[12], despite the expectation that the
hotter medium created at RHIC would cause a larger suppression. The
suppression at forward rapidity is stronger than that at mid rapidity, and the
ratio of the nuclear modification factors, forward/mid, shown in the bottom
panel of the figure, reaches an approximately constant level of $0.6$ for
$n_{part}>100$.
Several scenarios can be considered in trying to understand the observed
trends: 1) CNM effects, as discussed above, should always be accounted for as
a baseline. 2) Sequential screening[13] \- where, as suggested by some lattice
calculations, only the $\psi^{\prime}$ and $\chi_{C}$ are screened and the
$J/\psi$ itself is not - not at RHIC or at SPS energies. Then the observed
suppression beyond CNM comes only from loss of the feeddown ($\sim{40\%}$)
from the two higher mass quarkonia states. 3) Regeneration models[14], where
the large density of charm quarks created in the collisions ($\sim 20$ in a
central $Au+Au$ collision) can produce charmonia in the latter stages of the
expansion.
In the sequential screening picture, if the CNM suppression at mid rapidity
and the ”melting” of the higher mass charmonia states was the same at RHIC and
at the SPS, this would provide a natural explanation for the nearly identical
suppression at RHIC and the SPS. It would also agree with some lattice
calculations that indicate no melting of the $J/\psi$ until over $2T_{C}$[15].
The stronger forward rapidity suppression seen at RHIC could then be explained
by gluon saturation that gives stronger forward suppression than that from
standard shadowing models. For traditional shadowing models the shadowing of
the gluon from one nucleus is largely canceled by the anti-shadowing from the
gluon from the other nucleus - resulting in an approximately flat rapidity
dependence. For gluon saturation a ”shadowing-like” effect is produced for the
gluon in the small-x region, but no anti-shadowing for the other gluon,
resulting in a stronger suppression at forward rapidity. Since screening and
gluon saturation might have different centrality dependences, it is unclear
whether they would balance to produce the approximately flat ratio observed
for $n_{part}>100$ (Figure 7).
An alternative is the regeneration picture, where the dissocation by the QGP
at mid and forward rapidity would be similar, but the weaker suppression at
mid rapidity would be due to regeneration effects being stonger here where the
charm density is largest. In this case it would be an ”accidental”
compensation of screening and regeneration that leads to the same mid-rapidity
suppression at RHIC and the SPS. At forward rapidity, where the charm density
is smaller, the regeneration is reduced and stronger screening results. Again,
whether the saturation in the forward to mid rapidity suppression could be
reproduced by these two compensating effects is unclear.
The regeneration mechanism depends on the square of the open-charm cross
section, so it is critical to resolve the present uncertainties there.[16]
Also, since charm has been shown to exhibit flow for moderate $p_{T}$ values,
one would expect $J/\psi$s that are produced by regeneration to inherit this
flow. A first measurement of the $J/\psi$ flow at mid rapidity is shown from
part of the 2007 $Au+Au$ data in Figure 7; but is clearly quite challenging,
and so far is consistent with zero flow.
Fig. 6.: Nuclear modification factor for Au+Au collisions at mid rapidity (red
circles), and at forward rapidity (blue squares) versus centrality (top
panel). In the bottom panel the ratio of the foward over mid rapidity nuclear
modification factors from the upper panel is shown.
Fig. 7.: Flow of $J/\psi$s at mid rapidity vs $p_{T}$ (preliminary result from
42% of the 2007 data), compared to several theoretical models.
## 5 Summary and Future
The suppression of $J/\psi$ production in $Au+Au$ collisions at RHIC for mid
rapidity is similar to that at lower energies, while for foward rapidity the
RHIC suppression is stronger. Better cold nuclear matter constraints from the
new $d+Au$ data are needed to establish an accurate baseline and allow
quantitative analysis of the QGP effects. Two theoretical pictures, 1)
sequential suppression with gluon saturation and 2) dissociation and
regeneration, appear to offer explanations of the observed trends. Higher
luminosities and silicon vertex upgrades will enable much more quantitative
studies in the next few years. Over 100,000 $J/\psi$s and 600 $\Upsilon$s are
expected in a year with higher luminosities enabled by accelerator advances,
while new silicon vertex detectors will allow explicit indentification of
open-heavy and will improve both the background and mass resolution for the
quankonia states - especially important to separate the $\psi^{\prime}$ from
the $J/\psi$ at forward rapidity.
## References
* [1] T. Chang et al.. (E866/NuSea), Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 (2003) 211801.
* [2] T. Affolder et al. (CDF), Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 (2000) 2886.
* [3] H. Haberzettl and J.P. Lansberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 032006.
* [4] A. Adare et al., (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 232002.
* [5] Y. Morino (PHENIX), this proceedings.
* [6] A. Adare et al., (PHENIX), Phys. Rev. C77 (2008) 024912.
* [7] K.J. Eskola, V.J. Kolhinen, and R. Vogt, Nucl. Phys. A696 (2001) 729.
* [8] D. deFlorian and R. Sassot, Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 074028.
* [9] L. McLerran and R. Venugopalan, Phys. Rev. D49 2233 (1994); 3352 (1994).
* [10] R. Vogt, Phys. Rev. C77 (2005) 054902.
* [11] T. Matsui and H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B178 (1986) 416.
* [12] M.C. Abreu et al.. (NA50) Phys. Lett. B477 (2000) 28; Phys. Lett. B521 (2001) 195\.
* [13] F. Karsch, D. Kharzeev, H. Satz, Phys. Lett. B637 (2006) 75; hep-ph/0512239.
* [14] L. Grandchamp, R. Rapp, G.E. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 212301; R.L. Thews, Eur. Phys. J C43 (2005) 97.
* [15] F. Datta et al., hep-lat/0409147.
* [16] A. Knospe (STAR), this proceedings.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-06T22:23:16 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.133700 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "M.J. Leitch, et al. (for the PHENIX Collaboration)",
"submitter": "Michael Leitch",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1244"
} |
0806.1254 | ††thanks: Mailing address
# Study of $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}P$, $BV$ Decays with QCD Factorization
Junfeng Sun College of Physics and Information Engineering, Henan Normal
University, Xinxiang 453007, China Theoretical Physics Center for Science
Facilities (TPCSF), Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of
Sciences (IHEP, CAS) Yueling Yang College of Physics and Information
Engineering, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China Wenjie Du
College of Physics and Information Engineering, Henan Normal University,
Xinxiang 453007, China Huilan Ma College of Physics and Information
Engineering, Henan Normal University, Xinxiang 453007, China
###### Abstract
The $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}_{q}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays are studied with the
QCD factorization approach (where $P$ and $V$ denote pseudoscalar and vector
mesons, respectively; $q$ $=$ $u$, $d$ and $s$). Considering the contributions
of both current-current and penguin operators, the amplitudes of branching
ratios are estimated at the leading approximation. We find that the
contributions of the penguin operators are very small due to the serious
suppression by the CKM elements. The most promising decay modes are $B_{c}$
${\to}$ $B_{s}^{({\ast})}{\pi}$, $B_{s}{\rho}$, which might be easily detected
at hadron colliders.
###### pacs:
12.39.St 13.25.Hw
## I Introduction
The $B_{c}$ meson is one of the unique “double heavy-flavored” binding system
in the standard model (SM). The study of the $B_{c}$ meson has received a
great interest, due to its special properties: (1) The $B_{c}$ meson carries
open flavors. We can study the two heavy flavors of both $b$ and $c$ quarks
simultaneously with the $B_{c}$ meson. (2) The $B_{c}$ meson can serve as a
great laboratory for potential models, QCD sum rules, Heavy Quark Effective
Theory (HQET), lattice QCD, etc. (3) The $B_{c}$ meson has rich decay
channels, because of its sufficiently large mass and that the $b$ and $c$
quarks can decay individually. The $B_{c}$ meson decays may provide windows
for testing the predictions of the SM and can shed light on new physics beyond
SM.
The $B_{c}$ mesons are too massive to access at the $B$-factories near
${\Upsilon}(4S)$. They can be produced in significant numbers at hadron
colliders. The $B_{c}$ meson has been firstly discovered by the CDF
Collaboration cdf98 . Recently the CDF and D0 Collaborations announced some
accurate measurements cdf07 ; d008 with part of their available data. Much
more $B_{c}$ mesons and detailed information about their decay properties are
expected at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which is scheduled to run in this
year. It is estimated that one could expect around $5$ ${\times}$ $10^{10}$
$B_{c}$ events per year at LHC 0412158 ; pan67p1559 due to the relatively
large production cross section prd71p074012 plus the huge luminosity ${\cal
L}$ $=$ $10^{34}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$ and high center-of-mass energy
$\sqrt{s}$ $=$ $14$ TeV lhc . There seems to exist a real possibility to study
not only some $B_{c}$ rare decays, but also $CP$ violation and polarization
asymmetries. The study of the $B_{c}$ meson will highlight the advantages of
$B$ physics at hadron colliders.
The $B_{c}$ meson is stable for strong interaction because it lies below the
threshold of the $B$-$D$ mesons. The electromagnetic interaction cannot
transform the $B_{c}$ meson into other hadrons containing both $b$ and $c$
heavy quarks, because the $B_{c}$ meson itself is the ground state. The
$B_{c}$ meson decays via weak interaction only, which can be divided into
three classes: (1) the $b$ quark decay ($b$ ${\to}$ $c$, $u$) with $c$ quark
as a spectator, (2) the $c$ quark decay ($c$ ${\to}$ $s$, $d$) with $b$ quark
as a spectator, and (3) the weak annihilation channels. In the $B_{c}$ meson,
both heavy quark can decay weakly, resulting in its much shorter lifetime than
other $b$-flavored mesons, i.e. ${\tau}_{B_{c}}$ ${\lesssim}$
$\frac{1}{3}{\tau}_{B_{q}}$ (where $q$ $=$ $u$, $d$, and $s$) pdg2006 . Rates
of the Class (1) and (2) are competitive in magnitude. The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-
Maskawa (CKM) ckm matrix elements ${|}V_{cb}{|}$ ${\ll}$ ${|}V_{cs}{|}$, that
is in favor of the $c$-quark decay greatly, whereas the phase space factor
$m_{b}^{5}$ ${\gg}$ $m_{c}^{5}$ compensates the CKM matrix elements a lot for
the two flavors ijmpa21p777 . In fact, the dominant contributions to the
$B_{c}$ lifetime comes from the $c$-quark decays [Class (2)] (${\approx}$
$70\%$), while the $b$-quark decay [Class (1)] and weak annihilation [Class
(3)] are expected to add about $20\%$ and $10\%$, respectively 0412158 .
The $B_{c}$ meson decays have been widely studied in the literature due to
some of its outstanding features. (1) The pure leptonic $B_{c}$ decays belong
to the Class (3), which are free from strong interaction in final states and
can be used to measure the decay constant $f_{B_{c}}$ and the CKM elements
${|}V_{cb}{|}$, but they are not fully reconstructed due to the missing
neutrino. (2) The semileptonic $B_{c}$ decays provide an excellent laboratory
to measure the CKM elements ${|}V_{cb}{|}$, ${|}V_{ub}{|}$, ${|}V_{cs}{|}$,
${|}V_{cd}{|}$ and form factors for transitions of $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $b$\- and
$c$-flavored mesons. The first signal of $B_{c}$ is observed via this mode
cdf98 . The most difficult theoretical work at present is how to evaluate the
hadronic matrix elements properly and accurately. (3) The nonleptonic $B_{c}$
decays are the most complicated due to the participation of the strong
interaction, which complicate the extraction of parameters in SM, but they
also provide great opportunities to study perturbative and non-perturbative
QCD, final state interactions, etc.
The earlier nonleptonic decays of $B_{c}$ meson has been studied in 0412158 ;
pan67p1559 ; 07070919 ; prd75p097304 ; prd73p054024 ; epjc45p711 ;
prd70p074022 ; prd68p094020 ; epjc32p29 ; jpg28p595 ; jpg28p2241 ;
prd65p114007 ; pan64p1860 ; pan64p2027 ; prd61p034012 ; prd62p057503 ;
prd62p014019 ; cpl18p498 ; epjc9p557 ; epjc5p705 ; prd56p4133 ; plb387p187 ;
pan60p1729 ; 9605451 ; 9504319 ; prd49p3399 ; prd46p3836 ; plb286p160 ;
prd39p1342 . While $c$-quark decays take the lion’s share of the $B_{c}$
lifetime, the study on the Class (2) has not received enough attention. This
can be explained by the fact that on the one hand the available data on the
$B_{c}$ meson is very few, on the other hand it is assumed that the long
distance effects and final state interferences might be quite huge and that
the Class (2) decays were hard to detect experimentally. Accompanied by the
LHC being about to run, the future copious data require more accurate
theoretical predictions from now on. In this paper, we shall concentrate on
the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ (here $P$ and $V$ denote
pseudoscalar and vector mesons, respectively; $q$ $=$ $u$, $d$ and $s$) decays
in Class (2) with QCD factorization approach. Now let us outline a few reasons
and arguments below.
1. 1.
From the experimental view
* •
The initial and final $b$-flavored mesons, i.e. the $B_{c}$ and
$B_{q}^{({\ast})}$, all have a long lifetime due to their decays via the weak
interaction. Considered the relativistic boost kinematically due to their
large momentum obtained from huge center-of-mass energy, their information
would be easily recorded by the multipurpose detectors sitting at the hadron
colliders interaction regions (see lhc for details).
* •
Although it is perceived that the hadron collider environment is “messy” with
high backgrounds, the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays are
measurable due to the “clean” final states. Since the $B_{c}$ meson carries
charge, the final $B_{q}^{({\ast})}$ meson is tagged explicitly by the initial
$B_{c}$ meson. The other light meson in the final state could also be
identified effectively by the conservation low of both momentum and energy,
because the dedicated detectors at LHC has excellent performance on trigger,
time resolution, particle identification and so on (see lhc for details).
2. 2.
From the phenomenological view
* •
With very high statistics, we can carefully test the various theoretical
models, precisely determine the CKM elements, and meticulously search for the
signals of new physics. This requires more accurate theoretical predictions.
In this paper, we shall study the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$,
$B_{q}V$ decays with QCD factorization approach, including the contributions
of both current-current and penguin operators.
* •
In the rest frame of the $B_{c}$ meson, the velocity
${\beta}_{B_{q}^{({\ast})}}$ of the $B_{q}^{({\ast})}$ meson is very small due
to its large mass, not exceeding $0.18$. The ratio of velocity
${\beta}_{P,V}/{\beta}_{B_{q}^{({\ast})}}$ ${\gtrsim}$ $5.5$, which is very
different from that in the two-body $D$ meson decays where the ratio of
velocities of final states is close to one. This may indicate that the final
state interferences for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays
might not be so strong as that in $D$ mesons. If it holds true, it will
benefit us in determining the CKM elements $V_{cs}$ and $V_{cd}$, the $B_{c}$
${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}$ transition form factors, etc. In this paper, we
shall neglect the effects of final state interferences for the moment.
This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, the theoretical framework is
discussed. To estimate the amplitude of the branching ratios, the master QCD
factorization (QCDF) formula are applied to the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$
$B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays at the leading approximation. Section III
is devoted to the numerical results. Finally, we summarize in Sec. IV.
## II Theoretical framework
### II.1 The effective Hamiltonian
Using the operator product expansion and renormalization group (RG) equation,
the low energy effective Hamiltonian relevant to the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$
$B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays can be written as
${\cal H}_{\rm
eff}=\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}\Big{\\{}\\!\\!\sum\limits_{q_{1}=d,s\atop
q_{2}=d,s}\\!\\!\\!V_{uq_{{}_{1}}}V_{cq_{{}_{2}}}^{\ast}\Big{[}C_{1}({\mu})Q_{1}+C_{2}({\mu})Q_{2}\Big{]}+\\!\\!\\!\sum\limits_{q=d,s\atop
i=3,\ldots,10}\\!\\!\\!\\!\\!V_{uq}V_{cq}^{\ast}C_{i}({\mu})Q_{i}\Big{\\}}+\hbox{H.c.},$
(1)
where $V_{uq_{{}_{\\!1}}}V_{cq_{{}_{2}}}^{\ast}$ is the CKM factor. The cases
$q$ $=$ $d$ and $q$ $=$ $s$ can be treated separately and have the same Wilson
coefficients $C_{i}({\mu})$. The expressions of the local operators are
$\displaystyle
Q_{1}=(\bar{u}_{\alpha}q_{\\!1\,{\alpha}})_{V-A}(\bar{q}_{2{\beta}}c_{\beta})_{V-A},\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Q_{2}=(\bar{u}_{\alpha}q_{1{\beta}})_{V-A}(\bar{q}_{2{\beta}}c_{\alpha})_{V-A}$
(2) $\displaystyle
Q_{3}=({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\alpha})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\beta})_{V-A},\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Q_{4}=({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha})_{V-A},$
(3) $\displaystyle
Q_{5}=({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\alpha})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\beta})_{V+A},\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
Q_{6}=({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha})_{V+A},$
(4) $\displaystyle
Q_{7}=\frac{3}{2}({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\alpha})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\beta})_{V+A},\
\ \ \ \ \
Q_{8}=\frac{3}{2}({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha})_{V+A},$
(5) $\displaystyle
Q_{9}=\frac{3}{2}({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\alpha})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\beta})_{V-A},\
\ \ \ \ \
Q_{10}=\frac{3}{2}({\bar{u}}_{\alpha}c_{\beta})_{V-A}\sum\limits_{q^{\prime}}e_{q^{\prime}}({\bar{q}}^{\prime}_{\beta}q^{\prime}_{\alpha})_{V-A},$
(6)
where the summation over the repeated color indices (${\alpha}$ and ${\beta}$)
is understood. The Dirac current $(\bar{q}_{1}q_{2})_{V{\pm}A}$ $=$
$\bar{q}_{1}{\gamma}(1{\pm}{\gamma}_{5})q_{2}$. $q^{\prime}$ denotes all the
active quarks at scale ${\mu}$ $=$ ${\cal O}(m_{c})$, i.e. $q^{\prime}$ $=$
$u$, $d$, $s$, $c$. $e_{q^{\prime}}$ denotes the electric change of the
corresponding quark $q^{\prime}$ in the unit of ${|}e{|}$, which reflects the
electroweak origin of $Q_{7}$, ${\cdots}$, $Q_{10}$. The current-current
operators ($Q_{1}$, $Q_{2}$), QCD penguin operators ($Q_{3}$, ${\cdots}$,
$Q_{6}$), and electroweak penguin operators ($Q_{7}$, ${\cdots}$, $Q_{10}$)
form a complete basis set under QCD and QED renormalization rmp68p1125 .
The effective coupling constants — Wilson coefficients $C_{i}({\mu})$ — are
calculated in perturbative theory at a high scale ${\mu}$ ${\sim}$ $m_{W}$ and
evolved down to a characteristic scale ${\mu}$ ${\sim}$ $m_{c}$ using the RG
equations. The Wilson coefficient functions are given by rmp68p1125
$\vec{C}({\mu})=U_{4}({\mu},{\mu}_{b})M({\mu}_{b})U_{5}({\mu}_{b},{\mu}_{W})\vec{C}({\mu}_{W})$
(7)
Here $U_{f}({\mu}_{f},{\mu}_{i})$ is the RG evolution matrix for $f$ active
flavors, which includes the RG-improved perturbative contribution from the
initial scale ${\mu}_{i}$ down to the final scale ${\mu}_{f}$. The $M({\mu})$
is the $10{\times}10$ quark-threshold matching matrix. The corresponding
formula and expressions can be found in Ref. rmp68p1125 . The Wilson
coefficients $C_{i}({\mu})$ have been evaluated to the next-to-leading order
(NLO). Their numerical values in the naive dimensional regularization (NDR)
scheme are listed in Table 1.
### II.2 Hadronic matrix elements within the QCDF framework
For the weak decays of hadrons, the short-distance effects are well-known and
can be calculated in perturbation theory. However, the nonperturbative long-
distance effects responsible for the hadronization from quarks to hadrons
still remain obscure in several aspects. But to calculate the exclusive weak
decays of the $B_{c}$ meson, one needs to evaluate the hadronic matrix
elements, i.e., the weak current operator sandwiched between the initial state
of the $B_{c}$ meson and the concerned final states, which is the most
difficult theoretical work at present. Phenomenologically, these hadronic
matrix elements are usually parameterized into the product of the decay
constants and the transition form factors based on the argument of color
transparency and the naive factorization scheme (NF) bsw . A few years ago,
Beneke, Buchalla, Neubert, and Sachrajda suggested a QCDF formula to compute
the hadronic matrix elements in the heavy quark limit, combining the hard
scattering approach with power counting in $1/m_{Q}$ 9905312 (here $m_{Q}$ is
the mass of heavy quark). At leading order in the power series of heavy quark
mass expansion, the hadronic matrix elements can be factorized into “non-
factorizable” corrections dominated by hard gluon exchange and universal non-
perturbative part parameterized by the form factors and meson’s light cone
distribution amplitudes. This promising approach has been applied to exclusive
two-body nonleptonic $B_{u}$, $B_{d}$, $B_{s}$ decays 0108141 ; prd68p054003 ;
npb657p333 . It is found that with appropriate parameters, most of the QCDF’s
predictions are in agreement with the present experimental data. In this
paper, we would like to apply the QCDF approach to the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$
$B^{({\ast})}_{q}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays.
In the heavy quark limit $m_{c}$ $\gg$ ${\Lambda}_{QCD}$, up to power
corrections of order of the ${\Lambda}_{QCD}/m_{c}$, using the master QCDF
formula, the hadronic matrix elements for the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$
$B^{({\ast})}_{q}M$ decays ($M$ $=$ $P$ or $V$) can be written as 9905312
${\langle}B^{({\ast})}_{q}M{|}O_{i}{|}B_{c}{\rangle}\ =\
F^{B_{c}{\to}B^{({\ast})}_{q}}{\int}dz\ H(z){\Phi}_{M}(z)$ (8)
where $F^{B_{c}{\to}B^{({\ast})}_{q}}$ is the transition form factor and
${\Phi}_{M}(z)$ is the distribution amplitudes for the meson of $M$, which are
assumed to be nonperturbative and dominated by the soft contributions. The
hard-scattering kernels $H(z)$ can be calculated in the perturbative theory.
For details about the QCDF formula Eq.(8), please refer to Ref.9905312 .
To estimate the branching ratios approximately and to have a sense of the
order of amplitudes, we shall adopt a rough approximation, i.e. at the leading
order of ${\alpha}_{s}$. Within this approximation, the hard-scattering kernel
functions become very simple, $H(z)$ $=$ $1$. That is to say the long-distance
interactions between $M$ and $B_{c}$-$B^{({\ast})}_{q}$ system could be
neglected. So the integral of ${\Phi}_{M}(z)$ reduces to the normalization
condition for the distribution amplitudes. Furthermore, according to the
arguments of QCDF 9905312 , the hard interactions with the spectator are power
suppressed in the heavy quark limit. Therefore it is not surprisingly to
reproduce the result of NF.
In our paper, the annihilation amplitudes are neglected due to some reasons.
(1) According to the power counting arguments of QCDF 9905312 , compared with
the leading order contributions to the hard scattering kernel, the
contributions from annihilation topologies are power suppressed. (2) The
annihilation amplitudes are suppressed by the CKM elements. For the decay
modes concerned, the CKM factors in the non-annihilation amplitudes are
$V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $1$, $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$
${\lambda}$, $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}$ and
$V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{2}$, while the annihilation
amplitudes are proportional to the CKM factors of $V_{cb}V_{ub}^{\ast}$
${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{5}$.
The explicit expressions of decay amplitudes for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$
$B^{({\ast})}_{q}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays are collected in appendix A. In our
paper, we define
$\displaystyle a_{i}$ $\displaystyle{\equiv}$ $\displaystyle
C_{i}+\frac{1}{N_{c}}C_{i+1}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ (i={\rm odd})$ (9) $\displaystyle
a_{i}$ $\displaystyle{\equiv}$ $\displaystyle C_{i}+\frac{1}{N_{c}}C_{i-1}\ \
\ \ \ \ \ (i={\rm even})$ (10)
where $i$ runs from $1$ to $10$, $C_{i}$ are the Wilson coefficients. $N_{c}$
$=$ $3$ is the color number.
## III Numerical results and discussions
Within the QCDF approach, the decay amplitudes depend on many input parameters
including the CKM matrix elements, decay constants, form factors, etc. These
parameters are discussed and specified below.
### III.1 The CKM matrix elements
We will use the Wolfenstein parameterization. Phenomenologically, it is a
popular approximation of the CKM matrix in which each elements is expanded as
a power series in the small parameter ${\lambda}$. Up to ${\cal
O}({\lambda}^{6})$, the CKM elements can be written as rmp68p1125
$\displaystyle V_{ud}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
1-\frac{1}{2}{\lambda}^{2}-\frac{1}{8}{\lambda}^{4}+{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6})$
(11) $\displaystyle V_{us}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle{\lambda}+{\cal
O}({\lambda}^{6})$ (12) $\displaystyle V_{ub}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
A{\lambda}^{3}({\rho}-i{\eta})$ (13) $\displaystyle V_{cd}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-{\lambda}+A^{2}{\lambda}^{5}\Big{[}\frac{1}{2}-({\rho}+i{\eta})\Big{]}+{\cal
O}({\lambda}^{6})$ (14) $\displaystyle V_{cs}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
1-\frac{1}{2}{\lambda}^{2}-\frac{1}{8}{\lambda}^{4}-\frac{1}{2}A^{2}{\lambda}^{4}+{\cal
O}({\lambda}^{6})$ (15) $\displaystyle V_{cb}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
A{\lambda}^{2}+{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6})$ (16) $\displaystyle V_{td}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
A{\lambda}^{3}\Big{[}1-({\rho}+i{\eta})\Big{(}1-\frac{1}{2}{\lambda}^{2}\Big{)}\Big{]}+{\cal
O}({\lambda}^{6})$ (17) $\displaystyle V_{ts}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-A{\lambda}^{2}+A{\lambda}^{4}\Big{[}\frac{1}{2}-({\rho}+i{\eta})\Big{]}+{\cal
O}({\lambda}^{6})$ (18) $\displaystyle V_{tb}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
1-\frac{1}{2}A^{2}{\lambda}^{4}+{\cal O}({\lambda}^{6})$ (19)
The global fit for the four independent Wolfenstein parameters gives pdg2006
$A=0.818^{+0.007}_{-0.017},\ \ \ \ {\lambda}=0.2272{\pm}0.0010,\ \ \ \
\bar{\rho}=0.221^{+0.064}_{-0.028},\ \ \ \ \bar{\eta}=0.340^{+0.017}_{-0.045}$
(20)
where the relationship between (${\rho}$, ${\eta}$) and ($\bar{\rho}$,
$\bar{\eta}$) is pdg2006
${\rho}+i{\eta}=\frac{\sqrt{1-A^{2}{\lambda}^{4}}(\bar{\rho}+i\bar{\eta})}{\sqrt{1-{\lambda}^{4}}[1-A^{2}{\lambda}^{4}(\bar{\rho}+i\bar{\eta})]}$
(21)
If not stated otherwise, we shall use their central values for illustration.
### III.2 Decay constants and form factors
In principle, information about the decay constants and transition form
factors of mesons can be obtained from experiments and/or theoretical
estimations. Now we specify these parameters. The decay constants $f_{P}$ and
$f_{V}$ corresponding to the pseudoscalar and vector mesons respectively, are
defined by
${\langle}P(q){|}({\bar{q}}_{1}q_{2})_{V-A}{|}0{\rangle}=-if_{P}q^{\mu},\ \ \
\ \ \ \
{\langle}V(q,{\epsilon}){|}({\bar{q}}_{1}q_{2})_{V-A}{|}0{\rangle}=f_{V}m_{V}{\epsilon}^{{\ast}{\mu}},$
(22)
where ${\epsilon}^{{\ast}}$ is the polarization vector of the vector meson
$V$. In this paper, we assume ideal mixing between ${\omega}$ and ${\phi}$
mesons, i.e. ${\omega}$ = $(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})/{\sqrt{2}}$ and ${\phi}$ =
$s\bar{s}$. In fact, the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{({\ast})}{\phi}$ decays are
not possible, because the $B_{c}$ meson lies below the threshold of the
$B_{u}^{({\ast})}{\phi}$ system. As to the ${\eta}$ and ${\eta}^{\prime}$
mesons, we take the convention in Ref. prd58p114006 , adopting the Feldmann-
Kroll-Stech mixing scheme. Neglecting the possible compositions of both
${\eta}_{c}$ $=$ $c\bar{c}$ and glueball $gg$, the ${\eta}$ and
${\eta}^{\prime}$ are expressed as linear combinations of orthogonal states
${\eta}_{q}$ and ${\eta}_{s}$ with the flavor structure $q\bar{q}$ $=$
$(u\bar{u}+d\bar{d})/{\sqrt{2}}$ and $s\bar{s}$, respectively, i.e.
$\left(\begin{array}[]{c}{\eta}\\\
{{\eta}^{\prime}}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}[]{lr}{\cos}{\phi}&-{\sin}{\phi}\\\
{\sin}{\phi}&{\cos}{\phi}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{c}{\eta}_{q}\\\
{\eta}_{s}\end{array}\right)$ (23)
where ${\phi}$ $=$ $(39.3{\pm}1.0)^{\circ}$ prd58p114006 is the
${\eta}$-${\eta}^{\prime}$ mixing angle. So the decay constants related to the
${\eta}$ and ${\eta}^{\prime}$ mesons can be defined by
$\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}f^{q}_{\eta}&f^{s}_{\eta}\\\
f^{q}_{{\eta}^{\prime}}&f^{s}_{{\eta}^{\prime}}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}{\cos}{\phi}&-{\sin}{\phi}\\\
{\sin}{\phi}&{\cos}{\phi}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}f_{q}&0\\\
0&f_{s}\end{array}\right)$ (24)
${\langle}0{|}\bar{q}{\gamma}_{\mu}{\gamma}_{5}q{|}{\eta}^{(\prime)}(p){\rangle}=if^{q}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}p_{\mu},\
\ \ \ \ \ \
{\langle}0{|}\bar{s}{\gamma}_{\mu}{\gamma}_{5}s{|}{\eta}^{(\prime)}(p){\rangle}=if^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}p_{\mu}.$
(25)
The matrix elements of the pseudoscalar densities are defined by prd58p094009
$\frac{{\langle}0{|}\bar{u}{\gamma}_{5}u{|}{\eta}^{(\prime)}{\rangle}}{{\langle}0{|}\bar{s}{\gamma}_{5}s{|}{\eta}^{(\prime)}{\rangle}}=\frac{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}},\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
{\langle}0{|}\bar{s}{\gamma}_{5}s{|}{\eta}^{(\prime)}{\rangle}=-i\frac{m_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}^{2}}{2m_{s}}(f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}-f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}),$
(26)
The numerical values of the decay constants are collected in Table 2. If not
stated otherwise, we shall take their central values for illustration.
The transition form factors are defined as bsw
${\langle}P(k){|}({\bar{q}}_{3}q_{4})_{V-A}{|}B(p){\rangle}=(p+k)^{\mu}F_{1}^{B{\to}P}(q^{2})+\frac{m_{B}^{2}-m_{P}^{2}}{q^{2}}q^{\mu}\Big{[}F_{0}^{B{\to}P}(q^{2})-F_{1}^{B{\to}P}(q^{2})\Big{]}$
(27)
$\displaystyle{\langle}V(k,{\epsilon}){|}({\bar{q}}_{3}q_{4})_{V-A}{|}B(p){\rangle}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
i\frac{{\epsilon}^{\ast}{\cdot}p}{q^{2}}q_{\mu}2m_{V}A_{0}^{B{\to}V}(q^{2})+i{\epsilon}^{\ast}_{\mu}(m_{B}+m_{V})A_{1}^{B{\to}V}(q^{2})$
(28) $\displaystyle-$ $\displaystyle
i\frac{{\epsilon}^{\ast}{\cdot}p}{m_{B}+m_{V}}(p+k)_{\mu}A_{2}^{B{\to}V}(q^{2})-i\frac{{\epsilon}^{\ast}{\cdot}p}{q^{2}}q_{\mu}2m_{V}A_{3}^{B{\to}V}(q^{2})$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle{\epsilon}_{{\mu}{\nu}{\alpha}{\beta}}{\epsilon}^{{\ast}{\nu}}p^{\alpha}k^{\beta}\frac{2V^{B{\to}V}(q^{2})}{m_{B}+m_{V}}$
where $F_{0,1}$, $V$ and $A_{0,1,2,3}$ are the transition form factors, $q$ =
$p$ $-$ $k$. In order to cancel the poles at $q^{2}$ $=$ $0$, we must impose
the condition
$\displaystyle F_{0}^{B{\to}P}(0)=F_{1}^{B{\to}P}(0),\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ A_{0}^{B{\to}V}(0)=A_{3}^{B{\to}V}(0),$ (29) $\displaystyle
2m_{V}A_{3}^{B{\to}V}(0)=(m_{B}+m_{V})A_{1}^{B{\to}V}(0)-(m_{B}-m_{V})A_{2}^{B{\to}V}(0).$
(30)
In our paper, only the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}_{q}$ transition form
factors appear in the amplitudes within the “spectator” model where the
spectator is the $b$-quark for the concerned processes. Their numerical values
are collected in Table 3. From the numbers in Table 3, we can see clearly
that, due to the properties of nonperturbative QCD, there are large
uncertainties about the form factors with different theoretical treatments.
Here, we notice the fact that the velocity of the final state
$B_{q}^{({\ast})}$ meson is very small in the rest frame of the initial
$B_{c}$ meson, as that mentioned in Sec. I. It is commonly assumed that the
velocities of the $b$-quark in the rest frame of the $b$-flavored mesons
should be close to zero. The $B_{q}^{({\ast})}$ meson is neither fast nor
small. By intuition, the overlap between the initial and final states should
be huge, close to unity, as that argued in prd39p1342 . So for illustration
and simplification, we will take the same value for the transition form
factors, i.e. $F_{1,0}(0)$ $=$ $A_{0}(0)$ $=$ $0.8$.
### III.3 Quark masses
In the decay amplitudes, there exist the “chirally enhanced” factors which are
associated with the hadronic matrix elements of the scalar and pseudoscalar
densities, for example, $R_{c1}$ in Eq.(39). These factors are formally of
order the ${\Lambda}_{\rm QCD}/m_{c}$, power suppressed in the heavy quark
limit, but numerically close to unity because the mass of the $c$ quark is not
infinity in practice. The current quark masses in the denominator appear
through the equations of motions and are renormalization scale dependent.
Their values are pdg2006
$\begin{array}[]{lll}m_{u}(2\,{\rm GeV})=3{\pm}1~{}{\rm
MeV},&{}{}{}{}{}&m_{d}(2\,{\rm GeV})=6.0{\pm}1.5~{}{\rm MeV},\\\ m_{s}(2\,{\rm
GeV})=103{\pm}20~{}{\rm MeV},&&m_{c}(m_{c})=1.24{\pm}0.09~{}{\rm
GeV}.\end{array}$ (31)
Using the renormalization group equation of the running quark mass rmp68p1125
,
$m({\mu})=m({\mu}_{0})\Big{[}\frac{{\alpha}_{s}({\mu})}{{\alpha}_{s}({\mu}_{0})}\Big{]}^{\frac{{\gamma}_{m}^{(0)}}{2{\beta}_{0}}}\Big{\\{}1+\Big{(}\frac{{\gamma}_{m}^{(1)}}{2{\beta}_{0}}-\frac{{\gamma}_{m}^{(0)}{\beta}_{1}}{2{\beta}_{0}^{2}}\Big{)}\frac{{\alpha}_{s}({\mu})-{\alpha}_{s}({\mu}_{0})}{4{\pi}}\Big{\\}}$
(32)
their corresponding values at a characteristic scale ${\mu}$ ${\sim}$ $m_{c}$
can be obtained.
### III.4 Numerical results and discussions
The numerical results are listed in Table 4, where ${\cal B}r^{T}$ corresponds
to the contributions of the current-current operators only, ${\cal
B}r^{T+P_{s}}$ corresponds to the contributions of both current-current and
QCD penguin operators, ${\cal B}r^{T+P_{s}+P_{\rm e}}$ corresponds to the
contributions of both current-current and penguin operators, i.e. $Q_{1}$,
${\cdots}$, $Q_{10}$.
Here, we would like to point out that these numbers are just the qualitative
estimations on the order of amplitudes, because many of the subtleties and
details, such as final state interactions, the renormalization scale
dependence, the transition form factors, the strong phases, and so on, all
deserve the dedicated researches but are not considered here.
From the numbers in Table 4, we can see
* •
The contributions of both QCD and electroweak penguin operators are very small
for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}P$, $BV$ decays, compared with those of the
current-current operators. This is very different from that of the $B_{u,d,s}$
meson decays. The reason is that the contributions of penguin operators are
seriously suppressed by the CKM elements. The CKM elements corresponding to
different topologies for $c$-quark decay in the $B_{c}$ meson are listed
below.
tree topologies | penguin topologies | annihilation topologies
---|---|---
$V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $1$, $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $+{\lambda}$ | $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ $+$ $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{5}$ | $V_{cb}V_{ub}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{5}$
$V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{2}$, $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $-{\lambda}$ | |
So, for the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B^{({\ast})}P$, $BV$ decays, the effects of new
physics contributed via the penguin topologies might be tiny and not
detectable even with large statistics, due to the serious suppression by the
CKM elements.
* •
There are clear hierarchy of amplitudes of the branching ratios. According the
CKM elements and the coefficients of $a_{1,2}$, these decay modes are divided
into different cases listed below.
cases | processes | coefficients | the CKM elements | order of branching ratios
---|---|---|---|---
case 1a | $c$ ${\to}$ $s$ | $a_{1}$ | $V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $1$ | ${\sim}$ $10^{-2}$
case 1b | $c$ ${\to}$ $s$ | $a_{1}$ | $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}$ | ${\sim}$ $10^{-3}$
| $c$ ${\to}$ $d$ | $a_{1}$ | $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}$ | ${\sim}$ $10^{-3}$
case 1c | $c$ ${\to}$ $d$ | $a_{1}$ | $V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{2}$ | ${\sim}$ $10^{-4}$
case 2a | $c$ ${\to}$ $u$ | $a_{2}$ | $V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ $1$ | ${\sim}$ $10^{-5}$
case 2b | $c$ ${\to}$ $u$ | $a_{2}$ | $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$, $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}$ | ${\sim}$ $10^{-6}$ — $10^{-7}$
case 2c | $c$ ${\to}$ $u$ | $a_{2}$ | $V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ ${\sim}$ ${\lambda}^{2}$ | ${\sim}$ $10^{-8}$
The decay modes determined by $a_{1}$ have comparatively large branching
ratios, which should be detectable experimentally, especially the CKM favored
decay modes, such as $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{({\ast})}{\pi}$, $B_{s}{\rho}$,
might be the promising decay modes to be measured in hadron colliders. Due to
the great branching ratios of the decay modes determined by $a_{1}$, the
$B_{c}$ mesons can be used as a source of the $B_{s}$ mesons if the $B_{c}$ is
produced copiously, as that stated in Ref.ijmpa21p777 . The decay modes
determined by $a_{2}$ have comparatively small branching ratios, which are
hard to detect experimentally, especially the CKM suppressed decay modes, such
as $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{({\ast})}K^{0}$, $B_{u}K^{{\ast}0}$, their
branching ratios are too tiny to be measured.
* •
Although the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{({\ast})}{\eta}^{\prime}$ decays belong
to the case 2b modes, their branching ratios are abnormally small, order of
$10^{-8}$. This can be explained by the fact that on one hand the physical
space phase available is too small, on the other hand there are large
destructive interactions between $f^{u}_{{\eta}^{\prime}}a_{2}$ and
$f^{s}_{{\eta}^{\prime}}a_{2}$ due to the serious cancellation between the CKM
elements $V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}$ and $V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}$.
* •
The relations among the $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decay
mode become very simple since the effects of penguin topologies is too tiny to
be considered. We can use these relations to determine and overconstrain some
parameters, such as the CKM elements, the form factors, etc. In addition, in
estimating and measuring these parameters, the ratios of the branching ratios
can be used to cancel and/or reduce largely theoretical uncertainties and
experimental errors. For example
$\displaystyle\frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}{\pi}^{+})}{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}K^{+})}{\approx}\frac{V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}}{V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}}\frac{f_{\pi}}{f_{K}}{\approx}\frac{V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}}{V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}}\frac{f_{\pi}}{f_{K}}{\approx}\frac{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}{\pi}^{+})}{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}K^{+})}$ (33) $\displaystyle\frac{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}{\pi}^{+})}{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}{\pi}^{+})}{\approx}\frac{V_{cd}^{\ast}}{V_{cs}^{\ast}}\frac{F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{d}}^{2})}{F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{s}}^{2})}{\approx}\frac{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}K^{+})}{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}K^{+})}$
(34) $\displaystyle\frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}{\pi}^{+})}{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}{\rho}^{+})}{\approx}\frac{f_{\pi}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}{f_{\rho}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\frac{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}K^{+})}{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}K^{{\ast}+})}{\approx}\frac{f_{K}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}{f_{K^{\ast}}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}$
(35) $\displaystyle\frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}{\pi}^{+})}{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{{\ast}0}_{d}{\pi}^{+})}{\approx}\frac{F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}{A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B^{\ast}_{d}}}{\approx}\frac{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{d}K^{+})}{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{{\ast}0}_{d}K^{+})}$ (36) $\displaystyle\frac{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}{\pi}^{+})}{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}{\rho}^{+})}{\approx}\frac{f_{\pi}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}}{f_{\rho}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\frac{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}K^{+})}{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}K^{{\ast}+})}{\approx}\frac{f_{K}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}}{f_{K^{\ast}}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}}$
(37) $\displaystyle\frac{{\cal B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}{\pi}^{+})}{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{{\ast}0}_{s}{\pi}^{+})}{\approx}\frac{F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}}}{A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B^{\ast}_{d}}}{\approx}\frac{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{0}_{s}K^{+})}{{\cal
B}r(B^{+}_{c}{\to}B^{{\ast}0}_{s}K^{+})}$ (38)
## IV Summary and Conclusion
In prospects of the huge statistics of the $B_{c}$ mesons at the hadron
colliders, accurate and thorough studies of the $B_{c}$ physics will be
accessible very soon. In this paper, we study the two-body nonleptonic
$c$-quark decays in the $B_{c}$ mesons, i.e. $B_{c}$ ${\to}$
$B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$ decays within the QCDF approach for the leading
approximation, and estimate their branching ratios. We find that the
contributions of the penguin operators are very small to the decay amplitudes
due to the serious suppression by the CKM elements. The decay modes determined
by $a_{1}$ have comparatively large branching ratios. The most promising decay
modes are $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{({\ast})}{\pi}$, $B_{s}{\rho}$, which might
be easily detected at the hadron colliders.
## Appendix A Amplitudes for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$
decays
### A.1 $c$ ${\to}$ $d$ processes
$\displaystyle{\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{0}{\pi}^{+})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}f_{\pi}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{0}}\left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{d}}^{2}\right)\Big{\\{}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(39)
$\displaystyle+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}a_{4}-\frac{1}{2}a_{10}+R_{c1}\big{(}a_{6}-\frac{1}{2}a_{8}\big{)}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
where $R_{c1}\ =\
\displaystyle\frac{2m_{{\pi}^{+}}^{2}}{(m_{d}+m_{u})(m_{c}-m_{d})}$.
${\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{0}K^{+})=-i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}f_{K}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{0}}\left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{d}}^{2}\right)V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(40) $\displaystyle{\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{0}{\rho}^{+})$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{{\rho}}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{0}}m_{{\rho}^{+}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)\Big{\\{}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(41)
$\displaystyle+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}a_{4}-\frac{1}{2}a_{10}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
${\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{0}K^{{\ast}+})=\sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{K^{\ast}}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{0}}m_{K^{{\ast}+}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(42) $\displaystyle{\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{{\ast}0}{\pi}^{+})$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{\pi}A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{{\ast}0}}m_{B_{d}^{{\ast}}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)\Big{\\{}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(43)
$\displaystyle+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}a_{4}-\frac{1}{2}a_{10}+Q_{c1}\big{(}a_{6}-\frac{1}{2}a_{8}\big{)}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
where $Q_{c1}\ =\
\displaystyle\frac{-2m_{{\pi}^{+}}^{2}}{(m_{d}+m_{u})(m_{c}+m_{d})}$.
${\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{d}^{{\ast}0}K^{+})=\sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{K}A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{d}^{{\ast}0}}m_{B_{d}^{{\ast}}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(44)
### A.2 $c$ ${\to}$ $s$ processes
${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{0}{\pi}^{+})\ =\
-i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}f_{\pi}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{0}}\left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{s}}^{2}\right)V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(45) $\displaystyle{\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{0}K^{+})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}f_{K}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{0}}\left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{s}}^{2}\right)\Big{\\{}V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(46)
$\displaystyle+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}a_{4}-\frac{1}{2}a_{10}+R_{c2}\big{(}a_{6}-\frac{1}{2}a_{8}\big{)}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
where $R_{c2}\ =\
\displaystyle\frac{2m_{K^{+}}^{2}}{(m_{s}+m_{u})(m_{c}-m_{s})}$
${\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{0}{\rho}^{+})\ =\
\sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{{\rho}}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{0}}m_{{\rho}^{+}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(47) $\displaystyle{\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{0}K^{{\ast}+})$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{K^{{\ast}}}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{0}}m_{K^{{\ast}+}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)\Big{\\{}V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(48)
$\displaystyle+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}a_{4}-\frac{1}{2}a_{10}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
${\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{{\ast}0}{\pi}^{+})=\sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{\pi}A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{{\ast}0}}m_{B_{s}^{{\ast}}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(49) $\displaystyle{\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{s}^{{\ast}0}K^{+})$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\sqrt{2}G_{F}f_{K}A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{{\ast}0}}m_{B_{s}^{{\ast}}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)\Big{\\{}V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}a_{1}$
(50)
$\displaystyle+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}a_{4}-\frac{1}{2}a_{10}+Q_{c2}\big{(}a_{6}-\frac{1}{2}a_{8}\big{)}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
where $Q_{c2}\ =\
\displaystyle\frac{-2m_{K^{+}}^{2}}{(m_{s}+m_{u})(m_{c}+m_{s})}$
### A.3 $c$ ${\to}$ $u$ processes
$\displaystyle{\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\pi}^{0})=-i\frac{G_{F}}{2}f_{\pi}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}\left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{u}}^{2}\right)\Big{\\{}-V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(51)
$\displaystyle+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}a_{4}+a_{10}-\frac{3}{2}\big{(}a_{7}-a_{9}\big{)}+R_{c3}\big{(}a_{6}+a_{8}\big{)}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
where $R_{c3}\ =\
\displaystyle\frac{2m_{{\pi}^{0}}^{2}}{(m_{d}+m_{u})(m_{c}-m_{u})}$
${\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\overline{K}}^{0})=-i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}f_{K}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}\left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{u}}^{2}\right)V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(52) ${\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}K^{0})=-i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}f_{K}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}\left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{u}}^{2}\right)V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(53) $\displaystyle{\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\eta}^{(\prime)})=-i\frac{G_{F}}{\sqrt{2}}f_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}^{u}F_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}\left(m_{B_{c}}^{2}-m_{B_{u}}^{2}\right)\Big{\\{}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(54)
$\displaystyle+\frac{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}a_{2}+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}\frac{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}\big{\\{}a_{3}-a_{5}+\frac{1}{2}\Big{(}a_{7}-a_{9}\Big{)}\big{\\}}$
$\displaystyle+2\Big{(}a_{3}-a_{5}\Big{)}+a_{4}+a_{10}-\frac{1}{2}\Big{(}a_{7}-a_{9}\Big{)}+\left(1-\frac{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}\right)R_{c4}^{(\prime)}\Big{(}a_{6}+a_{8}\Big{)}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
where $R_{c4}^{(\prime)}\ =\
\displaystyle\frac{2m_{{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}^{2}}{(m_{s}+m_{s})(m_{c}-m_{u})}$
$\displaystyle{\cal A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\rho}^{0})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle
G_{F}f_{{\rho}}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}m_{{\rho}^{0}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)\Big{\\{}-V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(55)
$\displaystyle+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}a_{4}+a_{10}+\frac{3}{2}\big{(}a_{7}+a_{9}\big{)}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
$\displaystyle{\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\omega})=G_{F}f_{\omega}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}m_{\omega}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)\Big{\\{}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(56)
$\displaystyle+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}2\big{(}a_{3}+a_{5}\big{)}+a_{4}+a_{10}+\frac{1}{2}\big{(}a_{7}+a_{9}\big{)}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
${\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}{\overline{K}}^{{\ast}0})={\sqrt{2}}G_{F}f_{{\overline{K}}^{{\ast}}}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}m_{{\overline{K}}^{{\ast}0}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(57) ${\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{+}K^{{\ast}0})={\sqrt{2}}G_{F}f_{K^{{\ast}0}}F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{+}}m_{K^{{\ast}0}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(58) $\displaystyle{\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\pi}^{0})=G_{F}f_{\pi}A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}}m_{B_{u}^{{\ast}}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)\Big{\\{}-V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(59)
$\displaystyle+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}a_{4}+a_{10}-\frac{3}{2}\big{(}a_{7}-a_{9}\big{)}+Q_{c3}\big{(}a_{6}+a_{8}\big{)}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
where $Q_{c3}\ =\
\displaystyle\frac{-2m_{{\pi}^{0}}^{2}}{(m_{d}+m_{u})(m_{c}+m_{u})}$
${\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\overline{K}}^{0})={\sqrt{2}}G_{F}f_{K}A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}}m_{B_{u}^{{\ast}+}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)V_{ud}V_{cs}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(60) ${\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}K^{0})={\sqrt{2}}G_{F}f_{K}A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}}m_{B_{u}^{{\ast}+}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)V_{us}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(61) $\displaystyle{\cal
A}(B_{c}^{+}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{{\eta}^{(\prime)}})={\sqrt{2}}G_{F}f_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}^{u}A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{{\ast}+}}m_{B_{u}^{{\ast}+}}\left({\varepsilon}{\cdot}p_{{}_{B_{c}}}\right)\Big{\\{}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}a_{2}$
(62)
$\displaystyle+\frac{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}a_{2}+\Big{(}V_{ud}V_{cd}^{\ast}+V_{us}V_{cs}^{\ast}\Big{)}\Big{[}\frac{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}\big{\\{}a_{3}-a_{5}+\frac{1}{2}\Big{(}a_{7}-a_{9}\Big{)}\big{\\}}$
$\displaystyle+2\Big{(}a_{3}-a_{5}\Big{)}+a_{4}+a_{10}-\frac{1}{2}\Big{(}a_{7}-a_{9}\Big{)}+\left(1-\frac{f^{u}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}{f^{s}_{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}\right)Q_{c4}^{({\prime})}\Big{(}a_{6}+a_{8}\Big{)}\Big{]}\Big{\\}}$
where $Q_{c4}^{({\prime})}\ =\
\displaystyle\frac{-2m_{{{\eta}^{(\prime)}}}^{2}}{(m_{s}+m_{s})(m_{c}+m_{u})}$
## Acknowledgments
This work is supported in part both by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (under Grant No. 10647119, 10710146) and by Natural Science Foundation
of Henan Province, China. We would like to thank Prof. Dongsheng Du, Dr.
Deshan Yang, Prof. Caidian Lü and Prof. Zhizhong Xing for valuable
discussions.
## References
* (1) F. Abe, et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D58, 112004, (1998); Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2432, (1998).
* (2) T. Aaltonen et al. (CDF Collaboration), arXiv:0712.1506 [hep-ex]; A. Abulencia et al. (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 012002 (2006); Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 082002 (2006).
* (3) V. M. Abazov et al. (D0 Collaboration), arXiv:0802.4258 [hep-ex].
* (4) N. Brambilla, et al. (Quarkonium Working Group), CERN-2005-005, hep-ph/0412158; M. P. Altarelli, F. Teubert, arXiv:0802.1901 [hep-ph].
* (5) I. P. Gouz, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, V. I. Romanovsky, O. P. Yushchenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67, 1559 (2004).
* (6) C. H. Chang, C. F. Qiao, J. X. Wang, X. G. Wu, Phys. Rev. D71, 074012 (2005); Phys. Rev. D72, 114009 (2005); C. H. chang, J. X. Wang, X. G. Wu, Phys. Rev. D77, 014022 (2008); V. A. Saleev, D. V. Vasin, Phys. Lett. B605 311, (2005); A. K. Likhoded, V. A. Saleev, D. V. Vasin, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 69 94, (2006).
* (7) http://ab-div.web.cern.ch/ab-div/Publications/LHC-DesignReport.html
* (8) W. N. Yao et al., J. Phys. G33, 1 (2006).
* (9) N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 531, (1963); M. Kobayashi, and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. 49, 652, (1973).
* (10) C. H. Chang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A21, 777 (2006).
* (11) X. Liu, X. Q. Li, Phys. Rev. D77, 096010 (2008).
* (12) A. K. Giri, B. Mawlong, R. Mohanta, Phys. Rev. D75, 097304 (2007); Erratum ibid. D76, 099902 (2007); A. K. Giri, R. Mohanta, M. P. Khanna, Phys. Rev. D65, 034016 (2002); V. V. Kiselev, J. Phys. G30, 1445 (2004).
* (13) M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Korner, P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. D73, 054024 (2006).
* (14) J. F. Cheng, D. S. Du, C. D. Lü, Eur. Phys. J. C45, 711 (2006).
* (15) S. Fajfer, J. F. Kamenik, P. Singer, Phys. Rev. D70, 074022 (2004).
* (16) E. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, Phys. Rev. D68, 094020 (2003).
* (17) E. Ebert, R. N. Faustov, V. O. Galkin, Eur. Phys. J. C32, 29 (2003).
* (18) V. V. Kiselev, O. N. Pakhomova, V. A. Saleev, J. Phys. G28,595 (2002).
* (19) G. L. Castro, H. B. Mayorga, J. H. Munoz, J. Phys. G28, 2241 (2002)
* (20) R. C. Verma, A. Sharma, Phys. Rev. D65, 114007 (2002); Phys. Rev. D64, 114018 (2001).
* (21) V. V. Kiselev, hep-ph/0211021; V. V. Kiselev, A. E. Kovalsky, A. K. Likhoded, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 64, 1860 (2001); Nucl. Phys. B585, 353 (2000).
* (22) V. A. Saleev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 64, 2027 (2001); O. N. Pakhomova, V. A. Saleev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 63, 1999 (2000).
* (23) P. Colangelo, F. D. Fazio, Phys. Rev. D61, 034012 (2000).
* (24) R. Fleischer, D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D62, 057503 (2000).
* (25) A. A. El-Hady, J. H. Munoz, J. P. Vary, Phys. Rev. D62, 014019 (2000).
* (26) L. B. Guo, D. S. Du, Chin. Phys. Lett. 18, 498 (2001).
* (27) Y. S. Dai, D. S. Du, Eur. Phys. J. C9, 557 (1999).
* (28) D. S. Du, Z. T. Wei, Eur. Phys. J. C5, 705 (1998).
* (29) J. F. Liu, K. T. Chao, Phys. Rev. D56, 4133 (1997).
* (30) D. S. Du, G. R. Lu, Y. D. Yang, Phys. Lett. B387, 187 (1996).
* (31) A. V. Berezhnoi, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, A. I. Onishchenko, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 60, 1729 (1997); S. S. Gershtein, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, A. V. Tkabladze, A. V. Berezhnoi, A. I. Onishchenko, hep-ph/9803433.
* (32) V. V. Kiselev, hep-ph/9605451.
* (33) S. S. Gershtein, V. V. Kiselev, A. K. Likhoded, A. V. Tkabladze, Phys. Usp. 38, 1 (1995). [hep-ph/9504319]
* (34) C. H. Chang, Y. Q. Chen, Phys. Rev. D49, 3399 (1994).
* (35) Q. P. Xu, A. N. Kamal, Phys. Rev. D46, 3836 (1992).
* (36) M. Masetti, Phys. Lett. B286, 160 (1992).
* (37) D. S. Du, Z. Wang, Phys. Rev. D39, 1342, (1989).
* (38) For a review, see G. Buchalla, A. J. Buras, M. E. Lautenbacher, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 1125, (1996); or A. J. Buras, hep-ph/9806471.
* (39) M. Wirbel, B. Stech, and M. Bauer, Z. Phys. C29, 637, (1985); M. Bauer, B. Stech, and M. Wirbel, Z. Phys. C34, 103, (1987).
* (40) M. Beneke, G. Buchalla, M. Neubert and C. T. Sachrajda, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1914, (1999); Nucl. Phys. B591, 313, (2000).
* (41) D. S. Du, H. J. Gong, J. F. Sun, D. S. Yang, and G. H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D65, 074001, (2002); Phys. Rev. D65, 094025, (2002); and Erratum, ibid. D66, 079904, (2002);
* (42) J. F. Sun, G. H. Zhu, D. S. Du, Phys. Rev. D68, 054003, (2003).
* (43) M. Beneke, M. Neubert, Nucl. Phys. B675, 333, (2003).
* (44) Th. Feldmann, P. Kroll, B. Stech, Phys. Rev. D58, 114006, (1998);
* (45) A. Ali, G. Kramer, and C. D. Lü, Phys. Rev. D58, 094009, (1998).
* (46) P. Colangelo, G. Nardulli, N. Paver, Z. Phys. C57, 43, (1993).
* (47) D. Choudhury, A. Kundu, B. Mukhhopadhyaya, hep-ph/9810339.
* (48) M. A Nobes, R M Woloshyn, J. Phys. G26, 1079 (2000).
* (49) M. A. Ivanov, J. G. Kömer, P. Santorelli, Phys. Rev. D63, 074010, (2001).
* (50) D. Choudhury, A. Kundu, B. Mukhhopadhyaya, Mod. Phys. Lett. A16, 1439 (2001).
* (51) T. M. Aliev, M. Savci, Eur. Phys. J. C47, 413 (2006).
* (52) T. Huang, F. Zuo, Eur. Phys. J. C51, 833 (2007).
* (53) P. Ball, R. Zwicky, Phys. Rev. D71, 014029 (2005).
Table 1: The NLO Wilson coefficients $C_{i}(\mu)$ in the NDR scheme. The input parameters are pdg2006 : ${\alpha}_{s}(m_{Z})$ $=$ $0.1176$, ${\alpha}_{em}(m_{W})$ $=$ $1/128$, $m_{W}$ $=$ $80.403$ GeV, ${\Lambda}_{\rm QCD}^{(f=5)}$ $=$ $220.9$ MeV, ${\Lambda}_{\rm QCD}^{(f=4)}$ $=$ $317.2$ MeV. | ${\mu}=m_{b}$ | ${\mu}=2.0$ GeV | ${\mu}=1.5$ GeV | ${\mu}=m_{c}$
---|---|---|---|---
$C_{1}$ | $1.0849$ | $1.1497$ | $1.1883$ | $1.2215$
$C_{2}$ | $-0.1902$ | $-0.3077$ | $-0.3717$ | $-0.4241$
$C_{3}$ | $0.0148$ | $0.0238$ | $0.0296$ | $0.0349$
$C_{4}$ | $-0.0362$ | $-0.0542$ | $-0.0652$ | $-0.0747$
$C_{5}$ | $0.0088$ | $0.0105$ | $0.0107$ | $0.0102$
$C_{6}$ | $-0.0422$ | $-0.0703$ | $-0.0896$ | $-0.1078$
$C_{7}/{\alpha}_{em}$ | $-0.0007$ | $-0.0164$ | $-0.0186$ | $-0.0181$
$C_{8}/{\alpha}_{em}$ | $0.0565$ | $0.0964$ | $0.1235$ | $0.1493$
$C_{9}/{\alpha}_{em}$ | $-1.3039$ | $-1.3966$ | $-1.4473$ | $-1.4901$
$C_{10}/{\alpha}_{em}$ | $0.2700$ | $0.4144$ | $0.4964$ | $0.5656$
Table 2: values of the decay constant (in the unit of MeV) $f_{\pi}$ | $f_{K}$ | $f_{q}$ | $f_{s}$ | $f_{\rho}$ | $f_{\omega}$ | $f_{K^{\ast}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
$131$ pdg2006 | $160$ pdg2006 | $(1.07{\pm}0.02)f_{\pi}$ prd58p114006 | $(1.34{\pm}0.06)f_{\pi}$ prd58p114006 | $205{\pm}9$ prd71p014029 | $195{\pm}3$ prd71p014029 | $217{\pm}5$ prd71p014029
Table 3: Values of transition form factors Ref. | $F^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u,d}}_{0}(0)$ | $F^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}_{0}(0)$ | $A^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u,d}^{\ast}}_{0}(0)$ | $A^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{\ast}}_{0}(0)$
---|---|---|---|---
prd39p1342 111The form factors increase with the increasing parameter ${\omega}$ $=$ $0.4$ ${\sim}$ $1.0$ GeV that determines the average transverse quark momentum. The authors of prd39p1342 prefer $F^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}}_{0}(0)$ $=$ $0.831$, $F^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}}_{0}(0)$ $=$ $0.859$, $A^{B_{c}{\to}B_{u}^{\ast}}_{0}(0)$ $=$ $0.869$ and $A^{B_{c}{\to}B_{s}^{\ast}}_{0}(0)$ $=$ $0.842$ with the corresponding parameter ${\omega}$ $=$ $0.8$ GeV. | $0.320{\sim}0.910$ | $0.340{\sim}0.925$ | $0.349{\sim}0.916$ | $0.432{\sim}0.931$
zpc57p43 222The definitions of the transition form factors in zpc57p43 are different from ours in Eq.(24) and Eq.(25). The relationship is $F_{1}^{B_{c}{\to}P}=F_{+},\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ A_{0}^{B_{c}{\to}V}=\frac{F_{0}^{A}}{2m_{V}}+\frac{m_{{}_{B_{c}}}^{2}-m_{V}^{2}}{2m_{V}}F_{+}^{A}.$ (39) with the values of $F_{+}$ $=$ $0.3{\pm}0.1$ ($0.30{\pm}0.05$), $F_{0}^{A}$ $=$ $4.0{\pm}1.0$ ($4.5{\pm}0.5$) ${\rm GeV}^{-1}$and $F_{+}^{A}$ $=$ $-0.02{\pm}0.01$ ($-0.03{\pm}0.02$) ${\rm GeV}^{-1}$ for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u,d}^{({\ast})}$ ($B_{s}^{({\ast})}$) transition zpc57p43 . | $0.3{\pm}0.1$ | $0.30{\pm}0.05$ | $0.35{\pm}0.09$ | $0.39{\pm}0.05$
9504319 333Using the relationship of Eq.(29) and Eq.(30) with the input $A_{1}$ $=$ $0.52$, $A_{2}$ $=$ $-2.79$ 9504319 . | — | $0.61$ | — | $0.79$
9810339 444For parameter ${\omega}$ $=$ $0.4$, $0.5$ GeV. | — | $0.403{\sim}0.617$ | — | $0.433{\sim}0.641$
jpg26p1079 555Using the relationship of Eq.(39) with the input $F_{+}$ $=$ $0.4504$ ($0.5917$), $F_{0}^{A}$ $=$ $3.383$ ($5.506$) ${\rm GeV}^{-1}$ and $F_{+}^{A}$ $=$ $-0.0463$ ($-0.0673$) ${\rm GeV}^{-1}$ for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u,d}^{({\ast})}$ ($B_{s}^{({\ast})}$) transition jpg26p1079 . | $0.4504$ | $0.5917$ | $0.2691$ | $0.4451$
prd63p074010 666Using the relationship of Eq.(29) and Eq.(30) with the input $A_{1}$ $=$ $0.27$ ($0.33$) and $A_{2}$ $=$ $-0.60$ ($-0.40$) for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u,d}^{({\ast})}$ ($B_{s}^{({\ast})}$) transition prd63p074010 . | $-0.58$ | $-0.61$ | $0.35$ | $0.39$
mpla16p1439 777Using the relationship of Eq.(29) and Eq.(30) with the input $A_{1}$ $=$ $0.28$ and $A_{2}$ $=$ $0.49$ mpla16p1439 . | — | $0.297$ | — | $0.263$
pan64p1860 888Using the relationship of Eq.(39) with the input $F_{+}$ $=$ $1.27$ ($1.3$), $F_{0}^{A}$ $=$ $9.8$ ($8.1$) ${\rm GeV}^{-1}$ and $F_{+}^{A}$ $=$ $0.35$ ($0.2$) ${\rm GeV}^{-1}$ for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u,d}^{({\ast})}$ ($B_{s}^{({\ast})}$) transition in the framework of QCD sum rules pan64p1860 . | $1.27$ | $1.3$ | $1.29$ | $0.94$
pan64p1860 999Using the relationship of Eq.(39) with the input $F_{+}$ $=$ $1.38$ ($1.1$), $F_{0}^{A}$ $=$ $9.4$ ($8.2$) ${\rm GeV}^{-1}$ and $F_{+}^{A}$ $=$ $0.36$ ($0.3$) ${\rm GeV}^{-1}$ for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u,d}^{({\ast})}$ ($B_{s}^{({\ast})}$) transition in the framework of potential model pan64p1860 . | $1.38$ | $1.1$ | $1.26$ | $1.04$
epjc32p29 | $0.39$ | $0.50$ | $0.20$ | $0.35$
epjc47p413 | — | — | $0.23{\pm}0.03$ | —
epjc51p833 101010Using the relationship of Eq.(29) and Eq.(30) with the input $A_{1}$ $=$ $0.90$ ($1.01$) and $A_{2}$ $=$ $7.9$ ($9.04$) for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u,d}^{({\ast})}$ ($B_{s}^{({\ast})}$) transition epjc51p833 . | $0.90$ | $1.02$ | $0.27$ | $0.36$
Table 4: The branching ratios for $B_{c}$ ${\to}$ $B_{q}^{({\ast})}P$, $B_{q}V$. ${\cal B}r^{T}$ corresponds to the contributions of the operators $Q_{1}$ and $Q_{2}$. ${\cal B}r^{T+P_{s}}$ corresponds to the contributions of operators $Q_{1}$ ${\sim}$ $Q_{6}$. ${\cal B}r^{T+P_{s}+P_{\rm e}}$ corresponds to the contributions of $Q_{1}$ ${\sim}$ $Q_{10}$. modes | case | ${\cal B}r^{T}$ | ${\cal B}r^{T+P_{s}}$ | ${\cal B}r^{T+P_{s}+P_{\rm e}}$ | $\frac{{\cal B}r^{T+P_{\rm s}}-{\cal B}r^{T}}{{\cal B}r^{T}}$ | $\frac{{\cal B}r^{T+P_{\rm s}+P_{\rm e}}-{\cal B}r^{T}}{{\cal B}r^{T}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{0}{\pi}^{+}$ | case 1a | $5.3089{\times}10^{-2}$ | — | — | — | —
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{0}{\rho}^{+}$ | case 1a | $6.2652{\times}10^{-2}$ | — | — | — | —
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{{\ast}0}{\pi}^{+}$ | case 1a | $4.5916{\times}10^{-2}$ | — | — | — | —
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{0}{K}^{+}$ | case 1b | $3.6746{\times}10^{-3}$ | $3.6759{\times}10^{-3}$ | $3.6759{\times}10^{-3}$ | $3.4{\times}10^{-4}$ | $3.4{\times}10^{-4}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{0}{K}^{{\ast}+}$ | case 1b | $1.6450{\times}10^{-3}$ | $1.6451{\times}10^{-3}$ | $1.6451{\times}10^{-3}$ | $5.0{\times}10^{-5}$ | $5.0{\times}10^{-5}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{s}^{{\ast}0}{K}^{+}$ | case 1b | $2.9772{\times}10^{-3}$ | $2.9766{\times}10^{-3}$ | $2.9766{\times}10^{-3}$ | $-1.9{\times}10^{-4}$ | $-1.9{\times}10^{-4}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{0}{\pi}^{+}$ | case 1b | $3.7283{\times}10^{-3}$ | $3.7272{\times}10^{-3}$ | $3.7272{\times}10^{-3}$ | $-3.0{\times}10^{-4}$ | $-3.0{\times}10^{-4}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{0}{\rho}^{+}$ | case 1b | $5.2745{\times}10^{-3}$ | $5.2742{\times}10^{-3}$ | $5.2742{\times}10^{-3}$ | $-5.0{\times}10^{-5}$ | $-5.0{\times}10^{-5}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{{\ast}0}{\pi}^{+}$ | case 1b | $3.2682{\times}10^{-3}$ | $3.2688{\times}10^{-3}$ | $3.2688{\times}10^{-3}$ | $1.9{\times}10^{-4}$ | $1.9{\times}10^{-4}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{0}{K}^{+}$ | case 1c | $2.6616{\times}10^{-4}$ | — | — | — | —
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{0}{K}^{{\ast}+}$ | case 1c | $2.2583{\times}10^{-4}$ | — | — | — | —
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{d}^{{\ast}0}{K}^{+}$ | case 1c | $2.2075{\times}10^{-4}$ | — | — | — | —
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\overline{K}}^{0}$ | case 2a | $2.2067{\times}10^{-5}$ | — | — | — | —
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\overline{K}}^{{\ast}0}$ | case 2a | $1.8434{\times}10^{-5}$ | — | — | — | —
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\overline{K}}^{0}$ | case 2a | $1.8261{\times}10^{-5}$ | — | — | — | —
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\eta}$ | case 2b | $1.5991{\times}10^{-6}$ | $1.6122{\times}10^{-6}$ | $1.6125{\times}10^{-6}$ | $8.2{\times}10^{-3}$ | $8.4{\times}10^{-3}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\eta}$ | case 2b | $1.3042{\times}10^{-6}$ | $1.2960{\times}10^{-6}$ | $1.2964{\times}10^{-6}$ | $-6.3{\times}10^{-3}$ | $-6.0{\times}10^{-3}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\pi}^{0}$ | case 2b | $4.5968{\times}10^{-7}$ | $4.5161{\times}10^{-7}$ | $4.5134{\times}10^{-7}$ | $-1.8{\times}10^{-2}$ | $-1.8{\times}10^{-2}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\rho}^{0}$ | case 2b | $6.5030{\times}10^{-7}$ | $6.4823{\times}10^{-7}$ | $6.4776{\times}10^{-7}$ | $-3.2{\times}10^{-3}$ | $-3.9{\times}10^{-3}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\omega}$ | case 2b | $5.7921{\times}10^{-7}$ | $5.8199{\times}10^{-7}$ | $5.8212{\times}10^{-7}$ | $4.8{\times}10^{-3}$ | $5.0{\times}10^{-3}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\pi}^{0}$ | case 2b | $4.0262{\times}10^{-7}$ | $4.0722{\times}10^{-7}$ | $4.0685{\times}10^{-7}$ | $1.1{\times}10^{-2}$ | $1.0{\times}10^{-2}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{\eta}^{\prime}$ | case 2d | $8.8676{\times}10^{-8}$ | $8.7700{\times}10^{-8}$ | $8.7738{\times}10^{-8}$ | $-1.1{\times}10^{-2}$ | $-1.1{\times}10^{-2}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{\eta}^{\prime}$ | case 2d | $1.7401{\times}10^{-8}$ | $1.7728{\times}10^{-8}$ | $1.7731{\times}10^{-8}$ | $1.9{\times}10^{-2}$ | $1.9{\times}10^{-2}$
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{K}^{0}$ | case 2c | $6.5428{\times}10^{-8}$ | — | — | — | —
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{+}{K}^{{\ast}0}$ | case 2c | $5.4658{\times}10^{-8}$ | — | — | — | —
$B_{c}^{+}$ ${\to}$ $B_{u}^{{\ast}+}{K}^{0}$ | case 2c | $5.4143{\times}10^{-8}$ | — | — | — | —
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-07T01:42:46 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.138556 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Junfeng Sun, Yueling Yang, Wenjie Du, Huilan Ma",
"submitter": "Jun-Feng Sun",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1254"
} |
0806.1282 | # Chemical and magnetic impurity effects on electronic properties of
semiconductor quantum wires
Alireza Saffarzadeh E-mail: a-saffar@tehran.pnu.ac.ir 1Department of
Physics, Payame Noor University, Nejatollahi St., 159995-7613 Tehran, Iran
2Computational Physical Sciences Laboratory, Department of Nano-Science,
Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), P.O. Box 19395-5531,
Tehran, Iran
###### Abstract
We present a theoretical study of electronic states in magnetic and
nonmagnetic semiconductor quantum wires. The effects of chemical and magnetic
disorder at paramagnetic temperatures are investigated in single-site coherent
potential approximation. It is shown that the nonmagnetic impurity shifts the
band of carriers and suppresses the van Hove singularities of the local
density of states (LDOS) depending on the value of impurity concentration. The
magnetic impurity, however, broadens the band which depends on the strength of
exchange coupling, and in the high impurity concentration, the van Hove
singularities in the LDOS can completely disappear and the curves become
smooth.
## I Introduction
The nature of the dimensionality and of the confinement associated with a
particular nanostructure such as a quantum well, quantum wire, or quantum dot
have a pronounced effect on its physical properties. Quantum wires and quantum
dots are under active experimental investigation because devices based on them
offer important opportunities as the building blocks for the next generation
of electronic and opto-electronic devices ranging from ultrafast optical
switching to ultradense memories Uskov . Quantum wire structures have density
of states features which are very useful for laser applications with
possibility of smaller current threshold density than in lasers produced from
higher dimensional structures. However, it is clear that disorder affects
these attractive features of quantum wires Taylor ; Nik0 ; Harris . Over the
past decade, using the coherent potential approximation (CPA), the effects of
boundary roughness and the presence of islands on the electronic properties of
nonmagnetic semiconductor (NMS) quantum wires have been studied Nik1 ; Nik2 ;
Hong . Furthermore, it has been demonstrated by Ohno YOhno that it is indeed
possible to inject spin from a diluted magnetic semiconductor (DMS) to a NMS,
which is necessary in order to carry out qubit (quantum bit) operations
required for quantum computing DiVince .
DMS’s Chapman are semiconductors of the general type
$\mathrm{A}_{1-x}\mathrm{M}_{x}\mathrm{B}$, where AB is either a II-VI or a
III-V semiconductor and M a magnetic element, most commonly Mn . Substitution
of a small fraction $x$ of the element A by Mn impurities (and in the case of
II-VI semiconductors an additional charge dopant, such as P on the B site)
leads to the appearance of a semiconductor with ferromagnetic properties
Furdyna ; Ohno . The magnetic state in these materials has been attributed to
the exchange interaction of the localized Mn moments with the spin of the
charge carriers introduced by the Mn dopants, or in the case of II-VI
semiconductors, by the additional dopant.
In recent years, considerable works have been devoted to the understanding of
physical properties of DMS quantum wires, both theoretically Kim ; Kyry ;
Chang ; Xu ; Moradian and experimentally Chen1 ; Chen2 ; Jeon . One of the
most important physical quantities in these quantum structures, is the density
of states of charge carriers which depends on the dimensionality of the
structure. The behavior of this quantity is very important in determining the
electrical, thermal, and other properties of the system. Furthermore, DMS’s
belong to the class of disordered systems, hence, any first principle
consideration should take into account the randomness of impurities. Among
different kinds of randomness, two kinds of them can strongly affect the
transport properties of charge carriers in DMS quantum wires, i.e., the random
substitution of the magnetic atoms and the random direction of the impurity
spins.
The aim of this work is to investigate the effects of chemical (spin-
independent) potential and magnetic disorder on the electronic properties of
semiconductor quantum wires. Based on the single-site CPA for the magnetic and
nonmagnetic impurities at paramagnetic temperatures Taka99 , we study the
local density of states (LDOS) for charge carriers, in terms of the impurity
concentrations and spin scattering strengths.
The paper is organized as follows. The model, Hamiltonian and formalism are
given in section II. In section III, we present the results of the numerical
calculations for the NMS and DMS quantum wires. A brief conclusion is given in
section IV.
## II Model and method
We consider a semiconductor quantum wire described by the tight-binding model
on a square lattice in which one of the dimensions (the $x$ direction) is much
larger than the other (the $y$ direction), i.e., a long-strip lattice in two
dimension. The sites of the lattice are denoted by ($m$,$n$) where $m$ is an
integer number and $N_{y}$ is number of atoms in the $y$ direction, hence
$1\leq n\leq N_{y}$. In fact, we have divided the wire into $N_{y}$ atomic
lines along the $y$ axis and each line lies along the $x$ axis. We set the
site energies to be infinite along the lines $n=0$ and $n=N_{y}+1$; thus, the
carriers are confined along the $y$ direction. The one-electron Hamiltonian
for this system is given by
$H=\sum_{i}u_{i}(\mathrm{M,A})+\sum_{i,j,\sigma}t_{ij}\mid
i,\sigma\rangle\langle j,\sigma\mid\ ,$ (1)
where $u_{i}$ depends on whether $i\equiv(m,n)$ is a magnetic (M) or
nonmagnetic (A) site. For the A-site
$u_{i}^{\mathrm{A}}=\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}\sum_{\sigma}\mid
i,\sigma\rangle\langle i,\sigma\mid\ ,$ (2)
and for the M-site
$u_{i}^{\mathrm{M}}=\sum_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}\mid
i,\sigma\rangle[\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}\delta_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}-I{\bf
S}_{i}{\bf\cdot\tau}_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}]\langle i,\sigma^{\prime}\mid\ ,$
(3)
In the above equations, $\mid i,\sigma\rangle$ is an atomic orbital with spin
$\sigma$ (=$\uparrow$ or $\downarrow$) at site ($m$,$n$),
$\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}$ and $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}$ are the on-site
energies for A- and M-sites, and the hopping energy $t_{ij}=t$ if $i$ and $j$
are nearest neighbors and zero otherwise. The second term on the right hand
side of Eq. 3 is the $\mathbf{k}$-independent exchange interaction in which
${\bf S}_{i}$ is the local spin operator of the $\mathrm{M}$-atom and
${\bf\tau}$ is the usual Pauli matrix for carrier’s spin. We regard the spin
of magnetic ion as a classical spin, while the value of exchange interaction
strength $IS$ (=$I\times S$) is finite.
The single-electron Hamiltonian can be written as
$H=\mathcal{H}_{eff}+V\ ,$ (4)
where the effective Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_{eff}$, which describes the
effective medium, is expressed as
$\mathcal{H}_{eff}=\sum_{i,j,\sigma}[t_{ij}+\delta_{i,j}\Sigma_{i}(\omega)]\mid
i,\sigma\rangle\langle j,\sigma\mid\ .$ (5)
Here, $\Sigma_{i}(\omega)$ is the site-dependent self-energy, and the
perturbation term is given as
$\displaystyle V$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle H-\mathcal{H}_{eff}$ (6)
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\sum_{i}v_{i}\ ,$
where $v_{i}=v_{i}^{\mathrm{A}}$ for the A-site and $v_{i}=v_{i}^{\mathrm{M}}$
for the M-site are given by
$v_{i}^{\mathrm{A}}=\sum_{\sigma}\mid
i,\sigma\rangle[\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}-\Sigma_{i}]\langle i,\sigma\mid\ ,$
(7) $v_{i}^{\mathrm{M}}=\sum_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}\mid
i,\sigma\rangle[(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}-\Sigma_{i})\delta_{\sigma,\sigma^{\prime}}-I{\bf
S}_{i}{\bf\cdot\tau}_{\sigma\sigma^{\prime}}]\langle i,\sigma^{\prime}\mid\ ,$
(8)
It should be emphasized that, we have assumed a spin-independent effective
medium, since the system is at the paramagnetic temperatures ($T\gg T_{c}$).
Thus, $\Sigma_{i}$ does not depend on the spin of carriers and hence, the
electronic states will be independent of the temperature within the
paramagnetic regime. Here, $T_{c}$ is defined as the ferromagnetic critical
temperature where the spontaneous magnetization of magnetic impurities
vanishes, and in $\mathrm{Ga}_{1-x}\mathrm{Mn}_{x}\mathrm{As}$ quantum wires,
for example, $T_{c}$ as high as 350 K has been reported Jeon .
The matrix elements of effective Green’s function, $\bar{G}$, can be
determined from the Dyson equation:
$\bar{G}_{i,i^{\prime}}(\omega)=G^{0}_{i,i^{\prime}}(\omega)+\sum_{j}G^{0}_{i,j}(\omega)\Sigma_{j}(\omega)\bar{G}_{j,i^{\prime}}(\omega)\
,$ (9)
where ${G}^{0}_{i,j}$ is the clean system Green’s function matrix element and
is given by
$\displaystyle G^{0}_{i,i^{\prime}}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\langle
m,n|G^{0}(\omega)|m^{\prime},n^{\prime}\rangle$ (10) $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{N_{x}}\sum_{k_{x}}\sum_{l=1}^{N_{y}}\frac{f_{n,n^{\prime}}(l)}{\omega+i\eta-\epsilon_{l,k_{x}}}e^{ik_{x}(m-m^{\prime})a}\
,$
where
$f_{n,n^{\prime}}(l)=\frac{2}{N_{y}+1}\sin(\frac{l\pi}{N_{y}+1}n)\sin(\frac{l\pi}{N_{y}+1}n^{\prime})\
,$ (11)
and
$\epsilon_{l,k_{x}}=2t\cos(\frac{l\pi}{N_{y}+1})+2t\cos(k_{x}a)\ ,$ (12)
is the clean system band structure.
Here, $N_{x}$ and $k_{x}$ are the number of lattice sites and the wave vector
in the $x$ direction, $a$ is the lattice constant, $l$ is the mode of the
subband, and $\eta$ is a positive infinitesimal. Since the translational
symmetry is absent in the $y$ direction, the self-energy depends on the atomic
line number ($n$), however, it is independent of the number ($m$) of the
atomic site on each line, i.e. $\Sigma_{i}(\omega)\equiv\Sigma_{n}(\omega)$.
In this case, the Dyson equation (9) can be rewritten as
$\displaystyle\bar{G}_{n_{1},n_{2}}(m_{1},m_{2};\omega)=G^{0}_{n_{1},n_{2}}(m_{1},m_{2};\omega)~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}$
$\displaystyle+\sum_{n=1}^{N_{y}}\sum_{m}G^{0}_{n_{1},n}(m_{1},m;\omega)\Sigma_{n}(\omega)\bar{G}_{n,n_{2}}(m,m_{2};\omega)\
.$ (13)
The CPA replaces the real system with an effective periodic medium Soven ;
Gonis . For this purpose, the potential of all sites is replaced by an energy-
dependent coherent potential, except one site which is denoted by _impurity_.
The effective medium is determined self-consistently in such a way that the
Green’s function of the effective medium is equal to the configurationally
averaged Green’s function of the real medium. Therefore, the effective
scattering of a carrier at the impurity site is zero, on average.
In order to derive the CPA equation for the coherent potential, we write the
Green’s function of the real system, $G\equiv(\omega-H)^{-1}$, in terms of the
effective Green’s function, $\bar{G}$, and the total scattering matrix, $T$,
as
$G=\bar{G}+\bar{G}T\bar{G}\ ,$ (14)
where, $T=V(1-\bar{G}V)^{-1}$. Using the multiple scattering theory Gonis ,
one can express $T$ as the multiple scattering series
$T=\sum_{i}t_{i}+\sum_{i}\sum_{j\neq i}t_{i}\bar{G}t_{j}+\sum_{i}\sum_{j\neq
i}\sum_{k\neq j}t_{i}\bar{G}t_{j}\bar{G}t_{k}+\cdots\ .$ (15)
Here, $t_{i}(\equiv t_{m,n})$ is the single-site $t$ matrix which represents
the multiple scattering of carriers due to the isolated potential
$v_{i}(\equiv v_{m,n})$ in the effective medium, and is expressed as
$t_{i}=v_{i}(1-\bar{G}v_{i})^{-1}\ .$ (16)
The averaging of Eq.(14) and the use of single-site CPA condition $\langle
t_{i}\rangle_{\mathrm{av}}=0$ for any site $i$ in the wire, leads to $\langle
T\rangle_{\mathrm{av}}=0$ and thus, we obtain $\langle
G\rangle_{\mathrm{av}}=\bar{G}$, as mentioned above.
The present system includes both substitutional disorder and spin scattering.
Therefore, the CPA equation for the coherent potential is given by
$\langle t_{m,n}\rangle_{\mathrm{av}}=(1-x)t_{m,n}^{\mathrm{A}}+x\langle
t_{m,n}^{\mathrm{M}}\rangle_{\mathrm{spin}}=0\ ,$ (17)
where, $t^{\mathrm{A}}_{m,n}(t^{\mathrm{M}}_{m,n})$ represents the complete
scattering associated with the isolated potential
$v^{\mathrm{A}}_{m,n}(v^{\mathrm{M}}_{m,n})$ in the effective medium, and
$\langle\cdots\rangle_{\mathrm{spin}}$ denotes average over the spin
scattering at the M-site. In the classical spin treatment, the potential for
which a carrier is subjected at the M-site is regarded as
$\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}-IS$ or $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}+IS$, depending on
whether the localized spin on the M-site and the carrier spin are parallel or
antiparallel with each other. At the paramagnetic temperature at which the
orientation of localized spin is completely random, the probability of each
state is 1/2. Therefore, the associated $t$-matrices for an arbitrary site of
each atomic line, such as $(0,n)$, are given by
$t_{0,n}^{\mathrm{A}}=\frac{\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}-\Sigma_{n}}{1-(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}-\Sigma_{n})F_{n}}\
,$ (18)
and
$\displaystyle\langle t_{0,n}^{\mathrm{M}}\rangle_{\mathrm{spin}}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}-IS-\Sigma_{n}}{1-(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}-IS-\Sigma_{n})F_{n}}\right]$
(19) $\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}+IS-\Sigma_{n}}{1-(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}+IS-\Sigma_{n})F_{n}}\right]\
,$
where
$\displaystyle F_{n}(\omega)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\bar{G}_{n,n}(m,m;\omega)=\bar{G}_{n,n}(0,0;\omega)$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{a}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi/a}^{\pi/a}\bar{G}_{n,n}(k_{x};\omega)\,dk_{x}\mathrm{~{}~{}for~{}~{}}n=1,\cdots,N_{y}$
In Eq. (II), we should emphasize that the effective Green’s function,
$\bar{G}$, depends on the one-dimensional wave vector $k_{x}$ via $G^{0}$ (see
Eq.(10)). Hence, to obtain any specific matrix element
$\bar{G}_{n_{1},n_{2}}$, we must integrate over the first Brillouin zone of
the one-dimensional lattice Gonis .
Equation (17) leads to a cubic equation for the self-energy of $n$th atomic
line, $\Sigma_{n}(\omega)$, as
$\mathcal{A}\Sigma_{n}^{3}+\mathcal{B}\Sigma_{n}^{2}+\mathcal{C}\Sigma_{n}+\mathcal{D}=0\mathrm{~{}~{}for~{}~{}}n=1,\cdots,N_{y}\
,$ (21)
with
$\displaystyle\mathcal{A}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-F_{n}^{2}$ (22)
$\displaystyle\mathcal{B}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}+2\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}})F_{n}^{2}-2F_{n}$
(23) $\displaystyle\mathcal{C}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle[(IS)^{2}-2\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}-\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}^{2}]F_{n}^{2}$
(24)
$\displaystyle+[x(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}-\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}})+2(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}+\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}})]F_{n}-1$
$\displaystyle\mathcal{D}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle[\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}^{2}\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}-(IS)^{2}\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}]F_{n}^{2}$
(25)
$\displaystyle+[x(IS)^{2}+(x-2)\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}-x\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}^{2}]F_{n}$
$\displaystyle+x(\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}-\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}})+\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}\
.$
It should be noted that, Eq. (II) is a system of linear equations which should
be solved self-consistently, using Eqs. (II) and (21), to obtain the coherent
potentials $\Sigma_{n}(\omega)$. Then, the LDOS per site in the $n$th atomic
line of the quantum wire, $g_{n}(\omega)$, is calculated by
$g_{n}(\omega)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\,\mathrm{Im}\,F_{n}(\omega)\ .$ (26)
We should remind the reader that, the LDOS is a function of the energy and the
space coordinate, which illustrates the spatial distribution of the states at
the particular location (here, $n$), and it is well known that many important
physical properties and characteristics of a mesoscopic system are determined
by the LDOS, which is experimentally measurable.
When Eq. (21) is solved for a real energy $\omega$, we obtain three roots. We
only choose the correct root corresponding to $\omega+i\eta$, i.e., the
imaginary part of $F_{n}$ must be negative in order to give a positive LDOS.
The existence and uniqueness of such a solution depend on the initial guess
for the self-energies $\Sigma_{n}$. We believe that, the best guess for
$\Sigma_{n}$, is zero. One should note, however, that the real and imaginary
parts of the roots and the speed of convergence depend on the parameters of
the system. Except for a few values of the energy, we have rapid convergence
when the final value of $\Sigma_{n}$ for a given energy is taken as the
initial $\Sigma_{n}$ for the next energy. Furthermore, in the case of weak
exchange interaction, the convergence is faster than in the strong one.
It is important to note that, if we set $IS=0$, the present formalism will be
applicable for a NMS quantum wire of general type
$\mathrm{A}_{1-x}\mathrm{D}_{x}\mathrm{B}$ which has been doped with donor or
acceptor nonmagnetic impurities. Here, D indicates the nonmagnetic impurity
atom, and in the above equations, we should set
$\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}=\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}$. In next section we
present the numerical results of LDOS for both the NMS and DMS quantum wires.
## III Results and discussion
In our numerical calculations, we measure the energies in units of $t$ and we
set $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{A}}=0$, since we can shift the chemical potential
without loss of physics. We present the numerical results for both the NMS and
DMS quantum wires with $N_{y}=5$. In both cases, we have assumed the carrier
density is very low; hence, we have ignored the interaction between carriers.
In practice, we have done the numerical calculations for a case in which only
single carrier moves in the conduction (or valance) band of the quantum wire.
In quantum wires, quantum effects influence the electronic properties of the
system. Due to the confinement of free carriers in the transverse direction of
the wire, their transverse energy is quantized into a series of discrete
values. In practice, when the size or dimension of a material diminishes to
the nanoregion, the charge carriers begin to experience the effects of
confinement, meaning that their motion becomes limited by the physical size of
the region or domain in which they move.
Figure 1: The energy dispersion and the LDOS curves of a clean semiconductor
quantum wire. (a) The dispersion curve as a function of normalized wave
vector, and (b)-(d) the LDOS as a function of energy, for the atomic lines
$n=1,5$, $n=2,4$ and $n=3$ respectively. Energy is measured in units of $t$.
In Fig. 1, the energy dispersion and the LDOS curves of a clean quantum wire
are shown for comparison. In such system, there are states with zero group
velocity which are responsible for the singularities of spectral density.
Therefore, the van Hove singularities appear as sharp features in the LDOS and
due to the presence of five atomic lines, five subbands are observed Hugle .
Due to the symmetry of the system, the LDOS for $n=1$ is the same as for $n=5$
(which are at the edges of wire), and $n=2$ with $n=4$. Also, the number of
sharp peaks depends on the atomic line number.
Figure 2: The LDOS of a NMS quantum wire with $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}=-0.75$
as functions of energy and impurity concentration, for the atomic lines (a)
$n=1,5$, (b) $n=2,4$ and (c) $n=3$ respectively. Energy is measured in units
of $t$.
To illustrate the impurity effects in NMS quantum wires, the LDOS as a
function of energy is plotted in Fig. 2 for $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}=-0.75$
and in Fig. 3 for $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}=+0.75$. An impurity with negative
(positive) site energy is analogous to an acceptor (a donor) center at the
host crystal. At zero concentration of impurity ($x=0$), the band for all
atomic lines, is equivalent to the one in the clean system (see Fig.
1(b)-1(d)). For the case of $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}<0$
($\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}>0$), with increasing $x$ the band shifts towards
lower (higher) energies. Also, with increasing $x$, the relative sharpness of
peaks reduces and at $x=0.5$ which represents the state of maximum
substitutional disorder, the LDOS is completely symmetric with respect to the
center of band and the sharpness disappears. With further increasing $x$, the
peaks again become sharp, and for $x=1$, the LDOS with a shift equal to
$\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}$, is completely equivalent to the band of clean
system. The reason of such behavior is that, for $x>0.5$ the majority of atoms
have $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}\neq 0$ ($\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}=-0.75$ or
$\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}=+0.75$ depending on the type of impurity). Thus, one
can imagine the situation in which the atoms with $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}=0$
act as impurity atoms in a host crystal with $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}\neq 0$.
These features can be seen in all atomic lines. Therefore, the nonmagnetic
impurity can change the behavior of LDOS and there is not band broadening in
the NMS quantum wires.
Figure 3: The same as Fig. 2 but for $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{D}}=+0.75$.
We now investigate the influence of magnetic impurities on the electronic
properties of semiconductor quantum wires. Doping of magnetic atoms such as Mn
into GaAs or InAs quantum wires, introduces not only magnetic moments but also
free carriers. Therefore, in such quantum wires, we should consider both the
effects of chemical potential and magnetic disorder on the LDOS at the
paramagnetic temperatures. Figures 4 and 5 show how the carrier band changes
with $x$ in the case of weak and strong exchange interaction, respectively. We
have shown the results for $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}=-0.75$, $IS=-0.4$ (weak
exchange interaction) and $IS=-1.2$ (strong exchange interaction) as sampling
cases of III-V-based DMS’s. For this kind of impurity, with increasing $x$ the
sharpness of peaks decreases continuously and at the concentration $x=1.0$ at
which the LDOS is completely symmetric with respect to the center of band, the
van Hove singularities completely disappear (particularly for $IS=-1.2$), and
the curves of all atomic lines become smooth. Such features have not been
observed in the bulk case Taka99 . It should be noted that the results are
same for different signs of $IS$, because the system is in paramagnetic phase
and the spin of magnetic atoms is treated classically.
Figure 4: The LDOS of a DMS quantum wire with $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}=-0.75$
and $IS=-0.4$ as functions of energy and impurity concentration, for the
atomic lines (a) $n=1,5$, (b) $n=2,4$ and (c) $n=3$ respectively. Energy is
measured in units of $t$.
On the other hand, the results show that, the LDOS of atomic lines is
different with each other. This feature indicates that the electronic
transport depends on the atomic line number. The difference in the density of
states of the atomic lines predicts a nonuniform charge distribution in such
quantum wires. Therefore the atomic lines will have different contributions in
carrier transport and cause the quantum interferences, which can be important
in the process of charge transport through nano-scale devices. Similar feature
in the coherent electron conductance of a quantum point contact in the
presence of a scanning probe microscope tip, has been reported both
experimentally Topinka and theoretically He .
Figure 5: The same as Fig. 4 but for $IS=-1.2$.
Now, we discuss the band-edge energy shift and the band broadening due to the
random distribution of $\mathrm{M}$ ions and the fluctuation of localized
spins. The energy shift and the broadening of the band can be calculated using
the band-edge energies, $\omega_{b}$, at which the density of states goes to
zero and the imaginary part of the self-energy vanishes. The approximate
solution for the lower (upper) band edge is given by Taka99
$\omega_{b}=\Sigma_{n}^{l(u)}(\omega_{b})\mp W_{0}\ ,$ (27)
where $\Sigma_{n}^{l(u)}(\omega_{b})\equiv\Sigma_{b}^{l(u)}$ is the energy
shift of the lower (upper) band edge, and $W_{0}\simeq 3.74\,t$ is the half-
bandwidth of the clean system. Using Eqs. (II) and (27), we numerically obtain
$F_{n}(\omega_{b})t\simeq\mp 0.81$. Substituting these values into Eq. (21),
we obtain real $\Sigma_{b}^{l(u)}$ or the energy shifts of the band edges for
the system. In Fig. 6, the band-edge energy shift and the band broadening are
depicted as a function of the impurity concentration for various values of
$IS$, with $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}=0$ for simplicity. In such a case, the
LDOS is symmetric around $\omega=0$, hence the magnitudes of the band-edge
energy shifts are equal and the band broadening is given by
$2|\Sigma_{b}^{l}|$ or $2|\Sigma_{b}^{u}|$. The results clearly show that, in
the presence of magnetic impurities, the bands are broadened with the increase
of $x$ due to the impurity spin fluctuation. This band broadening depends on
the strength of magnetic disorder and is much larger when the interaction is
stronger (compare Fig. 4 and 5).
Figure 6: The energy shift of the lowest band edge and the band broadening for
various values of $IS$, with $\varepsilon_{\mathrm{M}}=0$ as a function of
impurity concentration. Energy is measured in units of $t$.
We applied our theory for both the NMS and DMS quantum wires, by employing
parameters for simulating the semiconducting alloys. The parameters of the
tight-binding model used in this work can be chosen from realistic orbitals of
atomic species which are suitable for an experimental realization of the
modeled quantum wires. Such parameters have been used to study bulk DMS’s
Taka99 ; Taka02 . However, we should note here that, our investigation is
based on a single-band model and a single-site approximation, neglecting many
features such as multiband effects, off-diagonal disorder, Coulomb
interactions between free carriers, and correlated defects. If such features
affect the physical properties of a real system, the above mentioned model
should be improved. Otherwise, one cannot expect to obtain accurate results
for that system, using the experimental parameters.
One could consider the present system as an infinite stack of atomic slices
along the $x$ direction. This means that we consider the disorder in the $y$
direction. Thus, in such a case, we should define a position-dependent self-
energy for each slice. In other words, the self-energy, in the cross section
of the wire, is different from one site to the other; however, the slices have
equal self-energy values. The single-site CPA condition should be used for
each slice to obtain the self-energies, and, in order to derive the Green’s
function of such a system, one can use a method similar to that for semi-
infinite leads Nik1 ; Nik2 ; MacK .
The calculations presented here can be extended for more than one atomic strip
and study the transport of free carriers parallel to the strips (layers). In
such a case, the transport properties of the system depend on the strip
number, which can be attractive for planar devices with submicron dimensions.
## IV Conclusions
We have studied the effects of magnetic and nonmagnetic impurities on the
electronic states of semiconductor quantum wires. Using the CPA for random
distribution of impurity atoms, we investigated the influence of impurity
concentration and the strength of exchange interaction on the LDOS. In NMS
quantum wires, the acceptor (donor) impurities only shift the bands towards
lower (higher) energies, and the van Hove singularities in the LDOS depend on
the value of impurity concentration. For DMS quantum wires, the magnetic
impurities broaden the bands and reduce continuously the peaks sharpness, even
in the case of weak exchange coupling. The results presented here predict that
the DMS quantum wires can be used in laser operation and the physics of
spintronic nanodevices.
## Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Professor R. Moradian for helpful discussions.
This work was supported by the Payame Noor University.
## References
* (1) A.V. Uskov, E.P. O’Reilly, R.J. Manning, R.P. Webb, D. Cotter, M. Laemmlin, N.N. Ledentsov, and D. Bimberg, IEEE Photonics Techn. Lett. 16, 1265 (2004); C. Li, W. Fan, B. Lei, D. Zhang, S. Han, T. Tang, X. Liu, Z. Liu, S. Asano, M. Meyyappan, J. Han, and C. Zhou, Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 1949 (2004).
* (2) J.P.G. Taylor, K.J. Hugill, D.D. Vvedensky, and A. MacKinnon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2359 (1992).
* (3) K. Nikolić and A. MacKinnon, Phys. Rev. B 50, 11008 (1994).
* (4) R. Harris and H. Guo, Phys. Rev. B 51, 5491 (1995).
* (5) K. Nikolić and A. MacKinnon, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 4, 2565 (1992).
* (6) K. Nikolić and A. MacKinnon, Phys. Rev. B 47, 6555 (1993).
* (7) K.M. Hong, K.W. Tse and P.Y. Foo, Solid State Commun. 105, 363 (1998).
* (8) Y. Ohno, D. K. Young, B. Beschoten, F. Matsukura, H. Ohno, and D.D. Awschalom, Nature 402, 790 (1999).
* (9) D.P. DiVincenzo, J. Appl. Phys. 85, 4785 (1999).
* (10) R.A. Chapman and W.G. Hutchinson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 443 (1967).
* (11) J.K. Furdyna, J. Appl. Phys. 64, R29 (1988).
* (12) H. Ohno, J. Magn. Magn. Mat. 200, 110 (1999); Science 281, 951 (1998).
* (13) N. Kim, S.J. Lee, and T.W. Kang, Phys. Lett. A 302, 341 (2002).
* (14) F.V. Kyrychenko and J. Kossut, Phys. Rev. B 61, 4449 (2000).
* (15) K. Chang and F.M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B 68, 205320 (2003).
* (16) W. Xu and Y. Guo, J. Appl. Phys. 100, 033901 (2006).
* (17) R. Moradian and A. Fathalian, Nanotechnology 17, 1835 (2006).
* (18) L. Chen, P.J. Klar, W. Heimbrodt, F. Brieler, and M. Fröba, Appl. Phys. Lett. 76, 3531 (2000).
* (19) L. Chen, P. J. Klar, W. Heimbrodt, F. J. Brieler, M. Fröba, H.-A. Krug von Nidda, T. Kurz, and A. Loidl, J. Appl. Phys. 93, 1326 (2003).
* (20) H.C. Jeon, T.W. Kang, T.W. Kim, Y.J. Yu, W. Jhe and S.A. Song, J. Appl. Phys. 101, 023508 (2007).
* (21) M. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. B 60, 15858 (1999).
* (22) P. Soven, Phys. Rev. 156, 809 (1966).
* (23) A. Gonis, _Green Functions for Ordered and Disorderd Systems_ (North-Holland, Amsterdam) Studies in Mathematical Physics, Vol. 4, (1992).
* (24) S. Hügle and R. Egger, Phys. Rev. B 66, 193311 (2002).
* (25) M. Takahashi and K. Kubo, Phys. Rev. B 66, 153202 (2002).
* (26) A. MacKinnon, Z. Phys. B 59, 385 (1985).
* (27) M.A. Topinka, B.J. LeRoy, S.E.J. Shaw, E.J. Heller, R.M. Westervelt, K.D. Maranowski, and A.C.Gossard, Science 289, 2323 (2000).
* (28) Guang-Ping He, Shi-Liang Zhu, and Z.D. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 65, 205321 (2002).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-07T14:57:17 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.144470 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Alireza Saffarzadeh",
"submitter": "Alireza Saffarzadeh",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1282"
} |
0806.1328 | ††thanks: Dedicated to Professor T. Dereli on the occasion of his 60th
birthday
# First-order symmetries of Dirac equation in curved background: a unified
dynamical symmetry condition
Ö. Açık 1 ozacik@science.ankara.edu.tr Ü. Ertem 1 uertem@science.ankara.edu.tr
M. Önder 2 onder@hacettepe.edu.tr A. Verçin 1 vercin@science.ankara.edu.tr 1
Department of Physics, Ankara University, Faculty of Sciences, 06100,
Tandoğan-Ankara, Turkey
2 Department of Physics Engineering, Hacettepe University, 06800, Beytepe-
Ankara, Turkey.
###### Abstract
It has been shown that, for all dimensions and signatures, the most general
first-order linear symmetry operators for the Dirac equation including
interaction with Maxwell field in curved background are given in terms of
Killing-Yano (KY) forms. As a general gauge invariant condition it is found
that among all KY-forms of the underlying (pseudo) Riemannian manifold, only
those which Clifford commute with the Maxwell field take part in the symmetry
operator. It is also proved that associated with each KY-form taking part in
the symmetry operator, one can define a quadratic function of velocities which
is a geodesic invariant as well as a constant of motion for the classical
trajectory. Some geometrical and physical implications of the existence of KY-
forms are also elucidated.
###### pacs:
04.20.-q, 02.40.-k
## I INTRODUCTION
In many evolutions taking place in a flat or curved background, isometries of
the underlying space-time metric lead to conservation laws that also have
clear geometrical meanings expressed by means of their local generators,
Killing vector fields. As space-time transformations, flows of these fields
specify the conserved quantities as their flow invariants. However, since the
beginning of the 1970s, it has been recognized that many interesting
properties of a given space-time are intimately related to hidden symmetries
of its metric, which make themselves manifest in higher rank tensorial objects
that also provide additional conservation laws Penrose ; Walker ; Hughston .
The building blocks of the mathematical structure behind these hidden
symmetries and associated conserved quantities are the symmetric Killing
tensors, KY-forms, conformal Killing tensors and conformal KY (CKY)-forms.
Their defining relations are natural generalizations of those of Killing
vector fields and of conformal Killing vector fields. Although these higher
rank objects can be completely determined by the metric itself (see for
instance ozumav ; ozumav1 ), they are not directly related to isometries or
conformal transformations. But they comprise, by definition, their generators
in the rank one sector of their hierarchy. In most of the cases these
additional conserved quantities lead to complete integrability of the
considered problem. This important step was initiated with the works of
Penrose and his collaborators Penrose ; Walker . They have shown that it is
the existence of a second-rank symmetric Killing tensor which can be written
as the “square” of a KY 2-form that leads to Carter’s fourth constant of
motion, which is responsible for the complete integrability of the geodesic
problem in the Kerr geometry Carter . For other research fields utilizing KY
and CKY-forms and for earlier references for these forms we shall refer to
Benn-Kress ; Collinson ; Frulov1 ; Frulov2 and the references therein.
An important place where some or all of these tensorial objects enter the
analysis is the study of symmetry operators for the Dirac-type equations
describing the motion in curved background with or without additional
interactions. By now it has become a well-established fact that while CKY-
forms take part in symmetry operators, via the $R$-commuting argument for the
massless Dirac equation, KY-forms are indispensable in constructing first
order symmetries of the massless as well as massive Dirac equation in a curved
space-time. It is a four-dimensional Lorentzian space-time where most of
applications have taken place. The first seminal studies in this context were
carried out by Carter, McLenaghan and Kamran Carter1 ; Carter2 ; Kamran . The
results of these earlier studies, obtained in four dimensions for the massive
or massless Dirac equation in the absence of electromagnetic interactions,
were recently extended by Benn and his collaborators, to an arbitrary
dimension and signature Benn-Charlton ; Benn-Kress1 ; Benn-Kress2 .
In the absence of additional interactions, all KY or CKY-forms of the space-
time take part in the symmetry operator without any extra restriction.
However, when interactions are included, some additional conditions arise
which restrict the possible forms that can enter into the symmetry operator.
To the best of our knowledge, these restrictions for a four dimensional curved
background were found for the first time by McLenaghan and Spindel McLenaghan
. In searching for the most general symmetry operator commuting with the Dirac
equation in the presence of an electromagnetic field, they found that the
symmetry operator can be constructed from KY-forms of the underlying
background, provided that they separately fulfill some conditions involving
the field itself. These included some conditions found before by Carter and
McLenaghan Carter2 . Some of these conditions were also obtained before by
Hughston et al in a slightly different context: in searching quadratic first
integrals for the charged particle orbits in the charged Kerr background
Hughston .
In this study we first show that the main results of McLenaghan and Spindel,
that is the construction of the symmetry operators out of KY-forms, can be
extended to an arbitrary dimension and signature. We then obtain a unified
condition which allows one to specify which KY-forms can take part in the
symmetry operator, and hence define hidden dynamical symmetry of the problem.
This is an algebraic condition and can be stated as follows; a KY-form of the
curved background enter the symmetry operator if and only if it Clifford
commutes with the force (Maxwell) field. In particular, we solve all the
consistency conditions and find a concise way to choose the gauge in order to
make 0-form component of the symmetry operator constant. Owing to a non-
integrated consistency condition, this point has remained ambiguous in the
literature.
Our results include the results of Benn and his collaborators when the
electromagnetic field is turned off. Finally, we prove that the quadratic
functions of velocities defined in terms of each KY $p$-form entering the
symmetry operator is not only a geodesic invariant but also, for an arbitrary
number of dimension and signature, a constant of motion for the classical
trajectory.
We shall mainly use the notation of Benn-Tucker and adopt the following
conventions and terminology. The underlying base manifold is supposed to be an
$n-$dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifold with arbitrary signature. Covariant
derivative of spinors, that is of sections of a bundle carrying an irreducible
representation of the (real or complexified) Clifford algebra, with respect to
the vector field $X$ is denoted by $S_{X}$. Then the Dirac operator on spinors
is $\displaystyle{\not}S=e^{a}S_{X_{a}}$, where the local co-frame
$\\{e^{a}\\}$ is the dual to the tangent frame $\\{X_{a}\\}$. Summation
convention over repeated indices will be used throughout the paper.
Juxtaposing $e^{a}$ and $S_{X_{a}}$, or any other operator, or form will
denote the Clifford multiplication. When acting on forms $S_{X}$ and
$\displaystyle{\not}S$ will be denoted, in terms of the pseudo-Riemannian
connection $\nabla$, as $\nabla_{X}$ and
$\displaystyle\displaystyle{\not}d=e^{a}\nabla_{X_{a}}=d-\delta\;.$
Here $d=e^{a}\wedge\nabla_{X_{a}}$ and $\delta=-i_{X_{a}}\nabla_{X^{a}}$
denote the exterior derivative and the co-derivative written in terms of
covariant derivative operator $\nabla_{X}$. $\wedge$ is the exterior product
and $i_{X}$ will represent the interior derivative with respect to $X$ whose
action on an arbitrary $p$-form $\alpha$ is defined, for all vector fields
$Y_{j}$, by
$\displaystyle(i_{X}\alpha)(Y_{1},\dots,Y_{p-1})=p\alpha(X,Y_{1},\dots,Y_{p-1})\;.$
For dual basis elements we have $i_{X_{b}}e^{a}=e^{a}(X_{b})=\delta^{a}_{b}$.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section II, the general form
of the first order symmetry operator of the Dirac equation with a potential
term is specified. This is achieved by constructing and then by solving all
consistency equations except the equation for the $0$-form component of the
non-derivative term of the symmetry operator. The unified dynamical symmetry
condition announced in the title is established in section III by analyzing
higher degree components of the consistency equations. Special cases of this
condition and the integration of the remaining $0$-form component are also
presented there. In section IV, the correspondence between KY and closed CKY-
forms are studied and Yano vectors are introduced. Implications of the
existence of Yano vectors related to symmetry analysis and to the global
structure of the underlying space-time are given in the same section. In
section V, the first integrals of geodesic equations, constants of motion of
classical trajectories and their connection with the KY-forms and the
mentioned dynamical symmetry condition are considered. Derivation of
consistency equations and the contraction of curvature $2$-forms with a Yano
vector are given in two appendixes. In the Appendix B determination of upper
bounds for the numbers of linearly independent KY-forms is also provided.
Section VI concludes the paper.
## II FIRST ORDER SYMMETRY OPERATORS OF THE DIRAC EQUATION
We set out to our analysis by considering the Dirac equation
$\displaystyle(\displaystyle{\not}S+{\rm{i}}A)\psi=m\psi$ (1)
for a complex spinor field $\psi$ and propose the following first order linear
symmetry operator
$\displaystyle L=2\omega^{a}S_{X_{a}}+\Omega\;,$ (2)
such that $L$ Clifford commutes with $\displaystyle{\not}S+{\rm{i}}A$.
Equation (1) describes the motion of a massive, charged and spin $1/2$
particle, with unit charge and mass $m$, interacting with the curved
background encoded in the Dirac operator $\displaystyle{\not}S$ and force
field represented by the potential form $A$. By fixing the charge from the
outset, we assume the effective coupling to the spinor field. In the beginning
$A$ is allowed to be an arbitrary inhomogeneous form, and the consistency
conditions are derived in this general context. Later on, $A$ will be taken to
be a 1-form. In that case, the term involving $A$ in equation (1) describes
coupling to the Maxwell field $F=dA$. $A$ may also involve potential terms of
non-electromagnetic origin such as those of conservative forces. In the latter
case, $F$ will be referred to as a force field. In equation (2) $\omega^{a}$
and $\Omega$ are $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$-homogeneous, both even or both odd forms
which act, like $A$, on spinor fields by the Clifford multiplication.
In recent studies Benn-Charlton ; Benn-Kress1 ; Benn-Kress2 it has been
proved that use of the graded Clifford commutator $[,]$ considerably eases the
calculations in analyzing the symmetries of the Dirac-type operators. For a
$p$-form $\alpha$ and an inhomogeneous Clifford form
$\beta=\sum_{q}\beta_{(q)}$, this commutator is defined as
$\displaystyle[\alpha,\beta]=\alpha\beta-\sum_{q}(-1)^{pq}\beta_{(q)}\alpha\;.$
If $\alpha$ is a one-form this transforms, in terms of the main involution
$\eta$ (which leaves the even forms invariant and changes the sign of the odd
forms) of the Clifford algebra, to
$[\alpha,\beta]=\alpha\beta-\beta^{\eta}\alpha$. Let us suppose that
$\displaystyle[\displaystyle{\not}S,L]+{\rm{i}}[A,L]=0\;,$ (3)
is satisfied and let us call $L$ even (odd) when $\omega^{a}$ and $\Omega$ are
both even (both odd). When $L$ is even its graded commutator with the Dirac
equation becomes the usual Clifford commutator $[,]_{-}$ and irrespective of
$n,\;L$ is a symmetry operator. That is, it Clifford commutes with the Dirac
equation and maps a solution to another. When $L$ is odd it anti-commutes with
Dirac equation and fails to be a symmetry operator. However, in such a case if
$n$ is even $Lz$ is a symmetry operator since the volume form $z$ anti-
commutes with odd forms. (In such a case $A$ must be an odd form.)
### II.1 The Main Consistency Equations
To determine $\omega^{a}$’s and $\Omega$ in equation (2), we equate the
symmetrized coefficients of the covariant derivatives of each order to zero in
equation (3). The second order derivatives come only from the first bracket of
(3) such that
$\displaystyle[\displaystyle{\not}S,L]=2i_{X_{b}}\omega^{a}[S^{2}(X_{a},X^{b})+S^{2}(X^{b},X_{a})]+\cdots\;,$
(4)
where $i_{X}$ is the interior derivative,
$\displaystyle S^{2}(X,Y)=S_{X}S_{Y}-S_{\nabla_{X}Y}\;,$
denotes the second covariant derivative and the ellipsis stands for lower
order terms. Equating the coefficients of the second order derivatives to zero
in equation (3) yields
$\displaystyle i_{X_{b}}\omega^{a}+i_{X^{a}}\omega_{b}=0\;,$ (5)
for all $a,b=1,2,\dots,n$. This is satisfied if and only if
$\omega^{a}=i_{X^{a}}\omega$ where $\omega$ is possibly a
$\mathbb{Z}$-inhomogeneous form. It has been shown in Appendix A that, in view
of (5), by equating the coefficients of equal power of derivatives in equation
(3) we obtain
$\displaystyle\nabla_{X^{a}}\omega$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
i_{X^{a}}\varphi-{\rm{i}}[A,i_{X^{a}}\omega]\;,$ (6)
$\displaystyle\nabla^{2}(X_{a},X^{a})\omega$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\displaystyle{\not}d\varphi+2{\rm{i}}(i_{X^{a}}\omega)^{\eta}\nabla_{X_{a}}A-{\rm{i}}[A,\Omega]\;,$
(7)
where $\varphi=\displaystyle{\not}d\omega-\Omega$. These constitute two main
sets of the consistency conditions that specify the form of possible symmetry
operators of the Dirac equation, for all dimensions and signatures, in which
$A$ is a general form. Henceforth, we take $A$ to be a 1-form and write, for
an arbitrary form $\alpha$
$\displaystyle[A,\alpha]=2i_{\tilde{A}}\alpha\;.$
Here $\tilde{A}$ is the metric dual of $A$, which in terms of the metric $g$
of the background is defined by $A(X)=g(\tilde{A},X)$ for all $X$.
### II.2 Solutions: Emergence of KY-Forms
Let us first concentrate on equation (6), which for 1-form $A$ can be
rewritten as
$\displaystyle\nabla_{X^{a}}\omega=i_{X^{a}}(\varphi+2{\rm{i}}i_{\tilde{A}}\omega)\;.$
(8)
Applying $i_{X_{a}}$ to both sides of this equation, we firstly see that
$\delta\omega=0$, that is, $\omega$ must be co-closed. On the other hand, by
applying $e_{a}\wedge$ we obtain
$\displaystyle d\omega=\pi(\varphi+2{\rm{i}}i_{\tilde{A}}\omega)\;,$ (9)
where the linear map $\pi$ scales each form component by its degree :
$\pi(\alpha)=e^{a}\wedge i_{X_{a}}\alpha$. The $(p+1)$-form component of
equation (9) reads, for $p=0,1,\dots,n-2$, as
$\displaystyle\varphi_{(p+1)}=\frac{1}{p+1}d\omega_{(p)}-2{\rm{i}}i_{\tilde{A}}\omega_{(p+2)}\;,$
(10)
and for $p=n-1$, as $\varphi_{(n)}=n^{-1}d\omega_{(n-1)}$. In view of the last
two equations, equation (8) implies that each $p$-form component of $\omega$
must obey
$\displaystyle\nabla_{X_{a}}\omega_{(p)}=\frac{1}{p+1}i_{X_{a}}d\omega_{(p)}\;,$
(11)
which is the well-known KY-equation.
From equation (10) and by the fact that $\omega$ is co-closed we also obtain
$\displaystyle\Omega_{(p+1)}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{p}{p+1}d\omega_{(p)}+2{\rm{i}}i_{\tilde{A}}\omega_{(p+2)}\;,$
(12) $\displaystyle\Omega_{(n)}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(1-\frac{1}{n})d\omega_{(n-1)}\;,$ (13)
for $p=0,1,\dots,n-2$. Note that for $p=0,1,\dots,n-1$ we have
$\displaystyle i_{\tilde{A}}\Omega_{(p+1)}=p\nabla_{\tilde{A}}\omega_{(p)}\;.$
(14)
These provide the non-derivative term, except for its 0-form component, of the
symmetry operator in terms of KY-forms and the potential.
We now turn to the implications of equation (7). Differentiating equation (8)
once more, we obtain
$\displaystyle\nabla^{2}(X_{a},X^{a})\omega=-\delta(\varphi+2{\rm{i}}i_{\tilde{A}}\omega)\;,$
(15)
and by combining this with equation (7), we arrive at
$\displaystyle
i_{\tilde{A}}\Omega-\frac{{\rm{i}}}{2}d\Omega=\delta(i_{\tilde{A}}\omega)+(i_{X^{a}}\omega)^{\eta}\nabla_{X_{a}}A\;.$
(16)
This can be used to obtain the 0-form component of $\Omega$ and possible
relations among its higher degree components. For this purpose we apply the
general relation
$\displaystyle[\delta,i_{X}]_{+}=-i_{X^{a}}i_{\nabla_{X_{a}}X}\;,$
to KY-forms and obtain
$\displaystyle\delta(i_{\tilde{A}}\omega)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-
i_{X^{a}}i_{\nabla_{X_{a}}\tilde{A}}\omega\;.$ (17)
We now make use of
$\displaystyle(i_{X^{a}}\omega)^{\eta}\kappa_{a}=\kappa_{a}\wedge
i_{X^{a}}\omega-i_{\tilde{\kappa}_{a}}i_{X^{a}}\omega,$ (18)
where $\kappa_{a}$’s are 1-forms. This relation is a direct result of the
standard Clifford multiplication rule for a right multiplication of an
arbitrary form by a 1-form. Using (18), by taking
$\kappa_{a}=\nabla_{X_{a}}A$, and (17) in (16) we get
$\displaystyle
i_{\tilde{A}}\Omega-\frac{{\rm{i}}}{2}d\Omega=(\nabla_{X_{a}}A)\wedge
i_{X^{a}}\omega\;.$ (19)
The $1$-form component of this relation reads as
$\displaystyle d\Omega_{(0)}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-2{\rm{i}}(i_{\tilde{A}}\Omega_{(2)}-i_{X^{a}}\omega_{(1)}\nabla_{X_{a}}A)\;,$
(20) $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-2{\rm{i}}(\nabla_{\tilde{A}}\omega_{(1)}-\nabla_{\tilde{\omega}_{(1)}}A)\;.$
In obtaining the second equality we made use of (14). The equation (20) will
be integrated in the next section after the higher degree components of
equation (19) are further analyzed to uncover the symmetry condition stated in
the title.
## III A Unified Dynamical Symmetry Condition
In this section we first show that equation (16) contains an important
algebraic condition which plays a prominent role in deciding which KY-forms
can take part in the symmetry operator. To see this, we first recall that
$\Omega=d\omega-\varphi$ which implies
$\displaystyle d\Omega$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-d\varphi=2{\rm{i}}di_{\tilde{A}}\omega\;,$ $\displaystyle
i_{\tilde{A}}\Omega$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle i_{\tilde{A}}d\omega-
i_{\tilde{A}}\varphi=\pi i_{\tilde{A}}\varphi\;.$
In the last equality we made use of (9). On substituting these relations into
(16), we get
$\displaystyle\pi(i_{\tilde{A}}\varphi)=-\displaystyle{\not}di_{\tilde{A}}\omega+(i_{X^{a}}\omega)^{\eta}\nabla_{X_{a}}A\;.$
(21)
We now make use of
$\displaystyle[\displaystyle{\not}d,i_{X}]_{+}=\nabla_{X}+e^{a}i_{\nabla_{X_{a}}X}\;,$
(22)
where $[,]_{+}$ denotes the Clifford anti-commutator. Using (18), once again
by taking $\kappa_{a}=\nabla_{X_{a}}A$, and (22) in the equation (21) we
arrive at
$\displaystyle\pi(i_{\tilde{A}}\varphi)-i_{\tilde{A}}\displaystyle{\not}d\omega+\nabla_{\tilde{A}}\omega=-\frac{1}{2}[dA,\omega]_{-}\;,$
(23)
where we have also used the following relation:
$\displaystyle(\kappa_{a}\wedge i_{X^{a}}-e^{a}\wedge
i_{\tilde{\kappa}_{a}})\omega=-\frac{1}{2}[dA,\omega]_{-}\;.$ (24)
It is now easy to verify that, by the KY-equation (11) and by the equation
(10), the left hand side of (23) vanishes and we obtain an important condition
$[dA,\omega]_{-}=0$. On the other hand, as is apparent in equation (24), since
the Clifford commutator of an arbitrary form by a 2-form does not change the
degrees of its components, each p-form component of $\omega$ must Clifford
commute with the force field $F=dA$:
$\displaystyle[F,\omega_{(p)}]_{-}=0\;.$ (25)
This gauge invariant condition means that among the KY-forms admitted by the
underlying space-time, only those which satisfy the above condition take part
in the symmetry operators. Moreover, it must be emphasized that it is the
force-field, not the potential form itself, that plays a selective role in
this regard.
At this point we should note that, in view of equations (10), (14) and
equation (21) derived above, the higher degree components of equation (19)
lead us again to condition (25) and yield nothing new.
In order to integrate equation (20) as well as to obtain more practical
statements resulting from the equation (25), we rewrite it as
$\displaystyle i_{X^{a}}F\wedge i_{X_{a}}\omega_{(p)}=0\;.$ (26)
This is obviously satisfied for $p=0$ and also for $p=n$. Hence the extreme
cases $p=0,n$ do not impose any condition on $F$ and on possible KY-forms that
take part in the symmetry operator $L$. In general, a KY $p$-form
$\omega_{(p)}$ takes part in the symmetry operator if and only if $F$ is in
the kernel of the operator $i_{X_{a}}\omega_{(p)}\wedge i_{X^{a}}$. More
practical refinements of this condition are attained for intermediate values
of $p$. We first should note that the 0-form component $\omega_{(0)}$ of a KY-
form can be any function and $\omega_{(1)}$ is the dual of a Killing vector
field. Moreover, $\omega_{(n)}$ is a constant (parallel), that is, it is a
constant multiple of the volume form: $\omega_{(n)}=kz$. For $p=1$ we can
write $\omega_{(1)}=\tilde{K}$, where $K$ is a Killing vector field. In this
case, equation (26) reduces to
$\displaystyle i_{K}F=0\;,$ (27)
which implies that $F$ remains invariant under the flow generated by $K$. That
is, ${\cal L}_{K}F=0$, where ${\cal L}_{K}$ denotes the Lie derivative in the
direction of $K$. In other words, even the generator of the isometries will
take part in the symmetry operators if they fulfill condition (27).
In terms of the potential $1$-form $A$ the condition (27) reads as
$i_{K}(e^{a}\wedge\nabla_{X_{a}}A)=0$ which, in view of
$i_{\nabla_{X}K}A=i_{\tilde{A}}\nabla_{X}\omega_{(1)}$, can be evaluated to
obtain
$\displaystyle 0=\nabla_{K}A-di_{K}A-\nabla_{\tilde{A}}\omega_{(1)}.$
By comparing this relation with equation (20) and then by integrating we
obtain
$\displaystyle\Omega_{0}=2{\rm{i}}i_{K}A\;,$ (28)
up to a constant. This relation, which was not recognized in the literature
before, provides a concise way of choosing the gauge in order to make
$\Omega_{0}$ constant. In such a case, only duals of Killing vector fields
whose flows preserve the potential can appear in the symmetry operator. An
equivalent but more instructive way of deriving (28) goes as follows.
Recalling the fact that for a 1-form $\beta$ the metric dual of
$\nabla_{X}\beta$ is $\nabla_{X}\tilde{\beta}$, we can rewrite condition (20)
as
$\displaystyle\widetilde{d\Omega}_{(0)}=-2{\rm{i}}[\tilde{A},K]_{L}=2{\rm{i}}{\cal
L}_{K}\tilde{A}\;.$
Here $[,]_{L}$ denotes the usual Lie bracket of vector fields, and we have
also used the zero torsion condition. Since $K$ is a Killing field, the above
relation simply reads as $d\Omega_{(0)}=2{\rm{i}}{\cal L}_{K}A$ and then the
usual action of Lie derivative on differential forms produces the desired
relation in view of (27).
For a KY 2-form $\omega_{(2)}=2^{-1}\omega_{ab}e^{a}\wedge e^{b}$ the
condition (26) reads as $\omega_{a[b}F_{c]}^{\;a}=0$ for all values of $b$ and
$c$ where the square bracket stands for the anti-symmetrization of the
enclosed indices and $F_{cb}$ are the components of $F$ in the same
$\\{e^{a}\\}$ basis. This condition is the tensor-language version Carter2 of
the condition first obtained by Hughston et al Hughston . Our condition (25),
or equivalently (26), are natural generalizations of this and similar
conditions. This reflects the efficiency of the Clifford calculus in this
context.
To discuss condition (26) for higher forms it is convenient to rewrite it, in
terms of $(p+1)$-forms defined by
$\displaystyle\beta_{a}=F\wedge i_{X_{a}}\omega_{(p)}\;,$
as $i_{X^{a}}\beta_{a}=0$. This is also satisfied for $p=0,n$. In the latter
case $\beta_{a}=0$ are identically satisfied, since all $\beta_{a}$’s are
$(n+1)$-forms. For $p=n-1$ we have $\beta_{a}=f_{a}z$ for some set of
functions $f_{a}$ such that equation (26) amounts to $i_{V}z=0$ for
$V=f_{a}X^{a}$. As the map $\varphi_{z}$ defined by $\varphi_{z}(V)=i_{V}z$
between the vector fields and $(n-1)$-forms is an isomorphism, $i_{V}z$
vanishes if and only if $V=0$, that is if and only if all $f_{a}$ vanish. This
is equivalent to $F\wedge i_{X_{a}}\omega_{(n-1)}=0$ for all $X_{a}$, or to
$\displaystyle i_{X_{a}}F\wedge\omega_{(n-1)}=0\;.$ (29)
In the case of $p=n-2,\;\beta_{a}$’s are $(n-1)$-forms and each one can be
written, in terms of uniquely determined $1$-form
$\sigma_{a}=\sigma_{ab}e^{b}$, as $\beta_{a}=^{\ast}\sigma_{a}$. In such a
case equation (26) amounts to $\sigma_{a}\wedge\tilde{X}^{a}=0$, which implies
that $\sigma_{ab}=\sigma_{ba}$. This can succinctly be expressed as
$\displaystyle F\wedge(\tilde{X}_{a}\wedge i_{X_{b}}-\tilde{X}_{b}\wedge
i_{X_{a}})\omega_{(n-2)}=0\;,$
for $a,b=1,\dots,n$. Note that the considered cases $p=0,1,n-2,n-1,n$ exhaust
all possible forms of equation (25) in four dimensions. More appealing
versions of some of these conditions will appear in the next section (see
equation (34) and the remarks followed).
Finally in this section we should note that, when $A$ is zero we recover
exactly the results of Benn and Kress for all dimensions and signatures,
obtained in Benn-Charlton ; Benn-Kress1 ; Benn-Kress2 . In such a case, since
the condition (25) disappears, all KY-forms of the underlying space-time take
part in the symmetry operators and all of the non-derivative terms explicitly
given by equations (12) and (13), except $\Omega_{0}$ which is constant, are
exact.
## IV CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN KY-FORMS AND CLOSED CKY-FORMS
The appearance of higher rank KY-forms in the symmetry operator indicates the
presence of dynamical symmetries which are not isometries. We shall now
establish a general one-to-one correspondence between the KY-forms and closed
CKY-forms and, as a particular case, we shall show that for each KY
$(n-1)$-form there exists a uniquely determined conformal transformation. This
transformation is generated by a locally gradient field whose integral curves
are pre-geodesics. In this way we shall see that the higher KY-forms are
related to special CKY-forms and, in the case of $(n-1)$-forms, to the special
conformal transformations rather than isometry transformations.
For the two points mentioned above, let us consider the CKY-equation
$\displaystyle\nabla_{X}\rho_{(p)}=\frac{1}{p+1}i_{X}d\rho_{(p)}-\frac{1}{n-p+1}\tilde{X}\wedge\delta\rho_{(p)}\;,$
(30)
which has the well-established Hodge duality invariance and conformal
covariance. A p-form $\rho_{(p)}$ is called CKY p-form if and only if it
satisfies equation (30) for all vector fields $X$. It is obvious that a
$p$-form is a KY $p$-form if and only if it is a co-closed CKY $p$-form. A
less obvious fact is that a $(n-p)$-form is a KY $(n-p)$-form if and only if
it is the Hodge dual of a closed CKY $p$-form. Indeed, the Hodge dual of (30)
for closed CKY forms yields
$\displaystyle\nabla_{X_{a}}\;^{\ast}\rho_{(p)}=\frac{1}{n-p+1}i_{{X}_{a}}d^{\ast}\rho_{(p)}\;,$
where we have made use of the relation
$i_{X}\;^{\star}\phi=^{\star}(\phi\wedge\tilde{X})$ which can be considered as
the definition of the Hodge map. Since $\rho_{(p)}$ is closed it is locally
exact such that $\rho_{(p)}=d\alpha$, where the $(p-1)$-form $\alpha$ may be
termed as the KY-potential for the KY $(n-p)$-form
$\omega_{(n-p)}=^{\ast}d\alpha$. Note that $0$-forms of KY and CKY coincide
and that any CKY $n$-form is of the form $\rho_{(n)}=fz$, where $f$ can be any
differentiable function. As a result, the Hodge map establishes a vector space
isomorphism between the vector space of all KY $p$-forms and that of all
closed CKY $(n-p)$-forms for all values of $p$.
### IV.1 KY $(n-1)$-forms and Yano Vectors
In the case of KY $(n-1)$-forms we can write
$\displaystyle\omega_{(n-1)}=i_{Y}z=^{\ast}\tilde{Y}\;,$ (31)
where the vector field $Y$ is the metric dual of the associated closed CKY
1-form $\tilde{Y}$. $Y$ will be referred to, following McLenaghan and Spindel,
as the Yano vector. In that case, connection with the conformal
transformations can be established in a more instructive manner. As the space
of $(n-1)$-forms and that of $1$-forms are isomorphic, exactly as in (31), any
form of the former type can be written as the Hodge dual of a uniquely
determined latter type. Recalling that the divergence of a vector field $U$
with respect to the volume form $z$ is defined by $L_{U}z=(div_{z}U)z$, we can
write
$\displaystyle\nabla_{X_{a}}\omega_{(n-1)}=\frac{1}{n}(div_{z}V)^{\ast}\tilde{X_{a}}$
for the KY $(n-1)$-form $\omega_{(n-1)}=^{\star}\tilde{V}$ (where $V$ need not
be a Yano vector). Equivalently, by the commutativity of the Hodge map and
covariant derivative, we have
$\displaystyle\nabla_{X_{a}}\tilde{V}=\frac{1}{n}(div_{z}V)\tilde{X_{a}}\;.$
(32)
On the other hand, for an arbitrary vector field $U$, $\nabla_{X}\tilde{U}$
can be decomposed as follows:
$\displaystyle\nabla_{X}\tilde{U}=\frac{1}{2}i_{X}d\tilde{U}-\frac{1}{n}\tilde{X}\delta\tilde{U}+\Gamma_{X}(U)\;,$
(33)
(see Benn-Tucker section 6.13 and Benn-Kress ) where the 1-form
$\Gamma_{X}(U)$ is defined by
$\displaystyle\Gamma_{X}(U)=\frac{1}{2}[(L_{U}g)-\frac{1}{n}tr(L_{U}g)g](X)\;.$
Thus, for each vector field $V$ corresponding to a KY $(n-1)$-form we have, in
view of (32), $i_{X}d\tilde{V}=-2\Gamma_{X}(V)$. That is, $V$ is conformal if
and only if $\tilde{V}$ is closed.
Let us return to equation (31): $\tilde{Y}$ is closed, obeys the relation
$\delta\tilde{Y}=-div_{z}Y$ and generates conformal transformations
$L_{Y}g=2\lambda g$ with the conformal weight
$\displaystyle\lambda=\frac{1}{2n}tr(L_{Y}g)=\frac{1}{2n}(L_{Y}g)(X^{a},X_{a})\;.$
$Y$ is locally a gradient field for $\tilde{Y}$ is closed. From (32), it also
follows that
$\displaystyle\nabla_{Y}Y=\frac{1}{n}(div_{z}Y)Y\;,$
that is, the integral curves of $Y$ are pre-geodesics and may be re-
parameterized to become geodesics. If $Y$ is divergence-free, then it is
covariantly constant. We should note that in some literature, a curve whose
velocity vector $\dot{\gamma}$ satisfies
$\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}}\dot{\gamma}=f\dot{\gamma}$, for some function $f$, is
termed geodesic, which we here call pre-geodesic by adhering to the
nomenclature of Benn-Tucker ; Benn-son . For the Yano vector we have
$f=div_{z}Y/n$.
Substitution of (31) into (29) yields $i_{X_{a}}F\wedge^{\ast}\tilde{Y}=0$,
which in terms of components can be rewritten as
$\displaystyle F_{ab}Y^{b}=0\;.$ (34)
Note that condition (27) can also be rewritten as $F_{ab}K^{b}=0$, where
$K^{b}$’s are the components of the Killing vector $K$. Thus, KY $(n-1)$-forms
and 1-forms take part in the symmetry operator if and only if the
corresponding Yano and Killing vectors are contained in the kernel of the
matrix $F_{ab}$. These imply that if $F_{ab}$ is non-singular, which can
happen only in even dimensions, no KY $(n-1)$-form and 1-form can take part in
the symmetry operator. Our condition for KY 2-forms can also be stated as: a
KY 2-form will take part in the symmetry operator if and only if the
corresponding anti-symmetric matrix ($\omega_{ab}$) commutes with $F_{ab}$.
### IV.2 Contractions with a Yano Vector
Contractions of curvature 2-forms $R_{ab}$, Ricci 1-forms $P_{a}$ and
conformal (Weyl) 2-forms $C_{ab}$, defined for $n>3$ by (below ${\cal R}$
denotes the scalar curvature)
$\displaystyle C_{ab}=R_{ab}-\frac{1}{n-2}(P_{a}\wedge e_{b}-P_{b}\wedge
e_{a}-\frac{\cal{R}}{n-1}e_{a}\wedge e_{b})\;,$
with a Yano vector enable one to reach decisive statements about the global
structures of the underlying space-times. The mentioned contractions are found
to be as follows:
$\displaystyle i_{Y}R_{ab}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{n-1}[(i_{Y}P_{a})e_{b}-(i_{Y}P_{b})e_{a}]$
$\displaystyle Y_{b}i_{Y}P_{a}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
Y_{a}i_{Y}P_{b}\;,$ (35) $\displaystyle i_{Y}C_{ab}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{(n-1)(n-2)}[({\cal R}g_{ac}-P_{ac})e_{b}$
$\displaystyle-({\cal
R}g_{bc}-P_{bc})e_{a}]Y^{c}+\frac{1}{n-2}(P_{a}Y_{b}-P_{b}Y_{a})\;,$
where $P_{ac}$ are the components of the Ricci tensor. The second relation
easily follows from a second application of $i_{Y}$ to the first relation and
the last one also follows from the definition of $C_{ab}$ and the first
relation of (35). A derivation of the first relation is given in Appendix B.
Equations (35) are generalizations in the language of differential forms to an
arbitrary number of dimensions and signature of the tensorial relations first
found by McLenaghan and Spindel in the case of four dimensional Lorentzian
space-times.
If $P_{ab}={\cal R}g_{ab}/n$ such that ${\cal R}$ is constant, that is in
Einstein spaces, we have $i_{Y}C_{ab}=0$. In four dimensions, the existence of
a Yano vector on an Einstein space implies that the space is conformally flat
or of Petrov type N. In higher dimensions, the equation $i_{Y}C_{ab}=0$ for
nonzero $C_{ab}$ is necessary but not sufficient condition for being Petrov
type $N$. In such a case the space-time can also be of Petrov type $II$ Coley
. When $Y$ is non-null we can write the second equation of (35) as
$i_{Y}P_{a}=\lambda Y_{a}$, where $\lambda=Y^{b}i_{Y}P_{b}/g(Y,Y)$. In such a
case the Yano vector is an eigenvector of $P_{ab}$ with eigenvalue
$\lambda={\cal R}/n$. When $Y$ is null, it is also null with respect to the
Ricci tensor, in the sense that $Y^{a}i_{Y}P_{a}=0$, in the directions of non-
zero components of the Yano vector. In other words, in such directions
contraction of Ricci forms with a null Yano vector projects it to an
orthogonal direction.
## V Quadratic Geodesic Invariants and Constants of Motion
The most important physical implication of the existence of KY-forms is the
fact that they provide first integrals of the geodesic equation and may lead
to quadratic functions of momenta that are invariant also for the classical
trajectories. As is shown in the subsection B below, the condition (26) plays
a crucial and unified role in establishment of the second point.
### V.1 First Integrals of Geodesic Equations
The easiest way to see the first point mentioned above is to consider the
relation $[\nabla_{X},i_{Y}]=i_{\nabla_{X}Y}$ which holds for two arbitrary
vector fields $X,Y$. When $X$ and $Y$ are equal to a velocity field
$\dot{\gamma}$ of a geodesic, that is $\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}}\dot{\gamma}=0$,
the covariant and interior derivatives commute and we obtain, in view of the
defining relation (11), $\nabla_{\dot{\gamma}}i_{\dot{\gamma}}\omega=0$ for
any KY $(p+1)$-form $\omega$. Therefore, the $p$-form
$\alpha=i_{\dot{\gamma}}\omega$ and hence its “length” $|\alpha|^{2}$ defined
by $|\alpha|^{2}=g_{p}(\alpha,\alpha)$ remain constant along the geodesic
$\gamma$. Here $g_{p}$ is the compatible metric induced by $g$ in the space of
$p$-forms and we assume $g_{0}$ to simply multiply the two $0$-forms (see
Benn-Tucker , Chapter 1).
The constancy of $|\alpha|^{2}$ can be considered as a special case of a more
general fact Semmelman1 . To see this, let us consider the symmetric bilinear
form
$\displaystyle
K^{(\beta)}(X,Y)=g_{p}(i_{X}\beta,i_{Y}\beta)=\epsilon^{\ast}(i_{X}\beta\wedge^{\ast}i_{Y}\beta)\;,$
(36)
defined, in terms of a $(p+1)$-form $\beta$ on the cartesian product of the
space of vector fields. Here $\epsilon$ denotes the sign of the determinant of
$g$. In the case of a KY $(p+1)$-form $\omega$, one can easily verify the
cyclic identity:
$\nabla_{X}K^{(\omega)}(Y,Z)+\nabla_{Y}K^{(\omega)}(Z,X)+\nabla_{Z}K^{(\omega)}(X,Y)=0\;.$
That is, the symmetrized covariant derivatives of $K^{(\omega)}$ vanish. This
shows that to any KY $(p+1)$-form $\omega$ is associated a symmetric bilinear
form $K^{(\omega)}$ which is the Killing tensor generalizing the so-called
Stackel-Killing tensor that corresponds to a KY 2-form, first recognized by
Penrose and Floyd (the second tensor of (38) below). Since
$\nabla_{X}[K^{(\omega)}(X,X)]=2K^{(\omega)}(\nabla_{X}X,X)\;,$ (37)
$K^{(\omega)}(\dot{\gamma},\dot{\gamma})$ is constant along the geodesic
$\gamma$.
For KY $1$-form $\omega_{(1)}=K_{a}e^{a}$, $2$-form
$\omega_{(2)}=2^{-1}\omega_{ab}e^{ab}$ and $n$-form $\omega_{(n)}=kz$, where
$k$ is a constant, the components of the corresponding Killing tensor are
found, respectively, to be
$\displaystyle K_{a}K_{b}\;,\;\;-\omega_{ac}\omega_{\;b}^{c}\;,\;\;\epsilon
k^{2}g_{ab}\;$ (38)
In the case of KY $(n-1)$-form ${}^{\ast}\tilde{Y}$, the components of
$K^{(^{\ast}\tilde{Y})}$ can be written in terms of the Yano vector $Y$ as
$\displaystyle K^{(^{\ast}\tilde{Y})}_{ab}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
g_{n-2}(i_{X_{a}}{}^{\ast}\tilde{Y},i_{X_{b}}{}^{\ast}\tilde{Y})=\epsilon
g_{2}(\tilde{Y}\wedge\tilde{X}_{a},\tilde{Y}\wedge\tilde{X}_{b})\;,$ (39)
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\epsilon[g(Y,Y)g_{ab}-Y_{a}Y_{b}]\;.$
This last Killing tensor, in particular, has remarkable properties worth
mentioning. By definition $K^{(^{\ast}\tilde{Y})}(Y,Y)=0$, that is, Yano
vectors are null with respect to the associated Killing tensor. When $Y$ is
non-null (that is, $g(Y,Y)\neq 0$ ), $K^{(^{\ast}\tilde{Y})}$ has a one
dimensional kernel spanned by $Y$, and therefore it is singular. In that case
every vector orthogonal to $Y$ is an eigenvector with the eigenvalue $\epsilon
g(Y,Y)$ and the trace of $K^{(^{\ast}\tilde{Y})}$ is $\epsilon(n-1)g(Y,Y)$.
Moreover, the properly normalized Killing tensor
$K^{\prime}=K^{(^{\ast}\tilde{Y})}/\epsilon g(Y,Y)$ is an idempotent projector
$K^{\prime}_{ab}K^{\prime b}_{\;\;c}=K^{\prime}_{ac}$ having rank $n-1$. When
$Y$ is null we have $K^{(^{\ast}\tilde{Y})}_{ab}=-\epsilon Y_{a}Y_{b}$ and in
such a case, it is a rank-1 nilpotent
($K^{(^{\ast}\tilde{Y})}_{ab}K^{(^{\ast}\tilde{Y})b}_{\>c}=0$) projector,
projecting vector fields to the direction of Yano vector.
### V.2 Constants of Motion for Classical Trajectories
It is known that any rank-$p$ symmetric (covariant) Killing tensor provides a
degree-$p$ polynomial of velocity that is a geodesic invariant Benn-son . But,
the second rank symmetric Killing tensors that can be constructed from KY-
forms, as in (36), have a distinguished property of providing a quadratic
invariant of velocity along classical trajectories. In the remaining part of
this section we shall prove this statement in the most general setting of this
paper. To be precise, let us consider the quadratic function
$f^{(\omega)}=K^{(\omega)}(u,u)=K^{(\omega)}_{ab}\,\>u^{a}u^{b}$ (40)
where $u=\dot{C}$ is the world velocity of a charged (charge assumed to be
unit) material particle obeying the classical equation of motion
$\nabla_{u}u=\frac{1}{m}\widetilde{i_{u}F}\;.$ (41)
Here, $u^{a}=dx^{a}/d\tau$ such that $x^{a}$’s are the local coordinates of
the world curve $C$ parameterized by the proper time $\tau$ and $\nabla_{u}u$
represents the acceleration of the particle. Hence
$\displaystyle\frac{d}{d\tau}(f^{(\omega)}\circ C)$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle
C_{\ast}(\partial_{\tau})f^{(\omega)}=\nabla_{u}[K^{(\omega)}(u,u)]$ (42)
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 2K^{(\omega)}(\nabla_{u}u,u)\;,$
and in view of (41)
$\displaystyle\frac{d}{d\tau}(f^{(\omega)}\circ
C)=\frac{2}{m}u^{a}u^{b}F_{ac}K^{(\omega)c}_{\;b}.$ (43)
What we are going to prove is the constancy of $f^{(\omega)}$ along the
classical trajectory determined by (41). Before doing that, it would be
illuminating to examine first some special cases. One can easily verify that
the right hand side of (43) vanishes if the components of the Killing tensor
given by (38) are used, provided that KY-forms employed in defining
$f^{(\omega)}$ satisfy the condition (26). In the case of
$K^{(^{\ast}\tilde{Y})}_{ab}$ given by (39), the contraction with the Maxwell
field is, in view of (34)
$F_{ac}K^{(\omega)c}_{\;b}=\epsilon g(Y,Y)F_{ab}\;,$ (44)
which is obviously anti-symmetric and also makes the right hand side of (43)
vanish. So, as a particular result, all quadratic functions constructed from
KY $p$-forms for $p=1,2,n-1,n$ are constant along the classical trajectory.
These exhaust all possible cases in a four dimensional space-time and, to the
best of our knowledge, these are all that can be found in the related
literature.
We shall now prove that $f^{(\omega)}$ is a constant of motion for the
classical trajectories determined by (41) for all dimensions and signatures as
well as for all KY $p$-forms $\omega_{(p)}$ obeying the symmetry condition
(26). For the proof, we first take the Hodge dual of both sides of the
equation (43) and write
$\displaystyle\frac{d}{d\tau}(f^{(\omega)}\circ
C)^{\ast}1=\frac{2}{m}u^{a}u^{b}I_{ab}\;,$ (45)
where the $n$-form $I_{ab}$ is defined as
$I_{ab}=^{\ast}(F_{ac}K^{(\omega)c}_{\;b})=i_{X_{c}}i_{X_{a}}Fi_{X^{c}}\omega\wedge^{\ast}i_{X_{b}}\omega\;.$
(46)
In passing to the second equality of equation (46) we have used (36). Thus,
$f^{(\omega)}$ is constant along the world line $C(\tau)$ if and only if the
right hand side of the equation (45) vanishes. Evidently, the anti-symmetry
condition $I_{ab}=-I_{ba}$ is sufficient (and can also be shown to be
necessary) for the right hand side of (45) to vanish. To show the anti-
symmetry of $I_{ab}$ we rewrite it as follows:
$\displaystyle I_{ab}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-[i_{X_{a}}(i_{X_{c}}F\wedge i_{X^{c}}\omega)+i_{X_{c}}F\wedge
i_{X_{a}}i_{X^{c}}\omega]\wedge^{\ast}i_{X_{b}}\omega\;,$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle i_{X_{c}}F\wedge
i_{X^{c}}(i_{X_{a}}\omega\wedge^{\ast}i_{X_{b}}\omega)-i_{X_{a}}\omega\wedge
i_{X_{c}}F\wedge i_{X^{c}}\;^{\ast}i_{X_{b}}\omega\;,$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-i_{X_{a}}\omega\wedge
i_{X_{c}}F\wedge^{\ast}(i_{X_{b}}\omega\wedge e^{c})\;.$
The first term in the square bracket of the first line vanishes because of
condition (26), and the first term of the second line vanishes since it can be
written as an interior derivative of a $(n+1)$-form. In the third line of (47)
we have made use of the identity
$i_{X^{c}}\;^{\ast}i_{X_{b}}\omega=^{\ast}(i_{X_{b}}\omega\wedge e^{c})$ which
was also used in the previous section. In view of $i_{X_{c}}F=F_{ck}e^{k}$ and
of another Hodge identity $\alpha\wedge^{\ast}\beta=\beta\wedge^{\ast}\alpha$
which holds for any two $p$-forms $\alpha$ and $\beta$, we obtain from (47)
$\displaystyle I_{ab}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-i_{X_{b}}\omega\wedge
F_{ck}e^{c}\wedge^{\ast}(i_{X_{a}}\omega\wedge e^{k})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle i_{X_{b}}\omega\wedge
i_{X_{k}}F\wedge^{\ast}(i_{X_{a}}\omega\wedge e^{k})\;.$
By comparing this with third line of (47) we obtain $I_{ab}=-I_{ab}$ which was
what to be demonstrated.
An immediate corollary of the constancy of $f^{(\omega)}$ is, by virtue of
(42), the relation $K^{(\omega)}(\nabla_{u}u,u)=0$ which can be interpreted as
follows. The world velocity and acceleration of a charged material particle
are perpendicular to each other, not only with respect to the metric, but also
with respect to the symmetric Killing tensors associated with each KY-form
satisfying the condition (26).
## VI Summary and Conclusion
In this study, the most general first-order linear symmetry operators of the
Dirac equation including interaction with Maxwell field in curved background
of arbitrary $n$-dimension and of signature are specified. We have shown that
all coefficients forms $\omega^{a}$’s of the symmetry operator
$L=2\omega^{a}S_{X_{a}}+\Omega$ are given, in terms of an inhomogeneous KY-
form $\omega$, by $\omega^{a}=i_{X^{a}}\omega$. The components of $\Omega$ are
explicitly calculated and are given by the equations (12), (13) and (28). They
depend on the exterior derivative of KY-forms and their contraction with the
potential field $A$. We have also found a unified, gauge invariant dynamical
symmetry condition which states that among all the KY-forms of underlying
curved background only those which Clifford commute with the Maxwell field can
take part in $L$. When $\omega^{a}$ and $\Omega$ are even, $L$ itself, but
when they are odd and $n$ is even $Lz$ is a first order symmetry operator
which Clifford commutes with the Dirac equation and hence maps a solution to
another.
The special cases of the dynamical symmetry condition are also discussed as
they may provide valuable insights in applications. In particular, the KY
$(n-1)$-forms and 1-forms take part in the symmetry operator if and only if
the corresponding Yano and Killing vectors belong to the kernel of the anti-
symmetric matrix $F_{ab}$ corresponding to the components of the Maxwell
field. These imply that if $F_{ab}$ is non-singular, which can happen only in
even dimensions, no KY $(n-1)$-forms and 1-forms can take part in the symmetry
operator. Implications of the existence of Yano vectors in specifying the
global structure of the curved background are also discussed. Finally it has
been proved that, for all KY-forms obeying the dynamical symmetry condition,
there exists a quadratic function of velocity (defined by the equation (40))
which is a constant of motion for the classical motion in an arbitrary
dimension and signature.
All of these results are expected to provide a unified framework for symmetry
analysis and to serve as a firm base in studying symmetry algebras and related
conserved quantities of the Dirac equation for a given specific curved
background and force field.
###### Acknowledgements.
We are grateful to anonymous referees for their useful comments. This work was
supported in part by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of
Turkey (TÜBİTAK).
## References
* (1) Walker M and Penrose R 1970 On Quadratic First Integrals of Geodesic Equations for Type $\\{22\\}$ Spacetimes Commun. Math. Phys. 18, 265-74
* (2) Penrose R 1973 Naked Singularities Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 224 125-34
* (3) Hughston L P, Penrose R, Sommers P and Walker M 1972 On a Quadratic First Integral for the Charged Particle Orbits in the Charged Kerr Solution Commun. Math. Phys. 27, 303-8
* (4) Açık Ö, Ertem Ü, Önder M and Verçin A 2008 Killing-Yano Forms of a Class of Spherically Symmetric Space-Times I : A Unified Generation of Killing vector fields ( Preprint 0803.3327 [gr-qc])
* (5) Açık Ö, Ertem Ü, Önder M and Verçin A 2008 Killing-Yano Forms of a Class of Spherically Symmetric Space-Times II : A Unified Generation of Higher Forms ( Preprint 0803.3328 [gr-qc])
* (6) Carter B 1968 Global Structure of the Kerr Family of Gravitational Fields Phys. Rev. 174, 1559-71.
* (7) Benn I M, Charlton P R and Kress J 1997 Debye Potentials for Maxwell and Dirac fields from a generalization of the Killing-Yano equation J. Math. Phys. 38 4504
* (8) Collinson C D and Howarth L 2000 Generalized Killing Tensors General Relativity and Gravitation 32 1767
* (9) Frolov P V and Kubiznak D 2007 Hidden Symmetries of Higher-Dimensional Rotating Black Holes Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 011101
* (10) Frolov P V and Kubiznak D 2008 Higher-Dimensional Black Holes: Hidden Symmetries and Separation of Variables Class.Quant.Grav. 25 154005 (Preprint 0802.0322 [hep-th])
* (11) Carter B 1977 Killing tensor quantum numbers and conserved currents in curved background Phys. Rev. D 16 3395-414
* (12) Carter B and McLenaghan R G 1979 Generalized total angular momentum operator for the Dirac equation in curved space-time Phys. Rev. D 19 1093-7
* (13) Kamran N and McLenaghan R G 1984 Symmetry operators for neutrino and Dirac fields on curved spacetime Phys. Rev. D 30 357
* (14) Benn I M and Charlton P 1997 Dirac symmetry operators from conformal Killing-Yano tensors Class. Quantum Grav. 14 1037-42
* (15) Benn I M and Kress J 2004 First-order Dirac Symmetry Operators Class. Quantum Grav 21 427
* (16) Benn I M and Kress J 2005 Symmetry Operators for the Dirac and Hodge-de Rham Equation Proceedings of the 9th DGA Conference 421
* (17) McLenaghan R G and Spindel Ph 1979 Quantum numbers for Dirac spinor fields on a curved space-time, Phys. Rev. D 20 409-13
* (18) Benn I M and Tucker R W 1987 An Introduction to Spinors and Geometry with Applications in Physics Bristol: IOP
* (19) Benn I M 2006 Geodesics and Killing tensors in mechanics, J. Math. Phys. 47 022903\.
* (20) Semmelmann U 2003 Conformal Killing forms on Riemannian manifolds Math. Z. 243 503
* (21) Kastor D and Traschen J 2004 Conserved gravitational charges from Yano tensors JHEP 0408, 045
* (22) Coley A 2008 Classification of the Weyl tensor in higher dimensions and applications Class. Quantum Grav 25 033001
## Appendix A Consistency Conditions
By direct calculations we obtain
$\displaystyle[\displaystyle{\not}S,\omega]=2\omega^{a}S_{X_{a}}+\displaystyle{\not}d\omega=L+\varphi\;,$
where $\omega^{a}=i_{X^{a}}\omega$. It proves convenient to take $L$ as
$L=[\displaystyle{\not}S,\omega]-\varphi$, where
$\Omega=\displaystyle{\not}d\omega-\varphi$. Using the fact that
$\displaystyle[\displaystyle{\not}S,[\displaystyle{\not}S,\omega]]=[\displaystyle{\not}S^{2},\omega]_{-}\;,$
the symmetry condition (3) transforms to
$\displaystyle[\displaystyle{\not}S^{2},\omega]_{-}=[\displaystyle{\not}S,\varphi]-{\rm{i}}[A,L]\;.$
(48)
${\cal R}$ being the scalar curvature of the spinor connection,
$\displaystyle{\not}S^{2}$ acts on the spinor fields as (see Benn-Tucker
chapter 10)
$\displaystyle\displaystyle{\not}S^{2}=S^{2}(X_{a},X^{a})-\frac{1}{4}{\cal
R}\;.$ (49)
Therefore on substituting the relations
$\displaystyle[\displaystyle{\not}S^{2},\omega]_{-}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle[S^{2}(X_{a},X^{a}),\omega]_{-}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
2\nabla_{X^{a}}\omega S_{X_{a}}+\nabla^{2}(X_{a},X^{a})\omega\;,$
$\displaystyle\;[\displaystyle{\not}S,\varphi]$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle 2i_{X^{a}}\varphi S_{X_{a}}+\displaystyle{\not}d\varphi\;,$
(50) $\displaystyle\;[A,L]$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
2[A,i_{X^{a}}\omega]S_{X_{a}}-2(i_{X^{a}}\omega)^{\eta}\nabla_{X_{a}}A+[A,\Omega],$
into equation (A1) and then on equating the coefficients of equal power of
derivatives, we obtain the consistency conditions (6) and (7) of the main
text.
## Appendix B Contraction of Curvatures with a Yano vector
By differentiating the KY equation (11), the action of the Hessian (see the
remark following equation (4)) on a KY $p$-form $\omega_{(p)}$ is found to be
$\nabla^{2}(X_{a},X_{b})\omega_{(p)}=\frac{1}{p+1}i_{X_{b}}\nabla_{X_{a}}d\omega_{(p)}.$
(51)
Since the difference of $\nabla^{2}(X_{a},X_{b})$ and
$\nabla^{2}(X_{b},X_{a})$ is the curvature operator $R(X_{a},X_{b})$, from
(B1) we obtain
$R(X_{a},X_{b})\omega_{(p)}=\frac{1}{p+1}(i_{X_{b}}\nabla_{X_{a}}-i_{X_{a}}\nabla_{X_{b}})d\omega_{(p)}.$
(52)
On the other hand, the action of the curvature operator on any form $\alpha$
is known to be (see Benn-Tucker equation (8.1.11) and Benn-Kress )
$R(X_{a},X_{b})\alpha=-i_{X^{k}}R_{ab}\wedge i_{X_{k}}\alpha\;.$ (53)
Note that the action on the one form $\tilde{X}$ simply is $-i_{X}R_{ab}$.
Using (B3) in (B2) and then by multiplying the result with $e^{a}\wedge$, we
obtain
$\nabla_{X_{a}}d\omega_{(p)}=\frac{p+1}{p}R^{b}_{\;\;a}\wedge
i_{X_{b}}\omega_{(p)}.$ (54)
Using this in (B2) for $\omega_{(n-1)}=^{\ast}\tilde{Y}$ we find
$R(X_{a},X_{b})^{\ast}\tilde{Y}=\frac{(-1)^{n}}{n-1}[i_{X_{b}}{}^{\ast}\tilde{Y}\wedge
P_{a}-i_{X_{a}}{}^{\ast}\tilde{Y}\wedge P_{b}]$ (55)
where we have used the contracted Bianchi identity
$i_{X_{b}}P_{a}=i_{X_{a}}P_{b}$. Let us first note that
$\displaystyle R(X_{a},X_{b})^{\ast\ast}\tilde{Y}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon(-1)^{n}i_{Y}R_{ab}\;,$ (56)
${}^{\ast}[^{\ast}(\tilde{Y}\wedge e_{b})\wedge P_{a}]$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle i_{\tilde{P_{a}}}{}^{\ast\ast}(\tilde{Y}\wedge e_{b})\;,$ (57)
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon[(i_{Y}P_{a})e_{b}-\tilde{Y}i_{X_{b}}P_{a}]\;,$
where $\epsilon$ is the sign of $\det g$. In deriving the above relations, we
have made use of (B3) and of the following identities:
${}^{\ast\ast}\alpha_{(p)}=\epsilon(-1)^{p(n-p)}\alpha_{(p)}\;,\quad
i_{X_{a}}{}^{\ast}\tilde{Y}=^{\ast}(\tilde{Y}\wedge e_{a})\;.$ (58)
If we now take the Hodge dual of both sides of (B5) and use (B6), (B7) we
obtain the first relation of (35) of the main text:
$i_{Y}R_{ab}=(n-1)^{-1}[(i_{Y}P_{a})e_{b}-(i_{Y}P_{b})e_{a}]$.
As an aside, it is worth mentioning that if (B4) is substituted into (B1), we
obtain
$\nabla^{2}(X_{a},X_{b})\omega_{(p)}=\frac{1}{p}i_{X_{b}}(R^{c}_{\;a}\wedge
i_{X_{c}}\omega_{(p)}),$ (59)
which shows that the second covariant derivative of any KY $p$-form is
determined by curvature characteristics and the form itself. This implies that
the value of a KY $p$-form at any point is entirely determined by the values
of the form itself and its first covariant derivatives at the same point.
These remarks can be used to determine the upper bound for the numbers of
linearly independent KY $p$-forms to be the Binomial number $C(n+1,p+1)$
Kastor ; ozumav1 .
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-08T13:47:42 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.149652 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "\\\"O. A\\c{c}{\\i}k, \\\"U. Ertem, M. \\\"Onder and A. Ver\\c{c}in",
"submitter": "\\\"Ozg\\\"ur Acik",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1328"
} |
0806.1411 | # Ab initio study of bilateral doping
within the MoS2-NbS2 system
Viktoria V. Ivanovskaya ivanovskaya@lps.u-psud.fr Laboratoire de Physique des
Solides, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS-UMR 8502, 91405, Orsay, France Institute of
Solid State Chemistry, Ural division of Russian Academy of Science, 620041,
Ekaterinburg, Russia Alberto Zobelli Laboratoire de Physique des Solides,
Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS-UMR 8502, 91405, Orsay, France Laboratoire des Solides
Irradiés UMR 7642, CNRS-CEA/DSM, École Polytechnique, F-91128 Palaiseau,
France Alexandre Gloter Laboratoire de Physique des Solides, Univ. Paris-
Sud, CNRS-UMR 8502, 91405, Orsay, France Nathalie Brun Laboratoire de
Physique des Solides, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS-UMR 8502, 91405, Orsay, France
Virginie Serin CEMES-CNRS, 29 rue Jeanne Marvig, BP 94347, Toulouse Cedex 4,
France Christian Colliex Laboratoire de Physique des Solides, Univ. Paris-
Sud, CNRS-UMR 8502, 91405, Orsay, France
###### Abstract
We present a systematic study on the stability and the structural and
electronic properties of mixed molybdenum-niobium disulphides. Using density
functional theory we investigate bilateral doping with up to 25 % of MoS2
(NbS2) by Nb (Mo) atoms, focusing on the precise arrangement of dopants within
the host lattices. We find that over the whole range of considered
concentrations, Nb doping of MoS2 occurs through a substitutional mechanism.
For Mo in NbS2 both interstitial and substitutional doping can co-exist,
depending upon the particular synthesis conditions. The analysis of the
structural and electronic modifications of the perfect bulk systems due to the
doping is presented. We show that substitutional Nb atoms introduce electron
holes to the MoS2, leading to a semiconductor-metal transition. On the other
hand, the Mo doping of Nb2, does not alter the metallic behavior of the
initial system. The results of the present study are compared with available
experimental data on mixed MoS2-NbS2 (bulk and nanoparticles).
## I Introduction
Layered transition metal dichalcogenides belong to a well defined chemical and
structural family characterized by strong covalent intralayer bonding and weak
Van der Waals interactions between adjacent layers.Levy (1979); Friend and
Yoffe (1973) The layer-type structure and the existence of a wide structural
gap between planes of metal dichalcogenides offer the possibility of an easy
intercalation with a variety of atoms and molecules. Levy (1979); Starnberg
(2000) Despite their structural similarity, metal dichalcogenides present a
wide variety of electronic behaviors going from insulators (HfS2) to
semiconductors (MoS2), semimetals (TcS2) and real metals (NbS2).Wilson and
Yoffe (1969) However, it has been shown that the specific electronic
properties of metal dichalcogenides can be easily modified by low doping
levels.Kalikhman et al. (1982); Ivanovskaya et al. (2006)
During the past decades, a number of experimental and theoretical studies have
been dedicated to these materials, mainly due to the wide prospects of their
potential uses. The interest in this class of materials has been recently
renewed through the synthesis of number of nanosized forms, such as fullerenes
and nanotubes, based on d-metal disulphides. Their exceptional mechanical
properties and a large surface to volume ratio makes them good candidates for
new tribological and catalytic applications.Brorson et al. (2007); Helveg et
al. (2000); Tenne (2006) Besides the pure metal disulphide fullerenes and
nanotubes, various “mixed” materials and composites have been recently
synthesized, such as NbxW1-xS2Zhu et al. (2001a, b) and Ti-doped MoS2
nanotubes.Hsu et al. (2001) The synthesis of such mixed systems might be
considered as an extension of solid solutions well known from the bulk form
into the field of nanomaterials, and represents a promising way of creating
functionalized nanoparticles.
In the class of mixed metal dicalcogenites, the MoS2-NbS2 system presents new
promising technological potential. Molybdenum disulphide (MoS2) is widely used
as catalyst in fuel desulphurization processes and tribological applications
Ertl et al. (1997); Topsøe et al. (1996); Renevier et al. (2001); Teer (2001)
and niobium disulphide (NbS2) has attracted attention due to its optical,
magnetic and superconductive properties.Wilson and Yoffe (1969); Levy (1979);
Friend and Yoffe (1987); Fisher and M.J. (1980) The synthesis of mixed
MoS2-NbS2 with no miscibility gap has been reportedHotje and Binnewies (2005)
and for low level Nb-doping of MoS2 particles, a semiconductor-metal
transition has been observed.Kalikhman et al. (1982) The catalytic properties
of MoxNb1-xS2 have been studied in hydrogenation and hydrodesulphurization
reactions. In contrast with pure MoS2, the solid solution MoxNb1-xS2 ($x=0.4$)
has benn shown to be insensitive to H2S partial pressure, thus suggesting good
capabilities for the conversion of high sulphur-loaded gas oils.Gaborit et al.
(2003) Recently, inorganic fullerene-like Mo1-xNbxS2 nanoparticles have been
synthesized and characterizedDeepak et al. (2007) and we expect that the
catalytic activity of the mixed phase might be enhanced in the nanoparticles
due to a high surface to volume ratio.
In the context of this revived interest in mixed dichalcogenide based systems,
the location and local organization of dopant atoms within the original
layered lattice play a role of particular importance. However, current
analytical techniques can not easily detect the exact arrangement of atoms in
mixed systems, and so neither doping by inter-layer intercalation nor intra-
plane substitution can be excluded.Hsu et al. (2001); Nath et al. (2002);
Deepak et al. (2007) Complementary structural information can be provided by
simulations using _ab-initio_ techniques.
In the this paper we present a density functional theory study of the mixed
MoS2-NbS2 system. We consider bilateral doping of up to 25 % starting from
pure molybdenum disulphide and niobium disulphide bulk systems. Bilateral
implies the doping of each metal disulphide by the metal from the counterpart
disulphide (i.e. we dope MoS2 with Nb atoms and vice versa, NbS2 with Mo). The
paper focus on the arrangement of dopant atoms within the mixed structures and
on the electronic modifications induced in the perfect bulk systems due to
doping.
## II Details of the calculations
### II.1 Computational method
We performed structural optimizations and electronic structure calculations
within the framework of the density function theory in the local density
approximation (DFT-LDA) as implemented in the AIMPRO code.Jones and Briddon
(1998); Rayson and Briddon (2008) Molybdenum, niobium and sulphur
pseudopotentials are generated using the Hartwingster-Goedecker-Hutter scheme.
Hartwigsen et al. (1998) The basis sets employed consisted of s, p, and d
gaussian orbital functions centered at the atomic sites. For Nb and Mo atoms
we have used a set of 40 gaussians multiplied by spherical harmonics up to a
maximum angular momentum $l_{\text{max}}=2$, for S atoms a set of 20 gaussians
with a maximum angular momentum $l_{\text{max}}=1$.
Calculations for bulk MoS2 and NbS2 have been conducted using a 10x10x10
Monkhorst-Pack k-points set to sample the Brillouin zone. Defective structures
have been described using a 4x4x1 supercell. 2x2x4 Monkhorst-Pack k-points set
have been proved to be sufficient for accurate Brillouin zone integration in
this large supercell. The atomic positions for all structures were optimized
simultaneously with the cell parameters.
### II.2 Structural models
MoS2 crystallizes in several polymorphs, among which the most stable is the
hexagonal 2H-MoS2, belonging to the P63/mmc symmetry point group. The lattice
structure consists of hexagonal planes of Mo atoms lying between two hexagonal
planes of S atoms, forming a S-Mo-S layer. Each Mo atom is covalently bonded
with its six first neighbor sulphur atoms, each S is bonded to three
molybdenum atoms. The unit cell contains two alternating S-Mo-S layers with an
ABA BAB stacking along the c axis, see Fig. 1. In bulk 2H-NbS2 the local
structure of the layers is similar to that of 2H-MoS2, with the Nb atoms 6
fold coordinated. The only difference between the structures is that the NbS2
layers are shifted and Nb atoms lie above each other, thus the stacking order
within the bulk structure is ACA BCB, see Fig 1.
Figure 1: (Color online) Top and side views of the 2H-MoS2 and 2H-NbS2 crystal
structures. Different models of doping presented on the bottom pictures:
interstitial atoms in tetrahedral (a) and octahedral (b) position;
substitutional atom (c).
The experimental lattice parameters for 2H-MoS2 and 2H-NbS2 metal disulphides
are a = 3.16 Å, c = 12.29 Å, and a = 3.31 Å, c = 11.89 Å, respectively Levy
(1979); Wilson and Yoffe (1969). Molybdenum and niobium oxidation states in
the corresponding sulfate bulk systems are identical and the covalent radii of
Mo (130 pm) and Nb (132 pm) are similar, implying that bilateral substitution
might be feasible. Furthermore, the interlayer spacing for both metal
dichalcogenides is wide enough to place the interstitial atom in between the
layers. Hence, in the present work we will analyze both, substitutional and
interstitial doping modes for accommodating the metal atoms within the layered
disulphide crystals.
For the interstitial doping we have to distinguish two cases: the dopant atom
occupies the tetrahedral site situated between one sulphur triangle and one
sulphur atom in the adjacent plane (position a, Fig. 1) or the octahedral site
between two S-triangles (position b, Fig. 1). In the first case only four
metal-sulphur bonds are formed, whereas in the second case six. In the
substitutional configuration one metal atom is removed from the metal
disulphide (MS2) layer and the vacant site is occupied by a dopant atom, which
thus forms six metal-sulphur bonds (position c, Fig. 1).
## III Results and Discussion
### III.1 Bulk systems
The optimized bulk cell parameters are in excellent agreement with the
experimental values: a = 3.15 Å, c = 12.29 Å for MoS2 and a = 3.32 Å, c =
11.92 Å for NbS2. The Mo-S and Nb-S bond lengths in the pure bulk systems are
found to be 2.42 Å and 2.50 Å, which is close to the reported experimental
values respectively of 2.41 Å and 2.47 Å. Wilson and Yoffe (1969)
The electronic structure of bulk metal dichalcogenides have been extensively
studied both experimentally and theoretically. Wilson and Yoffe (1969); Friend
and Yoffe (1987); Raybaud et al. (1997) In Fig.2 we present the electronic
band structures for MoS2 and NbS2 bulk species. The deepest band in the plot
corresponds to the S 3s states and is separated by a wide gap from a broad
valence band. The bottom of the valence band corresponds to the hybrid 3$p$-S
and 4$d$-Mo(Nb) states, and the upper part to the 4$d_{z^{2}}$ Mo(Nb) states.
As one can notice, the overall structure and dispersion of the bands for the
MoS2 and NbS2 bulks are rather similar. The main difference between the two
systems comes from the different number of valence electrons between the Mo
and Nb atoms. The number of valence electrons in MoS2 is enough to fill
completely the valence band and thus MoS2 is a semiconductor with an LDA
indirect gap of 1.17 eV (experimentally measuredKam and Parkinson (1982) as
1.23 eV) and a direct gap at the $\Gamma$ point of 2.02 eV (experimentallyKam
and Parkinson (1982) 1.74 eV). However, NbS2 has one electron less per metal
atom so that the top of its valence band is half-filled. Consequently, NbS2
has a metallic behavior. Our results for bulk systems agree well with the
previously reported calculations and available experimental data. Coehoorn et
al. (1987); Kobayashi and Yamauchi (1995); Böker et al. (2001); Kim and Kelty
(2005); Fang et al. (1995)
Figure 2: DFT-LDA electronic band structure for pure MoS2 and NbS2. The origin
of the energies is the Fermi level.
### III.2 Low concentration doping: single dopant atoms
In order to access the most energetically favorable way for bilateral doping
within the MoS2 -NbS2 system, we have calculated the formation energies of the
“mixed” structures. For both types of doping, the formation energy can be
estimated from the general equation
$E_{\text{form}}=E_{\text{mixed}}-[M\cdot\mu_{\text{MoS}_{2}}+N\cdot\mu_{\text{NbS}_{2}}+X\cdot\mu_{\text{D}}]$
(1)
where
$\left\\{\begin{array}[]{ll}M,N\neq 0\text{ and }X=0&\text{for substitutional
doping};\\\ M\text{ or }N=0\text{ and }X\neq 0&\text{for interstitial
doping}.\end{array}\right.$
In Eq.1 E${}_{\text{mixed}}$ is the total energy of the mixed system; M and N
are the numbers of MoS2 and NbS2 units in the mixed systems;
$\mu_{\text{MoS}_{2}}$ and $\mu_{\text{NbS}_{2}}$ are respectively the
chemical potentials for MoS2 and NbS2 using as reference the corresponding
bulk systems; X is the number of dopant atoms inside the cell and $\mu_{D}$ is
the chemical potential of the dopant atom.
As a general rule, in the synthesis process the chemical potential for an
element as a dopant should be lower than that in its bulk form, otherwise this
element would form the energetically more stable bulk phase rather than the
mixed system. Consequently, in our study we imposed as boundaries the chemical
potentials of dopants derived from the corresponding pure bulk metals
$\mu_{\text{D}}=\mu_{\text{bulk}}$ or metal disulphides
$\mu_{D}=\mu_{\text{MS}_{2}}-2\cdot\mu_{\text{S}}$, where $\mu_{S}$ is sulphur
chemical potential as derived from its bulk phase. Thus, we obtain the range
of formation energies calculated using both values of the dopant’s chemical
potentials for each dopant configuration.
Table 1: Formation energies (eV) and average metal-sulphur bond distances (Å) in single atom doped MoS2 and NbS2. Formation energies are calculated using the dopant chemical potentials derived from metal disulphide (E${}_{form_{1}}$) or pure metal bulk (E${}_{form_{2}}$) phases. System | E${}_{form_{1}}$ | E${}_{form_{2}}$ | Mo-S | Nb-S
---|---|---|---|---
MoS2 | | | 2.42 |
NbS2 | | | | 2.50
NbMo32S64 (inter) | 8.08 | 3.80 | 2.42 | 2.43
NbMo31S64 (subst) | -0.21 | -0.86 | 2.42 | 2.45
MoNb32S64 (inter) | -3.24 | -6.87 | 2.40 | 2.49
MoNb31S64 (subst) | -5.11 | -4.46 | 2.46 | 2.49
Formation energies for low level doping (one dopant per unit cell, which
corresponds to $\sim 3$% of doping) and metal-sulphur bond lengths are
presented in Table 1. The inclusion of Nb dopant in interstitial sites within
the MoS2 structure is highly energetically unfavorable since the formation
energy for the Nb in octahedral sites is of the order of several eV. The Nb
position in tetrahedral sites (position a, see Fig.1) is not stable and after
relaxation the Nb atom moves to a neighboring octahedral site (position b). In
contrast, negative formation energies correspond to the substitutional model
(position c, see Fig.1), indicating that the substitution process is
exothermic. In this configuration the Nb-S distances decrease by 0.05 Å
compared to the NbS2 bulk, adapting to the initial parameters of the “host”
MoS2 lattice. The Mo-S bond lengths at neighboring sites remain unaffected. In
the mirror situation, when NbS2 is doped with Mo, both the intercalation and
substitution processes are energetically favorable.111Unlike the case of
interstitial doping of MoS2, the Mo tetrahedral interstitial in NbS2 is
metastable. The formation energy for the tetrahedral configuration is 1.87 eV
higher than for the octahedral, thus in the following we will refer only to
the case of octahedral interstitials. Moreover, the range of formation
energies reported in Table 1 suggests that low level substitutional and
interstitial doping will be in competition. The Mo-S bond distances for the
substitutional Mo dopant increase by about 0.05 Å compared to the MoS2 bulk.
However, Mo insertion between the NbS2 planes is characterized by a decrease
of 0.02 Å in the Mo-S bond length.
Figure 3: DFT-LDA electronic band structure and total density of states for
substitutional and interstitial doping of MoS2 (top) and NbS2 (bottom)
crystals. Filled areas corresponds to the pure bulk systems. Solid and open
triangles indicate respectively the filled and half-filled electronic bands
associated with the doping of MoS2. The origin of the energies in each graph
is the Fermi level.
In Fig. 3 we present the band structure and density of states (DOS) for low
level doping of MoS2 and NbS2 crystals. The insertion of Nb dopant atoms
within the MoS2 preserves the main features of the DOS of the bulk system.
Furthermore, the interstitial Nb atom adds two additional nearly degenerate
fully occupied energy levels within the band gap and a half-occupied donor
level at the bottom of the conduction band (see Fig. 3). The substitution of
one Mo atom by one Nb atom introduces an electron hole within the system and
thus moves the Fermi level down. The Nb atom acts as an acceptor impurity in
the molybdenum disulphide. To get further insight into the electronic
properties of Nb-substituted MoS2, we examine the electron density
distribution map for the the half-occupied electronic state associated solely
with the doping, see Fig. 4. As one may observe, the impurity level is not
centered exclusively on the Nb atom, but delocalized within the radius of the
third molybdenum ring around the niobium, thus suggesting the metallic nature
of the mixed system.
Figure 4: (Color online) Electron density distribution of the half-occupied
electronic state associated with the introduction of one Nb substitutional
atom in the MoS2 lattice. The Nb atom is blue, Mo atoms are red and S atoms
are yellow.
The substitutional doping of NbS2 by Mo acts in a symmetric way to the
previously treated case, introducing an additional electron instead of a hole
into the system. Thus, the Fermi level is moved upward and the overall
electronic structure of the system is conserved. Similar behavior is found for
the interstitial doping with a slightly higher Fermi level shift.
### III.3 Higher dopant concentration: MoS2-NbS2 alloy
In this section we treat the case of higher doping levels for the system
MoS2-NbS2. Two extreme cases might be considered for the arrangement of dopant
atoms within the original host matrix: dopants randomly distributed in the
crystal forming a homogeneous alloy, or clusterized, forming local domains in
the host crystal.
The tendency of dopants to clusterize can be investigated by considering the
binding energy between two dopant atoms as a function of their separation. We
discuss the situations when two dopants occupy close neighboring sites or,
contrary to that, are situated at the farthest sites within the chosen
supercell. We define the binding energy E${}_{\text{bind}}$ between dopants
as:
$E_{\text{bind}}=2\cdot E_{\text{1D}}-E_{\text{2D}}$ (2)
where E${}_{\text{1D}}$ and E${}_{\text{2D}}$ are respectively the formation
energies of the systems with one and two dopants.
Table 2: Formation energies E${}_{\text{form}}$(eV) and binding energies E${}_{\text{bind}}$ (eV) for interstitial and substitutional doping of MoS2 and NbS2. Formation energies are calculated using the dopant chemical potentials derived from the metal disulphide. System (interstitial) | E${}_{\text{form}}$ | E${}_{\text{bind}}$ | | System (substitutional) | E${}_{\text{form}}$ | E${}_{\text{bind}}$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
NbMo32S64 | 8.08 | | | NbMo31S64 | -0.21 |
Nb2Mo32S64 111Two dopant atoms are separated by the shortest possible distance within the supercell | 14.98 | 1.17 | | Nb2Mo30S64111Two dopant atoms are separated by the shortest possible distance within the supercell | -0.44 | 0.01
Nb2Mo32S64 222Two dopant atoms are as far as possible from each other within the chosen supercell | 16.07 | 0.08 | | Nb2Mo30S64 222Two dopant atoms are as far as possible from each other within the chosen supercell | -0.46 | 0.03
MoNb32S64 | -3.24 | | | MoNb31S64 | -5.11 |
Mo2Nb32S64 111Two dopant atoms are separated by the shortest possible distance within the supercell | -0.91 | -5.57 | | Mo2Nb30S64 111Two dopant atoms are separated by the shortest possible distance within the supercell | -4.97 | -5.25
Mo2Nb32S64 222Two dopant atoms are as far as possible from each other within the chosen supercell | -1.08 | -5.39 | | Mo2Nb30S64 222Two dopant atoms are as far as possible from each other within the chosen supercell | -4.91 | -5.31
In Table 2 we report formation and binding energies for the mentioned
arrangements of dopants within the MoS2 and NbS2 lattices. For interstitial Nb
atoms in the MoS2 crystal we obtain a high binding energy, which at two
neighboring octahedral sites rises to 1.17 eV. This value suggests a strong
driving force which promotes the clustering of Nb interstitials. In contrast,
Nb substitutional atoms weakly interact, with binding energies of the order of
a hundredth of an eV. Considering that the configurational entropy is higher
for a random distribution of dopant atoms, we thus conclude that the mixed
system will tend to form a homogeneous alloy. A similar tendency for random
ordering is obtained for both interstitial and substitutional Mo in NbS2,
where the binding energies between two doping atoms drop to about $\sim-5$ eV.
The experimental work of Hotje et al.Hotje and Binnewies (2005) has shown that
the MoS2-NbS2 alloy can be synthesized without any miscibility gap across the
concentration range going from pure MoS2 to pure NbS2. We have thus extended
our investigation to higher doping levels up to a maximum of 25%. The
percentage of doping is calculated considering all the metal atoms within the
two adjacent metal disulphide slabs, constituting the supercell.
In section II.2 we have seen that the in-plane lattice parameters of MoS2 and
NbS2 differ by about 4.8 %. Then, in section III.2 we saw that the
incorporation of dopants causes structural perturbations related to different
metal-sulphur bond lengths. For high doping concentrations these frustrations
will induce a change in the crystallographic parameters of the host crystal
which depends on the stoichiometries of the mixed systems. The data, obtained
by optimizing the atomic positions simultaneously with the cell parameters,
are presented in Fig. 5 and compared to the X-ray diffraction data available
from the work of Hotje et al.Hotje and Binnewies (2005) The graph shows a good
agreement between our theoretical results and the experimental data with a
deviation of around 1% across the range of doping levels considered. 222In
Ref. Hotje and Binnewies (2005) the cell parameter values reported refer to
the 3R-NbS2 phase, and partially to 2H and 3R MoS2. Since the difference in
the _a_ cell parameter between the 2H and the 3R phases is as low as 0.13 and
0.60 % for MoS2 and NbS2 respectively, in Fig. 5 we compare the experimental
values with our results derived only for the 2H phases.
Figure 5: In-plane cell parameter for the mixed Mo1-xNbxS2 systems as a
function of Nb concentration inside the cell. Solid diamonds correspond to
reported experimental data. Hotje and Binnewies (2005)
Formation energies for the mixed MoS2-NbS2 systems as a function of
interstitial and substitutional dopant concentration are presented in Fig. 6.
The range of values represented by the shaded areas and obtained from Eq. 1,
is defined by the two dopant chemical potentials of the pure metal disulphide
and metal bulk phases. The observed trends in E${}_{\text{form}}$ for low
level Nb doping of MoS2 are preserved as well at higher dopant concentrations
showing a preferential substitutional doping. These results are confirmed by
recent EXAFS experiments.Gaborit et al. (2003)
Figure 6: (Color online) Formation energies for the mixed Mo1-xNbxS2 systems
as a function of the dopant chemical potential and dopant concentration within
the cell. Open symbols denote the dopant chemical potential derived from pure
metal disulphide, solid symbols stand for potential obtained from metal bulk
phases.
Now we turn to the symmetric situation of Mo doping of NbS2. As we observed
before, low level doping by Mo substitution or intercalation within the NbS2
are exothermic (and competing) processes. The enhancement of dopant content
leads to the overlapping of the regions corresponding to the formation
energies for the interstitial and substitutional doping, see Fig. 6. Hence,
depending upon the particular synthesis conditions, one may have a combination
of substituted and intercalated molybdenum atoms within the NbS2 matrix.
The effect of low level doping of MoS2 and NbS2 crystals on their electronic
properties have been discussed in detail in Sec. III.2. Here, we mention that
near the Fermi level the electronic structure is locally sensitive not only to
the type but also to the degree of doping. However, the main tendencies
described above will be preserved and enhanced by higher dopant
concentrations. Thus, further Nb substitution in MoS2 will decrease the total
electron concentration of the system and cause a progressive downward shift of
the Fermi level. However, the substitutional doping with Mo of NbS2, will
increase the total electron concentration and lead to gradual filling of the
$d_{z^{2}}$ Nb band.
Hence, over the whole range of considered concentration, the electronic
behavior of the stable mixed systems will be metallic. We note that our
conclusions agree well with the experimental data. According to electrical
resistivity measurements, MoS2 with 5 % of substitutional Nb atoms has an
electrical resistivity level similar to that of graphite.Kalikhman et al.
(1982) Likewise, the mixed NbxMo1-xS2 nanoparticles are reported to be
metallic.Deepak et al. (2007)
## IV Conclusions
We have presented a systematic ab initio study on the stability, structural
and electronic properties of mixed molybdenum niobium disulphides. Bilateral
doping effects have been investigated up to a dopant concentration of 25 %.
Focusing on the specific arrangement of dopant atoms, we observe that over the
whole range of considered concentrations, substitutional doping with Nb of
MoS2 will predominate. In addition, our calculations for Mo doping of NbS2
show that depending on the specific synthesis conditions, both interstitial
and substitutional Mo arrangements can co-exist. The incorporation of dopant
atoms causes structural perturbations and changes in the crystallographic
parameters of the host crystal, which dependents on the stoichiometries of the
mixed systems.
The difference in the number of valence electrons between Mo and Nb atoms
means that Nb substitutional doping of MoS2 introduces electron holes into the
system. Mo substitutional doping of NbS2 adds electrons to the system, leading
to an upward shift of the Fermi level. According to our results, these mixed
disulphides have a metallic behavior throughout the range of stoichiometry
considered. This result is in agreement with experimental data available for
low-level Nb doping of MoS2.
We should note that the semiconductor to metal transition due to Nb doping
might not induce any degradation in the mechanical properties of the MoS2.
Indeed, the dopant atoms are located within the planes and no inter plane
bonding bridges are formed. Thus, mixed NbS2-MoS2 might present interesting
capabilities for new tribological applications.
The conclusions of the present work can be generalized to other mixed d metal
chalcogenides presenting similar structural and electronic properties.
## V Acknowledgements
This work was financed by the FOREMOST project of the European Union 6-th
Framework Program under contract NMP3-CT-2005-515840. V.V.I. thanks the
Foundation of the President of Russian Federation (Grant-502.2008.3) for
financial support. The authors would like to acknowledge G. Seifert for
interesting discussions and M. Walls for reading the manuscript.
## References
* Levy (1979) F. Levy, ed., _Intercalated layered materials. series: physics and chemistry of materials with layered structures_ , vol. 6 (D. Reidel Publishing Group, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1979).
* Friend and Yoffe (1973) H. Friend and A. Yoffe, Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 3, 147 (1973).
* Starnberg (2000) H. Starnberg, Mod. Phys. Lett. 14, 455 (2000).
* Wilson and Yoffe (1969) J. Wilson and A. Yoffe, Adv. Phys. 18, 193 (1969).
* Kalikhman et al. (1982) V. L. Kalikhman, A. A. Golubnichaya, E. P. Gladchenko, V. K. Prokudina, and L. P. Shchepinova, Powder Metall. Met. Ceram. 21, 801 (1982).
* Ivanovskaya et al. (2006) V. Ivanovskaya, T. Heine, S. Gemming, and G. Seifert, Phys. Status Solidi (b) 243, 1757 (2006).
* Brorson et al. (2007) M. Brorson, A. Carlsson, and H. Topsøe, Catal. Today 123, 31 (2007).
* Helveg et al. (2000) S. Helveg, J. V. Lauritsen, E. Lægsgaard, I. Stensgaard, J. K. Nørskov, B. S. Clausen, H. Topsøe, and F. Besenbacher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 951 (2000).
* Tenne (2006) R. Tenne, Nature Nanotechnology 1, 103 (2006).
* Zhu et al. (2001a) Y. Zhu, W. Hsu, S. Firth, M. Terrones, R. Clark, H. Kroto, and D. Walton, Chem. Phys. Lett. 342, 15 (2001a).
* Zhu et al. (2001b) Y. Zhu, W. Hsu, M. Terrones, S. Firth, N. Grobert, R. Clark, H. Kroto, and D. Walton, Chem. Commun. p. 121 (2001b).
* Hsu et al. (2001) W. Hsu, Y. Zhu, S. Firth, R. Clark, H. Kroto, and D. Walton, Adv. Funct. Mater. 11, 69 (2001).
* Renevier et al. (2001) N. M. Renevier, J. Hamphire, V. C. Fox, J. Witts, T. Allen, and D. G. Teer, Surf. Coat. Technol. 142-144, 67 (2001).
* Teer (2001) D. Teer, Wear 251, 1068 (2001).
* Ertl et al. (1997) G. Ertl, H. Knözinger, and J. Weitkamp, eds., _Handbook of Heterogeneous Catalysis_ (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 1997).
* Topsøe et al. (1996) H. Topsøe, B. Clausen, and F. Massoth, _Hydrotreating Catalysis_ , vol. 11 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996).
* Friend and Yoffe (1987) H. Friend and A. Yoffe, Adv. Phys. 36, 1 (1987).
* Fisher and M.J. (1980) W. Fisher and S. M.J., Inorg.Chem 19, 39 (1980).
* Hotje and Binnewies (2005) U. Hotje and M. Binnewies, Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 631, 2467 (2005).
* Gaborit et al. (2003) V. Gaborit, N. Allali, M. Danot, C. Geantet, M. Cattenot, M. Breysse, and F. Diehl, Catal. Today 78, 499 (2003).
* Deepak et al. (2007) F. Deepak, H. Cohen, S. Cohen, Y. Feldman, R. Popovitz-Biro, D. Azulay, O. Millo, and R. Tenne, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 129, 12549 (2007).
* Nath et al. (2002) M. Nath, K. Mukhopadhyay, and C. N. R. Rao, Chem. Phys. Lett. 352, 163 (2002).
* Jones and Briddon (1998) R. Jones and P. Briddon, Semicond. Semimetals 51A, 287 (1998).
* Rayson and Briddon (2008) M. Rayson and P. Briddon, Comp. Phys. Comm. 178, 128 (2008).
* Hartwigsen et al. (1998) C. Hartwigsen, S. Goedecker, and J. Hutter, Phys. Rev. B 58, 3641 (1998).
* Raybaud et al. (1997) P. Raybaud, J. Hafner, G. Kresse, and H. Toulhoat, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 9, 11107 (1997).
* Kam and Parkinson (1982) K. Kam and B. Parkinson, J. Phys. Chem. 86, 463 (1982).
* Coehoorn et al. (1987) R. Coehoorn, C. Haas, J. Dijkstra, C. J. F. Flipse, R. A. de Groot, and A. Wold, Phys. Rev. B 35, 6195 (1987).
* Kobayashi and Yamauchi (1995) K. Kobayashi and J. Yamauchi, Phys. Rev. B 51, 17085 (1995).
* Böker et al. (2001) T. Böker, R. Severin, A. Müller, C. Janowitz, R. Manzke, D. Voß, P. Krüger, A. Mazur, and J. Pollmann, Phys. Rev. B 64, 235305 (2001).
* Kim and Kelty (2005) C. Kim and S. Kelty, J. Chem. Phys. 123, 244705 (2005).
* Fang et al. (1995) C. M. Fang, A. R. H. F. Ettema, C. Haas, G. A. Wiegers, H. van Leuken, and R. A. de Groot, Phys. Rev. B 52, 2336 (1995).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-09T10:14:25 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.156203 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Viktoriya V. Ivanovskaya, Alberto Zobelli, Alexandre Gloter, Nathalie\n Brun, Virginie Serin, and Christian Colliex",
"submitter": "Alberto Zobelli",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1411"
} |
0806.1418 | # MAGNETO-ACOUSTIC WAVE OSCILLATIONS IN SOLAR SPICULES
A. Ajabshirizadeh1,2,3, E. Tavabi1,4, S. Koutchmy4
1 Department of Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics, Tabriz University, 51664
Tabriz,
2 Research Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics of Maragha,(RIAAM),
3 Research Institute for Applied Physics and Astronomy of Khadjeh Nassiraldin,
Iran,
4 Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris and UPMC, 98 Bis Boulevard Arago, F-75014
Paris, France.
(E-mail: a-adjab@tabrizu.ac.ir, tavabi@tabrizu.ac.ir , koutchmy@iap.fr)
###### Abstract
Some observations suggest that solar spicules show small amplitude and high
frequency oscillations of magneto-acoustic waves, which arise from
photospheric granular forcing. We apply the method of MHD seismology to
determine the period of kink waves. For this purposes, the oscillations of a
magnetic cylinder embedded in a field-free environment is investigated.
Finally, diagnostic diagrams displaying the oscillatory period in terms of
some equilibrium parameters are provided to allow a comparison between
theoretical results and those coming from observations.
PACS: 96.60.-j
Keywords: Spicules; Oscillations; Kink waves; Flux tube.
## 1 Introduction
Spicules are jet-like chromospheric structures and are usually seen all around
the limb of the Sun arising in different directions. The mechanism of spicule
formation and evolution is not well understood (for the propulsive mechanisms,
see reviews of Sterling 2000; Lorrain and Koutchmy 1996; Filippov et al.
2006). Spicules are relatively homogeneous in height along their life time of
approximately 5-15 min., i.e. they are short-lived and comparable to the
photospheric granules lifetime. They have typical up flow speeds of 20-50km/s,
spicules diameter at chromospheric layers are of the order of 200-500km. The
mean number of spicules per supergranule cells at height of km is
approximately 40 (Pataraya et al. 1990), which is covered about 1 percent of
the Sun’s surface and they are usually concentrated between supergranule
cells. Their temperatures and density are higher than those of the surrounding
environment,Parenti et al. (1999) estimated $n_{e}=10^{10}cm^{-3}$ and
$T_{e}\approx 2\times 10^{5}$ ${}^{\circ}K$ in giant spicules see Koutchmy and
Loucif, also named macrospicules, are observed over 20,000 km off-limb and
live 40 min. (Xia et al. 2005) in case of macro-spicules. This means that a
magnetic field of 10G or more is needed for the low-$\beta$ (ratio of the
thermal pressure to the magnetic pressure) conditions (Wilhelm 2000) in case
of macro-spicules. Spicule usually have oscillation behavior, the existence of
5 minutes oscillations in spicules have been firstly reported by
Kulizhanishvili and Nikolsky (1978) and others including spectroscopically
resolved observations. Recently image sequences were studied by De Pontieu et
al. 2003, 2004; Xia et al. (2005); Ajabshirizadeh et al. (2007). These
oscillations seem to be related to p-modes, but it is evident that if spicules
are driven by p-modes, crucial details about their formation are still
missing. Clearly, not all spicular flows are periodic, whereas most
photospheric oscillations are. In addition, the horizontal scale for amplitude
coherence of p-modes ($\approx 8000km$) is well beyond the width of fibrils
(De Pontieu et al. 2003). On the-other-hand, oscillations in spicule with
shorter period have been reported by Nikolsky and Platova (1971). They found
that spicules oscillate along the limb with a characteristic period of about 1
min. If spicules are formed in thin magnetic flux tubes, then the periodic
displacement of the axis observed by them was probably due to the propagation
of kink waves. More recently, Kukhianidze et al. 2006 have reported the
observational signature of propagating kink waves in spicules. The period of
waves was estimated to be 35-70s for a spicule with height 3500 km which may
carry photospheric mechanical energy into the corona. The cutoff period of
kink waves due to stratification in the hydrostatic photosphere is $\approx
660s$ so the expected period of kink waves is well below the cutoff value
(Singh and Dwivedi, 2007). The wavelength was found to be $\approx 1000km$ at
the photosphere level which indicated a granular origin of the waves. Magnetic
flux tubes support transverse kink waves that can be generated in photospheric
magnetic flux tubes through buffeting action of granular motions (Roberts,
1979; Hasan and Kalkofen, 1999) although the extrapolation of the network
magnetic field toward the corona is still a matter of discussion. In this
study, the effect of gravitational stratification has been ignored, Singh and
Dwivedi 2007 have considered kink mode periods with this effect and confirms
with our results.
## 2 Basic MHD Equations
### 2.1 The Dispersion Relations
Magneto-hydrodynamics (MHD) is one of the key tools to understand the
hydrodynamics of magnetized plasmas. It concerns virtually all phenomena
observed in the solar atmosphere: coronal loops, filaments, spicules, etc.
Thanks to high spatial resolution, image processing, and time cadence
capabilities of the SoHO and TRACE spacecraft, oscillating loops (and
spicules) and propagating waves have been identified and localized in the
transition region (TR) and chromosphere, and studied in detail since 1996.
Using seeing free observations, they evidently complement what has been
studied for a long time at ground-based, including spectroscopic analysis.
These discoveries established a new discipline has become know as solar
atmosphere seismology. Many astrophysical plasmas are characterized by a set
of equations that is called ideal MHD equations and includes the continuity,
the momentum, Maxwell’s equations and Ohm’s law. To understand the various
oscillations and waves we observe in the spicule plasma we have to find wave
solutions of the MHD equations (Roberts, 1981), the existence of wave
solutions is generally derived by introducing a small perturbation of physical
parameters (such as: density, velocity and magnetic field) of the plasma, and
to derive dispersion relations $\omega(k)$, which tell us either the group
velocity or phase speed of wave. The cylindrical flux tube appearance of many
magnetic structures in the low-$\beta$ plasmas of the magnetosphere and more
specifically the solar chromosphere and corona encourages an investigation of
propagation in cylindrical geometries. Edwin and Roberts (1983) consider a
uniform cylinder of magnetic field $B_{0}\widehat{z}$ confined to a region of
radius 2b, surrounded by a uniform magnetic field $B_{e}\widehat{z}$, the gas
pressure and density within the cylinder are $P_{0},\rho_{0}$ , outside
$P_{e},\rho_{e}$ respectively (see figure 1). The Fourier form of the velocity
disturbance $v_{1}$ in cylindrical coordinate is:
$\begin{array}[]{c}v_{1}=v_{1}(r)\exp[i(wt+n\theta-k_{z}z)],\end{array}$ (2.1)
where n is integer (n=0, 1, 2 ) which describes the azimuthally behavior of
the oscillating tube i.e. the cylindrically symmetric (sausage or pulsation
mode given by n=0, the asymmetric (kink or taut-wire) mode given by n=1 and
higher mode with n=2, 3 are called the fluting or interchange modes. The
general governing equation is (Edwin and Roberts 1983):
$\begin{array}[]{c}\frac{d}{dr}[\frac{\rho_{\alpha}(r)(k^{2}_{z}V^{2}_{A\alpha}-\omega^{2})}{(m^{2}_{\alpha}+\frac{n^{2}}{r^{2}})}\frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}(rv_{1})]-{\rho_{\alpha}(r)(k^{2}_{z}V^{2}_{A\alpha}-\omega^{2})}v_{1}=0,\end{array}$
(2.2)
where $m_{0}$ and $m_{e}$ are defined by $m_{\alpha}$ (with $\alpha=0$ or
$\alpha=e$ inside or outside of the tube respectively):
$\begin{array}[]{c}m_{\alpha}=\frac{(k^{2}_{z}C^{2}_{\alpha}-\omega^{2})(k^{2}_{z}V^{2}_{A\alpha}-\omega^{2})}{(C^{2}_{\alpha}+V^{2}_{A\alpha})(k^{2}_{z}C^{2}_{T\alpha}-\omega^{2})}\end{array}$
(2.3)
where $C_{\alpha}=(\frac{\gamma P_{\alpha}}{\rho_{\alpha}})^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and
$V_{A\alpha}=\frac{B_{\alpha}}{(\mu\rho_{\alpha})^{\frac{1}{2}}}$ are the
sound and Alfv n speed inside (or outside) the cylinder, and $C_{T\alpha}$ is
defined as:
$\begin{array}[]{c}C_{T\alpha}=\frac{C_{\alpha}V_{A\alpha}}{\sqrt{(C^{2}_{\alpha}+v^{2}_{A\alpha})}}\end{array}$
(2.4)
( $\gamma$ is the ratio of specific heats.) The external and internal
solutions of MHD equations need to be matched at the boundary by the
continuity of pressure and the perpendicular component of velocity. After some
algebra one gets the dispersion relation for magneto-acoustic waves in a
cylindrical magnetic flux tube is found to be (Edwin and Roberts 1983; D az et
al. 2002):
$\begin{array}[]{c}\rho_{e}(\omega^{2}-k^{2}_{z}v^{2}_{Ae})m_{0}\frac{I^{\prime}_{n}(m_{0}b)}{I_{n}(m_{0}b)}+\rho_{0}(\omega^{2}-k^{2}_{z}v^{2}_{A0})m_{e}\frac{K^{\prime}_{n}(m_{e}b)}{K_{n}(m_{e}b)}=0,\end{array}$
(2.5)
where $I_{n}$ and $K_{n}$ are modified Bessel functions of order n, with
$I^{\prime}_{n}$ and $K^{\prime}_{n}$ being the derivatives with respect to
the argument x. This dispersion relation describes both surface (for
$m^{2}_{0}>0$ ) and body waves (for $m^{2}_{0}<0$ ).
### 2.2 Kink-mode period
Magneto-acoustic oscillations of kink mode have now been directly observed in
$H\alpha$ line using 53-cm coronagraph the Abastumani Astrophysical
Observatory at different heights above the photosphere (Kukhianidze et al.
2006). The ratio of the spicule width 2b to the spicule full length 2L is
$\frac{b}{L}=0.01-0.4$ , which is correspond to the dimensionless wave number
(kL).
Therefore, the observed kink-mode oscillations are in the long-wavelength
regime of $KL<<1$, where the phase speed of kink-mode is practically equal to
the kink speed (Spruit, 1981; Roberts et al. 1984) given by:
$\begin{array}[]{c}C_{k}=(\frac{\rho_{0}V^{2}_{A0}+\rho_{e}V^{2}_{Ae}}{\rho_{0}+\rho\rho_{e}})^{\frac{1}{2}},\end{array}$
(2.6)
In the low-$\beta$ plasma limit and for the field free environment, the
expression for the kink speed $C_{k}$ reduces to:
$\begin{array}[]{c}C_{k}\approx(\frac{2}{1+\frac{\rho_{e}}{\rho_{0}}})^{\frac{1}{2}}V_{A0},\end{array}$
(2.7)
If we denote the full spicule length l=2L, the wavelength of the fundamental
standing wave is the double spicule length (due to the forward and backward
propagation) i.e., $\lambda=2l$ and thus the wave number of the fundamental
mode (N=1) is $k_{z}=\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}=\frac{\pi}{l}$, while higher
harmonics (N=2, ) would have wave numbers $k_{z}=N(\frac{\pi}{l})$, then the
time period P of a kink-mode oscillation at the fundamental harmonic is:
$\begin{array}[]{c}P\approx\frac{2l}{C_{k}}=\frac{2l}{V_{A0}}(\frac{1+\frac{\rho_{e}}{\rho_{0}}}{2})^{\frac{1}{2}},\end{array}$
(2.8)
and for higher harmonics,
$\begin{array}[]{c}P\approx\frac{2l\sqrt{\mu}}{NB_{0}}(\frac{\rho_{0}+\rho_{e}}{2})^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{array}$
(2.9)
## 3 Results
Such as has been pointed out before, the determinant coming from dispersion
equation (2-5) must be truncated by taking into account a finite number of
basis functions and we will use surface wave ($m^{2}_{0}>0$ in Eq. 2-5). As we
know, the kink wave is essentially non-dispersive and has a phase speed equal
to the kink speed, $v_{ph}=\frac{\omega}{k_{z}}\approx C_{k}\approx V_{A0}$ so
we introduce dimensionless frequency which is given by $\frac{\omega
L}{V_{A0}}$ for odd modes and the fundamental modes and their harmonics have a
cutoff frequency for odd modes equal $\pi$ (see Diaz et al. 2002).
In figure 2 the eigenfrequencies of the kink (n=1) odd modes
($\omega_{cutoff}=\pi$ ) have been plotted in term of the spicule half-
thickness. In this plot we can see that for small value of $\frac{b}{L}$ only
the fundamental and lower harmonics could appear and for large ratio of
$\frac{b}{L}$ the frequency of the fundamental mode is insensitive to the
spicule thickness. One of the essential results of these plots is that the
oscillatory frequency is quite insensitive to the exact value of the ratio
$\frac{b}{L}$ (the ratio of the spicule thickness to the half-length of
magnetic field lines inside the spicule), i.e., for a given length 2L,
spicules with different thickness oscillate with the same frequency, this is
perhaps an interesting result, and this subject have been firstly reported by
D az et al. 2002, for kink waves in the prominence fibrils. We continue by
choosing two typical values of the spicule full length, namely, l=3500 and
8500km, and then plot the frequency of odd modes below the cutoff as a
function of $(\frac{\rho_{e}}{\rho_{0}})$ (see figure 3-a, b).
In these plots, we keep $\frac{b}{L}=0.05,0.03$ constant for two lengths of
spicule respectively. For all harmonic modes the frequency is seen to slowly
decrease with increasing $(\frac{\rho_{e}}{\rho_{0}})$ and more oscillatory
modes are present for large values of this quantity. To compute the
corresponding periods for each harmonic modes, we used l=3500 and 8500km,
$B_{0}=30G$ and $\rho_{0}=3\times 10^{-10}kgm^{-3}$. The periods obtained from
these quantities and using Eq. (2-9) is labeled P and correspond to the right
vertical axes in figure 3 (see also Table 1).
The period, P, (figure 3- a, b right vertical axes and table 1) for different
values of $\frac{b}{L}$ , L calculated from the expression of Eq. (2-5) and
(2-9), show that the fundamental and first harmonic have typical periods of
$\approx 30-80s$. These periods which are obtained from a simple MHD approach
are found in the more recently reported observational results (Kukhianidze et
al. 2006). where oscillation periods in the range of kink wave of $\approx
35-70s$ are found for spicules with height 3500-8700 km. From the theoretical
point of view, we therefore expect kink wave periods in the range of $\approx
80-120s$ for length of $\approx 10,000-14,000km$ which could be found from
future observations of kink wave inside spicules (Hinode observations).
_Acknowledgments._ The authors are most grateful to A. J. D az for useful
discussions and critical reading of the manuscript.
## References
* [1] Ajabshirizadeh, A., Tavabi, E., Koutchmy, S., 2008, New Astron., 13, 93
* [2] De Pontieu, B., Erdelyi, James, S. P., 2004, Nature 430, 536
* [3] De Pontieu, B., Erdelyi, R. and De Wijn, A. G., 2003, ApJ, 595, L63
* [4] Diaz, A. J., Oliver, R. and Ballester, J. L., 2002, ApJ, 580, 550
* [5] Edwin, P. M. and Roberts, B., 1983, Solar Phys., 88, 179
* [6] Filippov, B., Koutchmy, S., Vilinga, J., 2007, Astron. and Astrophys., 464, 1119
* [7] Hasan, S. S. and Kalkofen, W., 1999, ApJ, 519, 899 Lorrain, P. and Koutchmy, S., 1996, Solar Phys., 165, L115
* [8] Koutchmy, S. and Loucif, M., 1991, mcch. conf. 152
* [9] Kukhianidze, V., Zagarashvili, T.V., Khutsishvili, E., 2006, Astron. and Astrophys., 449, L35
* [10] Kulidzanishvili, V. I., and Nikolsky, G.M., 1978, Solar Phys., 59, 21
* [11] Nikolsky,G. M. and Platova, A.G., 1971, Solar Phys., 18, 403
* [12] Parenti, S., Del Zanna, G., Bromage, B.J.I., 1999, In: Proceedings of the 9th European Meeting on Solar Physics, Magnetic Fields and Processes, vol. SP-448, p. 623
* [13] Pataray, A. D., Taktakishvili, A. L., Chargeishvili, B. B., 1990, Solar Phys., 128, 333
* [14] Roberts, B., 1979, Solar Phys., 61, 23
* [15] Roberts, B., 1981, Solar Phys., 69, 27
* [16] Roberts, B., Edwin, P. M., Benze, A. O. 1984, ApJ, 279, 857
* [17] Spruit, H.C., 1981, Astron. and Astrophys, 98, 155
* [18] Sterling, H. C., 2000, Solar Phys., 196, 79
* [19] Singh, K. A. P. and Dwivedi, B. N., 2007, New Astron., 12, 479
* [20] Wilhelm, K., 2000, Astron. and Astrophys., 360, 351
* [21] Xia, L. D.; Popescu, M. D.; Doyle, J. G.; Giannikakis, J., 2005, Astron. and Astrophys., 438, 1115
* [22]
Figure Captions
Figure-1: Fig.1- Sketch of the equilibrium configuration used in this study.
The density and magnetic field inside the spicule are $B_{e},\rho_{e}$, and in
chromosphere environment are $B_{0},\rho_{0}$. The magnetic field is uniform
and along z-axis..
Figure-2: Fig. 2. Variation of the frequency with the spicule half-thickness
for Kink-Modes for the set of value 2L=8500km, and for the density ratio
$\frac{\rho_{e}}{\rho_{0}}$=0.03.
Figure-3: Fig. 3- a, b. Frequency of the kink odd modes
vs.$\frac{\rho_{e}}{\rho_{0}}$ for two full length of sipules and
$\frac{b}{L}=0.05,0.03$ for the parameters . The right-hand axis provides the
period P after estimation that magnetic field strength, the spicule density,
and full-length of spicules are $\rho_{0}=3\times 10^{-10}kgm^{-3}$
(corresponding to a $2\times 10^{11}$ number density), $B_{0}=30G$, and
2L=3500, 8500km, respectively.
Figure-4: TABLE 1
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-09T10:41:48 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.161025 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "A. Ajabshirizadeh, E. Tavabi, S. Koutchmy",
"submitter": "Ehsan Tavabi",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1418"
} |
0806.1511 | # Using Charged Particle Imaging to Study Ultracold Plasma Expansion
X. L. Zhang, R. S. Fletcher, and S. L. Rolston Joint Quantum Institute,
Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
###### Abstract
We develop a projection imaging technique to study ultracold plasma dynamics.
We image the charged particle spatial distributions by extraction with a high-
voltage pulse onto a position-sensitive detector. Measuring the 2D width of
the ion image at later times (the ion image size in the first 20 $\mu$s is
dominated by the Coulomb explosion of the dense ion cloud), we extract the
plasma expansion velocity. These velocities at different initial electron
temperatures match earlier results obtained by measuring the plasma
oscillation frequency. The electron image size slowly decreases during the
plasma lifetime because of the strong Coulomb force of the ion cloud on the
electrons, electron loss and Coulomb explosion effects.
ultracold plasma, plasma expansion, charged particle imaging
###### pacs:
52.27.Aj, 52.27.Gr, 52.70.-m
Ultracold plasmas (UCPs), formed by photoionizing laser-cooled atoms near the
ionization limit, have well-controlled initial conditions and slow dynamics
compared to other laser-produced plasma systems, and thus provide a clean and
simple source with excellent spatial and temporal resolution available to
study basic plasma phenomena. In the majority of experiments to date, UCPs
have been unconfined and freely expanded into vacuum, a fundamentally
important dynamic in laser-produced plasmas as well as UCPs. The first
experimental study of the expansion of UCPs was performed using the plasma
frequency as a probe of the plasma density as a function of time kulin2000 .
By applying a small RF electric field to excite plasma oscillations, the
plasma density time dependence was mapped from the oscillations, and a
ballistic expansion of the plasma was found, i.e.
$\sigma^{2}(t)={\sigma^{2}_{0}+v^{2}_{0}t^{2}}$. For initial electron
temperatures $T_{e}(0)\geq$ 70 K, the expansion velocities follow
$v_{0}^{2}=k_{B}T_{e}/m_{i}$, the ion acoustic velocity due to the electron
pressure on the ions, in agreement with a simple hydrodynamics model. At low
initial temperatures, the UCPs expand faster than expected, which indicates
plasma heating. The expansion dynamics of UCPs have subsequently been studied
experimentally by various methods, such as plasma collective modes
fletcher2006 , absorption imaging simien2004 , fluorescence imaging
cummings2005 , and theoretically bergeson2003 ; robicheaux2003 ; pohl2004 ;
mazevet2002 .
In this work we use a projection imaging technique to study the UCP dynamics
during the full lifetime of the plasma. We image the charged particle (ions or
electrons) spatial distribution of an expanding UCP by extracting them with a
high-voltage pulse and accelerating them onto a position-sensitive detector.
The expansion is self-similar, as the ion (or electron) cloud maintains a
Gaussian density profile throughout the lifetime of the plasma. Early in the
lifetime of the plasma, the ion image size is dominated by the Coulomb
explosion of the dense ion cloud. The image size is at a minimum at about 20
$\mu$s and then afterwards increases (the Coulomb explosion of the ion cloud
becomes negligible), reflecting the true size of the plasma. We obtain the ion
image width by 2D Gaussian fitting, and extract the final asymptotic expansion
velocity by fitting the linear region of the ion images as a function of time
at later plasma times ($\geq$ 20 $\mu$s). Assuming that the ion cloud
maintains the Gaussian density distribution during the Coulomb explosion
phase, we can extract the actual ion cloud size from the ion projection image
by accounting for the Coulumb explosion effect. The plasma size indeed follows
the ballistic expansion as expected from a simple hydrodymics model throughout
the whole lifetime of the plasma. Including the corrected plasma sizes in the
first 20 $\mu$s compared to that obtained by only fitting the linear region at
later times only amounts to a few percent change in asymptotic velocity. The
velocities at different initial electron temperatures matches earlier results
obtained by measuring the plasma oscillation frequency kulin2000 , which
provides strong support for this method to study the UCP expansion and the
previous technique. We can also image the electrons during the lifetime of an
UCP by switching the polarity of the high-voltage pulse and the accelerating
voltages on the grids. Unlike the ion images, The size of the electron image
slowly decreases during the lifetime of UCP because of the strong Coulomb
effect of the dense ion cloud on the electrons, electron loss and Coulomb
explosion effect. This technique provides a good tool to study UCP dynamics in
a magnetic field, such as expansion zhang20081 and plasma instabilities
zhang20082 .
Figure 1: Two-photon excitation process and experimental setup. (a) two-
photon excitation process: one photon (red solid line) at 882 nm drives the
$6s[3/2]_{2}$ $\rightarrow$ $6p[5/2]_{3}$ transition, and the other (10-ns
pulse) at 514 nm ionizes the atoms in the $6p[5/2]_{3}$ state. (b)
experimental setup for imaging the charged particles onto the MCP/phosphor
screen.
Details of the creation of ultracold neutral plasmas are described in
killian1999 . We accumulate about $10^{6}$ metastable Xenon atoms, trapped and
cooled in a magneto-optical trap to a temperature of $\sim$ 20 $\mu$K. The
atomic cloud has a Gaussian spatial density distribution with a peak density
of about 2 x 1010 cm-3 and an rms-radius of $\sim$ 0.3 mm. We produce the
plasma with a two-photon excitation process (882-nm photon from the cooling
laser and 514-nm photon from a 10-ns pulsed dye laser), ionizing up to 30$\%$
of the atoms. We control the ionization fraction with the intensity of the
photoionization laser, while the initial electron energy is controlled by
tuning the 514-nm photon energy with respect to the ionization limit, usually
in the 1-1000 K range. The ionized cloud rapidly loses a few percent of the
electrons, resulting in a slightly attractive potential for the remaining
electrons, and quickly reaches a quasineutral plasma state. It then freely
expands with an asymptotic velocity $v_{0}$ typically in the 50-100 m/s range
caused by the outward electron pressurekulin2000 .
Figure 2: (a) a false color ion image (2D ion spatial distribution integrated
over the third dimension) of an expanding UCP at t = 20 $\mu$s, $T_{e}(0)$ =
100 K; (b) the 2-D Gaussian fittings (blue curves) of the ion image (a) along
the x and y axis in the horizontal plane (red curves); (c)and (e) are the
contour plots of the ion images at different delay times for $T_{e}(0)$ = 200
K and 10 K, respectively; (d) and (f) are the corresponding 2-D Gaussian
fitings of (c) and (e). All the size related units in (a)-(f) are in pixel
number, and one pixel unit corresponds to 150 $\mu$m. The y axis of (d) and
(f) is in arbitrary unit.
For projection imaging of charged particles, external electric fields are
applied via four grids to direct and accelerate them towards a position-
sensitive detector (a micro-channel plate detector with phosphor screen)
(figure 1b). Two grids (”top” and ”bottom” grids) are 1.5 cm above and below
the plasma, and the other two (”middle” and ”front” grids) are located between
the bottom grid and the detector. By applying a high-voltage pulse to the top
grid at a specific delay time after the formation of the UCP and with
accelerating voltages on the middle and front grids (-300 V and -700 V for
ions, 130 V and 300 V for electrons), we image the charged particle
distribution of expanding UCPs onto the phosphor screen. The phosphor image,
recorded by a CCD camera, is proportional to the charged particle density, and
weakly sensitive to their energy. The high-voltage pulse has an amplitude of
340 V for ions (-200 V for electrons), a width of 4 $\mu$s, and a rise time of
60 ns. It is generated by modifying the square pulse generator used in ion
beam deflection in a neutron generator tomic1990 , which uses power FETs to
fast switch a HV source. Figure 2 shows typical ion projection images (2D ion
spatial distributions intergrated over the third dimension) with averages of 8
images to increase the signal-to-noise ratio. The units are in pixels, which
correspond to approximately 150 $\mu$m. Figure 2a is a false color plot of an
ion image of an UCP at a 20 $\mu$s delay time and initial electron temperature
$T_{e}(0)$ of 100 K, which fits well to a 2D Gaussian profile (figure 2b). The
ion images maintain a Gaussian profile during most of the lifetime of the UCP
as shown in figure 2c-2f. We note that the ion profiles have a flat top and
even a dip at very later times about 150-200 $\mu$s (figs. 2d and 2f,
expecially for high $T_{e}(0)$), and this appears earlier for higher
$T_{e}(0)$. It is currently unknown what causes the flat top and dip in the
center of the ion images.
Figure 3: measured plasma size as a function of elapsed time after the
formation of UCP for different initial temperatures. The curves are for
$T_{e}(0)$ of 400 K, 200 K, 60 K and 10 K from top to bottom, respectively.
Early in the lifetime of the plasma, the size of the image is dominated by the
Coulomb explosion of the dense ion cloud.
We extract the plasma size by 2D Gaussian fitting of the ion images (figs. 2c
and 2e) at specific delay times after the formation of the UCP. Figure 3 shows
the measured plasma sizes as a function of delayed time for different
$T_{e}(0)$. The curves are for $T_{e}(0)$ of 400 K, 200 K, 60 K and 10 K from
top to bottom respectively. Early in the lifetime of the plasma, the measured
image size is dominated by the strong Coulomb explosion of the dense ion cloud
during transit to the detector, not the true size of the plasma. This is
because the electrons are extracted from the UCPs very quickly (a few ns) by
the HV pulse, leaving a Gaussian distribution of charged ions. The ions then
fly to the detector in about 9 $\mu$s, set by the HV pulse and the
accelerating voltages of the other grids (the time-of-flight time of the ions
to the detector can be determined from the delay time of the ion current after
the formation of the plasma relative to the HV pulse). At early times ($\leq$
20 $\mu$s), the plasma size is still small (on the order of the intial size,
several hundred micros) and the strong Coulomb repulsion between the ions
produces a large ion image. As the plasma size increases, the Coulomb
explosion effect diminishes and no longer affects the measured size. The image
size is at a minimum at about 20 $\mu$s and afterwards increases, reflecting
the true size of the plasma with a constant magnification factor of 1.3
(discussed below), as expected from the ballistic expansion model. The size
increases slowly and the minimum point of the measured plasma size moves to a
later time as we decrease $T_{e}(0)$, because the expansion velocity which
depends on $T_{e}(0)$ gets smaller, and also the Coulomb explosion effect
diminishes more slowly because of the slower expansion.
Assuming that the ion distribution is not affected by the fast HV pulse and
maintains a spherical Gaussian distribution during the ions transport to the
detector, we can extract the initial ion cloud size from the ion projection
image by correcting for the Coulumb explosion effect. This is done as follows:
First, we start with the time dependent plasma density distribution
$n(r,t)=n_{0}(\sigma_{0}/\sigma_{t})^{3}e^{-r^{2}/(2\sigma^{2}_{t})}$; then,
we calculate the Coulomb potential of the ion cloud at specific delay time and
extract the average acceleration of the ion cloud; next, we obtain the ion
cloud size and expansion velocity after the Coulomb explosion with a small
time-of-flight step (small enough for constant accerelation for each
iteration); finally, we iterate this procedure to get the final ion cloud size
after the total time-of-flight, which agrees with the measured ion size. that
is, the plasma size indeed follows the ballistic expansion as expected from a
simple hydrodymics model througout the whole lifetime of the UCP. This only
results in a few percent change in the plasma expansion velocity by including
the corrected plasma sizes of the early times compared to that found by only
fitting the linear region of the ion image sizes at later times. If we also
consider that the ion cloud will freely expand with the ion acoustic velocity
in addition to the Coulumb explosion during the time-of-flight, we need to
shift the plasma sizes up by several hundred micrometers, which is equivalent
to shifting the x-axis (time) in figure 3, but this does not affect the
extracted plasma expansion velocity. At later times, especially for high
$T_{e}(0)$, the measured size does not linearly increase. This is partly
because the size of the UCP is large enough to be affected by the 4 posts that
secure the grids above and below the plasma (the top and bottom grids), and it
approaches the 3-cm size of the detector.
Figure 4: The asymptotic expansion velocity as a function of $T_{e}(0)$. The
red solid line with squares is the experimental result which matches the
results obtained by measuring the plasma oscillation frequency (the black
solid curve with circles)kulin2000 . The red dashed line is the linear fitting
of the data above 60 K with a slope of about 1/2.
By fitting to the sizes after about 20 $\mu$s (for high $T_{e}(0)$, only
fitting the restricted linear region), we can get the asymptotic expansion
velocities of UCPs at different $T_{e}(0)$ with a magnification factor of 1.3
due to an ion lensing effect (the red solid curve with square points in figure
4). The magnification arises from the electric fields which tend to focus or
expand the ions (depending on the voltage settings of the grids) as they
transport to the detector. It is confirmed by adjusting the voltages on the
grids (especially the middle and front grids), which strongly affect the ion
image size as well as the scaling factor. By using an ion optics simulation
program, we simulate our ion projection imaging setup with the actual spacings
and voltage settings of the grids, and find the ion lensingmagnification
factor from the trajectories (which is 1.3 for the images at figure 2). At
high $T_{e}(0)$ ($\geq 60$ K), the expansion velocities
$v_{0}\propto\sqrt{T_{e}(0)}$ as expected from a simple hydrodymics model,
that is, the slope of the red dashed line in figure 4 is about 1/2; at lower
$T_{e}(0)$ ($\leq 60$ K), the expansion velocities are higher than expected
from the self-similiar expansion, which indicates heating. The black solid
line with open circles is the asymptotic expansion velocity obtained by
measuring the plasma oscillation frequency kulin2000 . The good agreement
between our experimental results and earlier results obtained by measuring the
plasma oscillation frequency strongly supports the measurement of UCP
expansion velocities with both the projection imaging method and the previous
technique.
The excess expansion velocity at low $T_{e}(0)$ as seen in kulin2000 and in
fig. 4 is attributable to heating due to three-body recombination (TBR)
collisions, and was verified in killian2001 , which directly observed the
Rydberg atoms formed in the collisions.The $T_{e}^{-9/2}$ dependence of TBR
makes it important in UCPs, and especially at low $T_{e}$.
Figure 5: The electron sizes of UCPs as a function of time for $T_{e}(0)$ =
100 K. The black curve with dots is the electron size extracted from the 2D
Gaussian fitting of the electron images. The brown curve with triangles is the
electron size with the scaling factor due to the charged particle lensing
effect, which is consistent with the theoretical calculation electron size
with 100 ns Coulumb explosion time (the red curve with open squares).
Using the same imaging technique as for ions, we can also image the electrons
by reversing the polarity of the HV pulse and the voltages on the grids
between the plasma and detector. Figure 5 is the measured electron size as a
function of elapsed time after the formation of the UCP. The black curve with
circles is the measured electron size extracted from the 2D Gaussian fitting
of the images. The brown curve with triangles is the electron size with the
actual scaling factor due to an electron lensing effect, which is consistent
with the theoretical calculation of electron size with a 100-ns Coulumb
explosion time (the red curve with open squares), which also took into account
electron loss due to the evaporation of electrons out of the system. We assume
that the ion cloud follows a ballistic expansion model (the blue curve with
diamonds), while the electron distribution is initially identical to the ion
distribution, but with a truncation at the appropriate radius such that the
total electron number agrees with the measured charge imbalance at a specific
delay time. We then perform self-consistent calculations for the plasma
potential to extract the final electron size (the magenta curve with squares).
The electron magnification is obtained from trajectory simulations with the
voltage settings of the grids and the ion spatial distribution. We note that
the electron lensing factor, unlike that of the ions, is not constant during
the whole UCP lifetime due to the strong coulumb force of the ion cloud on the
much lighter electrons, especially for the first 30 $\mu$s of the plasma
lifetime. The electrons are removed from the plasma in a few ns after applying
the HV pulse, but the ions maintain their Gaussian spatial distribution during
that short period of time, which exerts a strong Coulomb force on the
electrons and partially cancels the applied electric field. This increases the
electron lensing, confirmed by the trajectory simulation. As the plasma
expands, the plasma size gets larger, and the Coulumb force on the electrons
due to the ion cloud gets smaller, so the electron lensing tends towards a
constant at later times ($\geq$ 30 $\mu$s). The ion lensing is constant
because there are no electrons left during the ion Coulumb explosion phase.
In conclusion, we have developed a projection imaging technique to study the
dynamics of an expanding ultracold plasma. Unlike the previous experimental
technique that used the plasma oscillation frequency, which only worked at
early times, this method can study expansion dynamics for the entire plasma
lifetime. In addition, we can measure both the evolving electron and ion
spatial distributions. This method will be usefull for further study of
ultracold plasmas, such as plasma instabilities, plasma expansion under
different condition of magnetic confinement.
###### Acknowledgements.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation PHY-0714381.
## References
* (1) S. Kulin, T. C. Killian, S. D. Bergeson, and S. L. Rolston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 318 (2000).
* (2) R. S. Fletcher, X. L. Zhang, and S. L. Rolston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 105003 (2006).
* (3) C. E. Simien, Y. C. Chen, P. Gupta, Y. N. Martinez, P. G. Mickelson, S. B. Nagel, and T. C. Killian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 143001 (2004).
* (4) E. A. Cummings, J. E. Daily, D. S. Durfee, and S. D. Bergeson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 235001 (2005).
* (5) S. D. Bergeson and R. L. Spencer, Phys. Rev. E 67, 026414 (2003).
* (6) F. Robicheaux and J. D. Hanson, Phys. Plasmas 10, 2217 (2003).
* (7) T. Pohl, T. Pattard, and J. Rost, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 155003 (2004).
* (8) S. Mazevet, L. collins, adn J. D. Kress, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 055001 (2002).
* (9) X. L. Zhang, R. S. Fletcher, and S. L. Rolston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 253002 (2008).
* (10) X. L. Zhang, R. S. Fletcher, and S. L. Rolston, Observation of an ultracold plasma instability, arXiv-0806.4691.
* (11) T. C. Killian, S. Kulin, S. D. Bergeson, L. A. Orozco, C. orzel, and S. L. Rolston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4776 (1999).
* (12) D. Tomic, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 61, 1729 (1990).
* (13) T. C. Killian, M. L. Lim, S. Kulin, R. Dumke, S. D. Bergeson,and S. L. Rolston, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3759 (2001).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-09T18:16:38 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.166267 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "X. L. Zhang, R. S. Fletcher, and S. L. Rolston",
"submitter": "Xianli Zhang",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1511"
} |
0806.1571 | # On a certain asymptotic relationship involving $\vartheta(t)-\lfloor
t\rfloor$ and $t^{1/2}$
Hisanobu Shinya
###### Abstract
Let $\lfloor t\rfloor$ denote the greatest positive integer less than or equal
to a given positive real number $t$ and $\vartheta(t)$ the Chebyshev
$\vartheta$-function. In this paper, we prove a certain asymptotic
relationship involving $\vartheta(t)-\lfloor t\rfloor$ and $t^{1/2}$.
Email address: shinyah18@yahoo.co.jp
Keywords: Chebyshev $\vartheta$-function, power series, Riemann zeta function,
Riemann Hypothesis.
2000 MSC: 11N37, 30B10.
## 1 Introduction
Let $\psi(t)$ and $\vartheta(t)$ denote the Chebyshev $\psi$-function and the
Chebyshev $\vartheta$-function, respectively; as always, if $p$ denotes primes
and $w$ positive integers, then using the Mangoldt $\Lambda$-function which is
$\Lambda(n):=\begin{cases}\log p&:n=p^{w}\\\ 0&:\text{otherwise},\end{cases}$
the former is defined by
$\psi(t):=\sum_{n\leq t}\Lambda(n),$
and the latter by
$\vartheta(t):=\sum_{p\leq t}\log p.$
Let $\lfloor t\rfloor$ denote the greatest positive integer less than or equal
to a given positive real number $t$ and
$\eta(t):=\vartheta(t)-\lfloor t\rfloor.$
In this discussion, we prove a certain asymptotic relationship involving
$\eta(t)$ and $t^{1/2}$.
Classical analysis of arithmetical functions has brought forth a number of
concise asymptotic formulas such as [1, Theorem 4.9]
$\psi(x)=O(x)\quad\text{as $x\to\infty$}$ (1)
or [1, Theorem 4.11]
$\sum_{n\leq x}\psi\left(\frac{x}{n}\right)=x\log x+O(x)\quad\text{as
$x\to\infty$}.$ (2)
At the time when the prime number theorem was yet a conjecture, formulas such
as (1) and (2) may have been considered as evidences for the theorem. History,
as in the case of the prime number theorem, suggests that while asymptotic
formulas do not directly put an end to unsolved problems, they may offer some
evidences for such problems.
Given an analytic function $f(s)$, we denote the $n$th derivative of $f(s)$ by
$f^{(n)}(s)$. We define
$E(s):=\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{\eta(t)dt}{t^{s+1}},$
and so
$E^{(n)}(s)=(-1)^{n}\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{\eta(t)(\log t)^{n}dt}{t^{s+1}},$
which are valid for $\text{Re}(s)>1$ because [1, Theorem 4.10]
$\eta(t)=\vartheta(t)-[t]=O(t)\quad\text{as $t\to\infty$}.$
The validity of the integral representation of the derivative of $E(s)$ can be
shown with arguments in Section 11.7 of [1], taking some care with the fact
that the integrand is piecewise continuous.
We denote the Riemann zeta function with $\zeta(s)$, which is defined in the
traditional manner by
$\zeta(s):=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{s}},\quad\text{for
$\text{Re}(s)>1$}.$ (3)
Let $D(s_{0};h)$ ($h>0$) be any disk of radius $h$ centered at $s_{0}$
($\text{Re}(s_{0})>1$) such that
1. 1.
$1/2\in D(s_{0};h)$;
2. 2.
for all $s\in D(s_{0};h)$, we have $\text{Re}(s)>1/3$ and
$\zeta(s),\zeta(2s)\not=0$.
The existence of such a disk $D(s_{0};h)$ follows from the fact that the
magnitude of the imaginary part of any nontrivial root $\rho$ of the
$\zeta$-function is greater than $10$ [2, Chapter 6]. For instance, consider
choosing $s_{0}=1+q$ and $h=1/2+q^{\prime}$, where $q^{\prime}>q>0$ and
$q^{\prime}$ is arbitrarily small. Then it is easy to see that for any $s\in
D(1+q;1/2+q^{\prime})$, $\text{Re}(s)>1/3$, $|\text{Im}(2s)|<10$ and $1/2\in
D(1+q;1/2+q^{\prime})$.
Throughout the paper, the symbols $s_{0}$ and $D(s_{0};h)$ have the same
meanings as defined above.
Being motivated by the optimistic vision on the study of asymptotic number-
theoretic relationships described above, we shall address the following
theorem.
###### Theorem 1.
Let $s_{0}$ ($\text{Re}(s_{0})>1$) be a complex number such that for some
$h>0$, the disk $D(s_{0};h)$ satisfies the conditions $1$ and $2$. Then we
have
$E^{(n)}(s_{0})\sim(-1)^{n+1}n!(s_{0}-1/2)^{-n-1}\quad\text{as $n\to\infty$.}$
Without assuming the Riemann Hypothesis, which is equivalent [2, Chapter 5] to
the formula
$\eta(t)=O(t^{1/2+\epsilon})\quad\text{as $t\to\infty$, for each
$\epsilon>0$},$ (4)
it is generally hard to obtain results concerning the function $\eta(t)$, the
main reason being that few methods for elaborating formulas such as (5) which
do not depend on the distribution of nontrivial roots of the $\zeta$-function
have been widely known. Since for $\text{Re}(s)>1/2$,
$\frac{d^{n}}{ds^{n}}[(s-1/2)^{-1}]=\frac{d^{n}}{ds^{n}}\left[\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{t^{1/2}dt}{t^{s+1}}\right]=(-1)^{n}\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{t^{1/2}(\log
t)^{n}dt}{t^{s+1}}$
and
$\frac{d^{n}}{ds^{n}}[(s-1/2)^{-1}]=(-1)^{n}n!(s-1/2)^{-n-1},$
if $s_{0}$ is as defined in Theorem 1, then the theorem is
$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{\eta(t)(\log
t)^{n}dt}{t^{s_{0}+1}}}{\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{t^{1/2}(\log
t)^{n}dt}{t^{s_{0}+1}}}=-1.$
Hence, Theorem 1 may have some implications for the Riemann Hypothesis (i.e.,
the equation (4)), but we are technically not ready for such an analysis at
present. Hence, in this paper, we focus on Theorem 1.
To prove Theorem 1, we use the fact that the function
$\frac{-1}{s}\left(\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(s)}{\zeta(s)}+\zeta(s)\right)$
is analytic (i.e., Lemma 2) on $D(s_{0};h)$ and another fact that the function
$\Delta(s)$ extends to a meromorphic function on $D(s_{0};h)$ with a simple
pole at $s=1/2$ and residue $1$ at $s=1/2$ (i.e., Lemma 4). Other than these
results of analytic number theory, we employ only basic results on analytic
functions (i.e., Lemmas 5 and 6).
We finish this section with the following preliminary lemmas.
Let
$\delta(t):=\psi(t)-\vartheta(t)$
and
$\Delta(s):=\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{\delta(t)dt}{t^{s+1}}.$
Since [1, Theorem 4.1]
$\delta(t)=O(t^{1/2}(\log t)^{2})\quad\text{as $t\to\infty$},$
the integral representation for $\Delta(s)$ is valid for $\text{Re}(s)>1/2$.
The following lemma gives a relationship between $\eta(t)$, $\delta(t)$, and
$\zeta(s)$, and becomes the starting point for a proof of Theorem 1.
###### Lemma 1.
For $\text{Re}(s)>1$, we have
$\frac{-1}{s}\left(\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(s)}{\zeta(s)}+\zeta(s)\right)=E(s)+\Delta(s).$
(5)
###### Proof.
The following formula [1, Exercise 1, Chapter 11]
$-\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(s)}{s\zeta(s)}=\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{\psi(t)dt}{t^{s+1}},\quad\text{Re}(s)>1$
(6)
is well-known. By the definition $\delta(t)=\psi(t)-\theta(t)$, we write (6)
as
$-\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(s)}{s\zeta(s)}=\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{(\vartheta(t)+\delta(t))dt}{t^{s+1}},\quad\text{Re}(s)>1.$
(7)
Rewriting [1, Exercise 1, Chapter 11] (3) as
$\frac{\zeta(s)}{s}=\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{\lfloor t\rfloor
dt}{t^{s+1}},\quad\text{Re}(s)>1,$ (8)
and taking the difference of the left and right members of (7) and (8), we
have
$\frac{-1}{s}\left(\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(s)}{\zeta(s)}+\zeta(s)\right)=\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{\eta(t)dt}{t^{s+1}}+\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{\delta(t)dt}{t^{s+1}},\quad\text{Re}(s)>1.$
This completes the proof of the lemma.
∎
###### Lemma 2.
The function
$\frac{-1}{s}\left(\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(s)}{\zeta(s)}+\zeta(s)\right)$
is analytic on $D(s_{0};h)$.
###### Proof.
Since there exists no nontrivial root of $\zeta(s)$ on $D(s_{0};h)$, both of
the functions
$\frac{-1}{s}\left(\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(s)}{\zeta(s)}+\frac{1}{s-1}\right)\quad\text{and}\quad\frac{-1}{s}\left(\zeta(s)-\frac{1}{s-1}\right)$
are analytic on $D(s_{0};h)$. (Proofs of the analyticity of both functions at
$s=1$ are given in [1, Theorem 13.8] for that of the former and in [3, Theorem
1.2, Chapter 16] for that of the latter.) It is an elementary fact that the
sum of two functions analytic on $D(s_{0};h)$ is analytic on $D(s_{0};h)$;
hence, the sum of two functions described above is analytic on $D(s_{0};h)$.
This completes the proof of the lemma.
∎
###### Lemma 3.
[3, Lemma 1.2, pp. 374] Let $\\{f_{n}\\}$ be a sequence of analytic functions
on an open set $S$ and let $f_{n}(s)=1+h_{n}(s)$. Suppose that
$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}h_{n}(s)$
converges uniformly and absolutely on $S$. Let $K$ be any compact subset of
$S$ not containing any of the zeros of the functions $f_{n}$ for all
$n=1,2,\ldots$ . Then the product $\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}f_{n}(s)$ converges to
an analytic function $f$ on $S$, and for $s\in K$ we have
$\frac{f^{\prime}(s)}{f(s)}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{f^{\prime}_{n}(s)}{f_{n}(s)}.$
(9)
###### Lemma 4.
The function $\Delta(s)$ extends to a meromorphic function on the disk
$D(s_{0};h)$ with only a simple pole at $s=1/2$. The residue of $\Delta(s)$ at
$s=1/2$ is $1$.
###### Proof.
Let $p_{n}$ denote the $n$th prime. For $\text{Re(s)}>1$, choose
$f_{n}(s)=\frac{1}{1-p_{n}^{-s}}$
in Lemma 3. Then we have [3, Proof of Theorem 1.3, pp. 443]
$-\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(s)}{\zeta(s)}=\sum_{p}\frac{\log
p}{p^{s}}+\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\sum_{p}\frac{\log p}{p^{ns}}.$ (10)
It is easy to show (see [1, Theorem 4.2]) that the first series on the right
side of (10) is the Dirichlet series representation for the function
$s\int_{1}^{\infty}\frac{\vartheta(t)dt}{t^{s+1}}.$
With (6) and the definition of $\delta(t)$, it is easy to see that the second
series on the right side of (10) is the Dirichlet series representation for
the function $s\Delta(s)$, valid for $\text{Re}(s)>1/2$ as noted above.
Hence, to prove the lemma, it is sufficient to show that the analytic
continuation of the function
$\frac{1}{s}\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\sum_{p}\frac{\log p}{p^{ns}}$
to $D(s_{0};h)$ is meromorphic on $D(s_{0};h)$ with only a simple pole at
$s=1/2$ and residue $1$ at $s=1/2$. We separate the series as
$\Delta(s)=\frac{1}{s}\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\sum_{p}\frac{\log
p}{p^{ns}}=\frac{1}{s}\sum_{p}\frac{\log
p}{p^{2s}}+\frac{1}{s}\sum_{n=3}^{\infty}\sum_{p}\frac{\log p}{p^{ns}}.$ (11)
The second series on the extreme right side of (11) converges uniformly and
absolutely on $D(s_{0};h)$ (by the condition $2$ for the definition of
$D(s_{0};h)$), and so it is analytic there.
To analyze the first series on the extreme right side of (11), we choose
$f_{n}(s)=\frac{1}{1-p_{n}^{-2s}}$
in Lemma 3 for $\text{Re}(s)>\frac{1}{2}$. Then we have
$f^{\prime}_{n}(s)=-2p_{n}^{-2s}\log p_{n}(1-p_{n}^{-2s})^{-2},$
and
$\frac{f^{\prime}_{n}(s)}{f_{n}(s)}=\frac{-2p_{n}^{-2s}\log
p_{n}}{1-p_{n}^{-2s}}=\frac{-2\log p_{n}}{p_{n}^{2s}-1}.$
Using the expansion
$\frac{1}{p_{n}^{2s}-1}=\frac{1}{p_{n}^{2s}}\frac{1}{1-p_{n}^{-2s}}=\frac{1}{p_{n}^{2s}}\left(1+\frac{1}{p_{n}^{2s}}+\frac{1}{p_{n}^{4s}}+\cdots\right)=\frac{1}{p_{n}^{2s}}+\frac{1}{p_{n}^{4s}}+\cdots,$
it is easy to see that
$-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\frac{d}{ds}[\zeta(2s)]}{\zeta(2s)}=\sum_{p}\frac{\log
p}{p^{2s}}+\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\sum_{p}\frac{\log p}{p^{2ns}},$
or multiplying by $\frac{1}{s}$,
$-\frac{1}{2s}\frac{\frac{d}{ds}[\zeta(2s)]}{\zeta(2s)}=\frac{1}{s}\sum_{p}\frac{\log
p}{p^{2s}}+\frac{1}{s}\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\sum_{p}\frac{\log p}{p^{2ns}}.$ (12)
Since $\frac{\frac{d}{ds}[\zeta(2s)]}{\zeta(2s)}$ has a simple pole at $s=1/2$
with residue $-1$ (see [3, Lemma 1.4, pp. 180]) and no other singularities on
$D(s_{0};h)$, $\zeta(2s)\not=0$ on $D(s_{0};h)$, and the remaining series on
the right side of (12) converges uniformly and absolutely for
$\text{Re}(s)>1/4$, we find out that the analytic continuation of the function
$\frac{1}{s}\sum_{p}\frac{\log p}{p^{2s}}$ to $D(s_{0};h)$ is meromorphic on
$D(s_{0};h)$ with only a simple pole at $s=1/2$ and residue $1$ at $s=1/2$. By
the first equality in (11), together with the information on the function
$\frac{1}{s}\sum_{p}\frac{\log p}{p^{2s}}$, the proof of the lemma completes.
∎
###### Lemma 5.
[3, Chapters 2 and 3] Let $f$ be analytic on a closed disk $\bar{D}(z_{0};R)$
of radius $R>0$ centered at $z_{0}$. Then $f$ has the unique power series
expansion
$f(s)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}(s-z_{0})^{n},$
where
$a_{n}=\frac{f^{(n)}(z_{0})}{n!}.$
The radius of the convergence of the series is $\geq R$, and the convergence
is absolute.
###### Lemma 6.
[3, Chapter 5] If $f$ is analytic on some disk $D^{\prime}(z_{0};R)$ centered
and punctured at $z_{0}$ and has a simple pole at $s=z_{0}$, then $f$ has the
Laurent series expansion
$f(s)=\frac{a_{-1}}{s-z_{0}}+\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_{n}(s-z_{0})^{n},$
which is valid on $D^{\prime}(z_{0};R)$.
## 2 The proof of Theorem 1
All the symbols have the same meanings as defined in the previous section. In
this section, we give a proof of Theorem 1.
By Lemmas 1, 2, and 4, it is plain that both of the functions
$\quad E(s)\quad\text{and}\quad\Delta(s)$
are meromorphic on $D(s_{0};h)$ with only a simple pole at $s=1/2$.
Now define $H(s)$ by
$H(s):=E(s)+(s-1/2)^{-1}.$ (13)
We show that $H(s)$ is analytic on $D(s_{0};h)$. By Lemmas 4 and 6, the
function
$U(s):=(s-1/2)^{-1}-\Delta(s)$
is analytic on $D(s_{0};h)$.
With Lemma 1, we have
$\frac{-1}{s}\left(\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(s)}{\zeta(s)}+\zeta(s)\right)=E(s)+\Delta(s)=E(s)+(s-1/2)^{-1}-U(s),$
and so rewriting this expression with (13) as
$H(s)=U(s)-\frac{1}{s}\left(\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(s)}{\zeta(s)}+\zeta(s)\right),$
Lemma 2 guarantees that $H(s)$ is indeed analytic on $D(s_{0};h)$.
With Lemma 5, we write
$H(s)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}h_{n}(s-s_{0})^{n},$
$E(s)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{E^{(n)}(s_{0})(s-s_{0})^{n}}{n!},$
and
$(s-1/2)^{-1}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}(s_{0}-1/2)^{-n-1}(s-s_{0})^{n}.$
With these expressions, we rewrite (13) as
$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}h_{n}(s-s_{0})^{n}=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{E^{(n)}(s_{0})}{n!}+(-1)^{n}(s_{0}-1/2)^{-n-1}\right)(s-s_{0})^{n}.$
(14)
Lemma 5 implies that for each $n=0,1,2,\ldots$,
$h_{n}=\frac{E^{(n)}(s_{0})}{n!}+(-1)^{n}(s_{0}-1/2)^{-n-1}.$ (15)
Now in (14), let $s=1/2$. Since $H(s)$ is analytic on $D(s_{0};h)$, the series
$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}|h_{n}||1/2-s_{0}|^{n}$
converges, which implies that
$\lim_{n\to\infty}|h_{n}||1/2-s_{0}|^{n}=0.$ (16)
To prove Theorem 1, for each $n=0,1,2,\ldots,$ we write
$\left|\frac{E^{(n)}(s_{0})}{n!}+(-1)^{n}(s_{0}-1/2)^{-n-1}\right|=\lambda_{n}|s_{0}-1/2|^{-n-1},$
(17)
or with (15),
$|h_{n}|=\lambda_{n}|s_{0}-1/2|^{-n-1}.$ (18)
Substituting (18) to (16), we obtain
$\lim_{n\to\infty}|h_{n}||1/2-s_{0}|^{n}=\lim_{n\to\infty}\lambda_{n}|s_{0}-1/2|^{-1}=0,$
(19)
which implies
$\lim_{n\to\infty}\lambda_{n}=0.$ (20)
Dividing (17) by $|s_{0}-1/2|^{-n-1}$, we have
$\begin{split}\left|\frac{E^{(n)}(s_{0})}{n!(s_{0}-1/2)^{-n-1}}+(-1)^{n}\right|&=\left|\frac{E^{(n)}(s_{0})}{(-1)^{n}n!(s_{0}-1/2)^{-n-1}}+1\right|\\\
&=\lambda_{n},\end{split}$ (21)
where in the first equality, we have used the simple observation
$|X+(-1)^{n}|=|(-1)^{n}((-1)^{n}X+1)|=|(-1)^{n}X+1|,$
valid for any complex number $X$. The proof of Theorem 1 completes by (20) and
(21).
Acknowledgements I thank Jonathan Sondow for his advices on the exposition
and the trick of substituting $s=\frac{1}{2}$ to (14) in the proof of Theorem
1 which has shortened the argument. This technique also appears in the proof
of Lemma 2 of the paper [4], and in fact Theorem 1 is a corollary to the lemma
of Sondow-Zlobin.
## References
* [1] T. M. Apostol, Introduction to Analytic Number Theory, Springer, New York, 1976.
* [2] H. M. Edwards, Riemann’s Zeta Function, Dover, New York, 2001. (First published 1974.)
* [3] S. Lang, Complex Analysis, 4th ed., Springer, New York, 1999.
* [4] J. Sondow and S. Zlobin, Integrals Over Polytopes, Multiple Zeta Values and Polylogarithms, and Euler fs Constant, arXiv:math.NT/0705.0732, v2.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-10T04:44:51 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.172396 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Hisanobu Shinya",
"submitter": "Hisanobu Shinya",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1571"
} |
0806.1598 | # A Positive Solution to a Conjecture of A. Katok for Diffeomorphism Case
Xiongping Dai Department of Mathematics
Nanjing University
Nanjing, 210093, P. R. CHINA xpdai@nju.edu.cn
(Date: June 9, 2008)
###### Abstract.
A. Katok has conjectured that a $C^{1+\alpha}$ map $g\colon M^{n}\rightarrow
M^{n},n\geq 2$, which is Hölder conjugated to an Anosov diffeomorphism is also
an Anosov diffeomorphism. Using Pesin stable manifold theorem and Liao
spectrum theorem, we show that under the hypothesis of such a conjecture, $g$
is an Axiom A diffeomorphism having no cycles. Particularly, if $g$ is Hölder
conjugated to a hyperbolic toral automorphism, then $g$ is Anosov.
###### Key words and phrases:
Anosov diffeomorphism, Pesin stable manifold, Liao theory, shadowing property.
###### 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
37D05, 37D20, 37D25
This project was supported by NSFC (No. 10671088) and 973 project (No.
2006CB805903)
## 1\. Introduction
Let $M^{n}$ be a connected, compact, smooth, and closed Riemannian manifold of
dimension $n\geq 2$. A. Katok has conjectured that if
$g\in\mathrm{Diff}^{1+}(M)$ is Hölder conjugated to an Anosov
$f\in\mathrm{Diff}^{1}(M)$; i.e., there is a Hölder-homeomorphism $h$ of $M$
such that $f=h\circ g\circ h^{-1}$, then $g$ is also an Anosov diffeomorphism.
Here “Hölder-homeomorphism $h$” means that $h$ and its inverse $h^{-1}$ both
are Hölder continuous. And $\mathrm{Diff}^{1+}(M)$ is the set of all $C^{1}$
diffeomorphisms with $\alpha$-Hölder derivatives for some Hölder exponent
$\alpha$ with $0<\alpha\leq 1$.
For convenience, if $g\in\textrm{Diff}^{1+}(M)$ is Hölder conjugated to an
Anosov diffeomorphism, then $g$ is temporally said to be _Katok_. Under the
hypothesis of such a conjecture, in [7] the authors proved the following.
###### Theorem A ([7]).
If $g$ is Katok, then all periodic points of $g$ have only non-zero Lyapunov
exponents, and such exponents are uniformly bounded away from zero.
In this paper, using Pesin stable manifold theorem, Liao spectrum theorem and
Liao reordering theorem, and shadowing property, based on Theorem A above we
obtain a positive solution to Katok’s conjecture as follows.
###### Theorem B.
If $g\in\mathrm{Diff}^{1+}(M)$ is Katok, then $g$ is an Axiom A diffeomorphism
having no cycles.
Consequently, if $g$ is Hölder conjugated to an Anosov diffeomorphism $f$ that
satisfies $\Omega(f)=M$ such as a hyperbolic toral automorphism, then $g$ is
also Anosov. In addition, if $g$ is volume-preserving, then $g$ is Anosov too.
Theorem B shows that Anosov diffeomorphisms have strong rigidity.
This paper is organized as follows. In $\S\ref{sec2}$ we will introduce the
Liao spectrum theorem and reordering theorem for $C^{1}$ differential systems
on Euclidean spaces. Then we will prove a semi-uniform ergodic theorem which
provides us with a criterion from nonuniform hyperbolicity to uniform
hyperbolicity. In $\S\ref{sec3}$ we will prove an approximation theorem of
ergodic measure by periodic measures. In $\S\ref{sec4}$ we will first prove
that a Katok diffeomorphism is nonuniformly hyperbolic for any invariant
measures and then show that it is uniformly hyperbolic. We will consider a
volume-preserving Katok diffeomorphism in the last section.
## 2\. Liao spectrum and reordering theorem
In this section, we will introduce the Liao spectrum theorem and Liao
reordering theorem, which are basic in Liao theory. Then, applying the Liao
spectrum theorem, we will provide with a criterion of uniform contraction.
For simplicity, let us consider throughout this section a nonsingular
autonomous system of $C^{1}$-differential equations in an $(n+1)$-dimensional
Euclidean $w$-space $\mathbb{E}^{n+1},n\geq 2$
$\dot{w}=S(w)\quad w\in\mathbb{E}^{n+1},\
S(w)\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1}-\\{\textbf{0}\\},$
where we write $T_{w}\mathbb{E}^{n+1}=\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ for all $w$ to
distinguish the $w$-state-space $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$ from its tangent $x$-space
$\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, which then naturally gives rise to a $C^{1}$-flow on the
state-space $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$
$\phi\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{E}^{n+1}\rightarrow\mathbb{E}^{n+1};\
(t,w)\mapsto t_{\cdot}w.$
It further induces, on the tangent bundle
$T\mathbb{E}^{n+1}=\mathbb{E}^{n+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$, a smooth linear
skew-product flow
$\displaystyle\varPhi\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{E}^{n+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\rightarrow\mathbb{E}^{n+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{n+1};\
(t,(w,x))\mapsto(t_{\cdot}w,{\varPhi_{t,w}}{x})$ where
$\varPhi_{t,w}\colon\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n+1};\
x\mapsto\frac{\partial\phi(t,w)}{\partial w}x$, corresponding to the extended
system $\displaystyle\dot{w}=S(w),\quad\dot{x}=S^{\prime}(w)x$
on the extended $(w,x)$-phase-space $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$.
### 2.1.
Let $\mathbb{T}=\bigcup_{w\in\mathbb{E}^{n+1}}\mathbb{T}_{w}$, where
$\mathbb{T}_{w}=\left\\{x\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\,|\,\langle
S(w),x\rangle=0\right\\}$, denote the subbundle of the tangent bundle
$\mathbb{E}^{n+1}\times\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ transversal to $S$ over
$\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$, called the _transversal tangent bundle to $S$ over
$\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$_. Then there is another naturally induced smooth linear
skew-product flow
$\varPsi\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{T}\rightarrow\mathbb{T};\
(t,(w,x))\mapsto(t_{\cdot}w,\varPsi_{t,w}{x})$
where along the fiber direction,
$\varPsi_{t,w}\colon\mathbb{T}_{w}\rightarrow\mathbb{T}_{t_{\cdot}w}$ is
defined as the component of $\varPhi_{t,w}x$ transversal to $S(t_{\cdot}w)$
for any $(w,x)\in\mathbb{T}$; that is,
$\varPhi_{t,w}x=rS(t_{\cdot}w)+\varPsi_{t,w}{x}$,
$\varPsi_{t,w}x\in\mathbb{T}_{t_{\cdot}w}$, for some $r\in\mathbb{R}$.
Particularly, let
$\mathscr{F}_{1}^{*\sharp}=\left\\{(w,x)\in\mathbb{T}\colon\|x\|=1\right\\}$
be the unit transversal tangent bundle to $S$ over $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$. Then,
there is a natural skew-product flow
$\varPsi^{\sharp}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{1}^{*\sharp}\rightarrow\mathscr{F}_{1}^{*\sharp};\
(t,(w,x))\mapsto(t_{\cdot}w,\varPsi_{t,w}^{\sharp}{x})$
where
$\varPsi_{t,w}^{\sharp}{x}=\varPsi_{t,w}{x}/\|\varPsi_{t,w}^{\sharp}{x}\|.$
### 2.2.
By the _bundle of transversal orthogonal $n$-frames_ over $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$,
it means $\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*}$, where the fiber at $w$ is given by
$\mathscr{F}_{n,w}^{*}=\left\\{\gamma\in\stackrel{{\scriptstyle
n\textrm{-time}}}{{\overbrace{\mathbb{T}_{w}\setminus\\{\textbf{0}\\}\times\cdots\times\mathbb{T}_{w}\setminus\\{\textbf{0}\\}}}}\,|\,\langle\textrm{col}_{i}{\gamma},\textrm{col}_{j}{\gamma}\rangle=0,\
1\leq i\neq j\leq n\right\\}.$
Here and in the future, for $1\leq i\leq n$
$\textrm{col}_{i}\colon(v_{1},\ldots,v_{n})\mapsto v_{i}.$
Using the well-known Gram-Schmidt orthogonalizing process, based on
$(\mathbb{E}^{n+1},\phi)$, we can obtain from $\varPsi$ the well-defined skew-
product flow on $\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*}$ as follows
$\chi^{*}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*}\rightarrow\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*};\
(t,(w,\gamma))\mapsto(t_{\cdot}w,\chi_{t,w}^{*}\gamma).$
The bundle of transversal orthonormal $n$-frames over $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$ is
written as $\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}$, where the fiber at $w$ is defined as
$\mathscr{F}_{n,w}^{*\sharp}=\left\\{{\gamma}\in\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*}\colon\|\textrm{col}_{j}{\gamma}\|=1,\
j=1,\ldots,n\right\\}.$
Furthermore, there is a natural skew-product flow based on
$(\mathbb{E}^{n+1},\phi)$
$\chi^{*\sharp}\colon\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}\rightarrow\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp};\
(t,(w,\gamma))\mapsto(t_{\cdot}w,\chi_{t,w}^{*\sharp}\gamma)$
called the _Liao transversal orthonormal $n$-frame flow of $S$_. For
convenience, let
$\pi\colon\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}\rightarrow\mathbb{E}^{n+1};\
(w,{\gamma})\mapsto w$
be the bundle projection. Then, the following commutativity holds:
$t_{\cdot}w=\phi(t,\pi(w,{\gamma}))=\pi(\chi^{*\sharp}(t,(w,\gamma)))\quad\forall\,(t,(w,\gamma))\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}.$
### 2.3.
Now, the so-called _Liao qualitative functions_ of $S$ are the following
$\displaystyle\omega_{i}^{*}\colon\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}$
for $i=1,\ldots,n$, given by
$\displaystyle\omega_{i}^{*}(w,{\gamma})=\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}\|\textrm{col}_{i}\circ{\chi_{t,w}^{*}}{\gamma}\|$
where
$\chi_{t,w}^{*}\cdot\colon\mathscr{F}_{n,w}^{*\sharp}\rightarrow\mathscr{F}_{n,t_{\cdot}w}^{*}$
is as in $\S\ref{sec2.2}$ for any $(t,w)\in\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$.
Particularly, let
(2.1) $\omega^{*}\colon\mathscr{F}_{1}^{*\sharp}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}};\
(w,x)\mapsto\left.\frac{d}{dt}\right|_{t=0}\|\varPsi_{t,w}x\|.$
Since $S$ is of class $C^{1}$, these functions
$\omega^{*},\omega_{i}^{*},1\leq i\leq n$, all are well defined and
continuous; see [14, 10].
### 2.4.
Let ${\mathcal{M}}_{\textit{inv}}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}_{\textit{erg}}$ denote
the set of all invariant Borel probability measures and ergodic Borel
probability measures of a dynamical system, respectively. The following
theorem equivalently describes the Lyapunov characteristic spectrum of
$(\mathbb{E}^{n+1},S)$.
###### Theorem 2.1 (Liao spectrum theorem [14, 10]).
Let $S(w),S^{\prime}(w)$ be bounded on $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$ and assume that
there is an ergodic $\phi$-invariant Borel probability measure $\mu$ on
$\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$. Then, there exists a $\phi$-invariant Borel subset
$L(\mu)$ of $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$ such that:
1. (1)
$\mu(L(\mu))=1$;
2. (2)
every point $w$ in $L(\mu)$ is Oseledets regular for $\varPsi$ based on
$(\mathbb{E}^{n+1},\phi)$;
3. (3)
given any
$P\in{\mathcal{M}}_{\textit{erg}}({\mathscr{F}}_{n}^{*\sharp},\chi^{*\sharp})$
with marginal $\mu$; i.e., $\mu=P\circ\pi^{-1}$,
${\rm\textsf{Sp}}_{\textsl{Lia}}^{*}(S,\mu):=\left\\{\vartheta_{i}^{*}(P)\,|\,i=1,\ldots,n\right\\}$
is just the Lyapunov spectrum of $\varPsi$ based on $(\phi,\mu)$, counting
with multiplicity and ignoring the order, which is called the “spectrum of
transversal Lyapunov exponents” of $(S,\mu)$ and is independent of the choices
of $P$, where
$\vartheta_{i}^{*}(P):=\int_{{\mathscr{F}}_{n}^{*\sharp}}\omega_{i}^{*}(w,{\gamma})\,dP(w,{\gamma})\quad\textrm{for
}i=1,\ldots,n.$
Notice that under the hypotheses of Theorem 2.1 above, there
$P\in{\mathcal{M}}_{\textit{erg}}({\mathscr{F}}_{n}^{*\sharp},\chi^{*\sharp})$
with marginal $\mu$ is always existent from [10].
###### Theorem 2.2 (Liao reordering theorem [14, 10]).
Under the hypotheses of Theorem 2.1, let
${\rm\textsf{Sp}}_{\textsl{Lia}}^{*}(S,\mu)=\left\\{\lambda_{i}^{*}(\mu)\,|\,i=1,\ldots,n\right\\}$
be the spectrum of transversal Lyapunov exponents of $(S,\mu)$. If
$i\mapsto\varrho(i)$ is any given permutation of $\\{1,\ldots,n\\}$, then
there is some
$P_{\varrho}\in{\mathcal{M}}_{\textit{erg}}({\mathscr{F}}_{n}^{*\sharp},\chi^{*\sharp})$
with marginal $\mu$ such that
$\vartheta_{i}^{*}(P_{\varrho})=\lambda_{\varrho(i)}^{*}(\mu)\quad\textrm{for
}i=1,\ldots,n.$
The above spectrum theorem 2.1 and reordering theorem 2.2 will play an
important role for the proof of Theorem B stated in $\S\ref{sec1}$.
### 2.5.
Based on Theorem 2.1, for any
$P\in{\mathcal{M}}_{\textit{erg}}({\mathscr{F}}_{1}^{*\sharp},\varPsi^{\sharp})$
with marginal $\mu$ we have
$\vartheta^{*}(P):=\int_{{\mathscr{F}}_{1}^{*\sharp}}\omega^{*}(w,x)\,dP(w,x)\in{\rm\textsf{Sp}}_{\textsl{Lia}}^{*}(S,\mu).$
Now, the following semi-uniform ergodic theorem will play an important role
for the proof of our main result.
###### Theorem 2.3.
Let $\Lambda$ be an $\phi$-invariant compact subset of $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$ and
$\Delta$ an $\phi$-invariant Borel subset of $\Lambda$ with total measure $1$;
that is to say, $\mu(\Delta)=1$ for all
$\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{inv}}(\Lambda,\phi|\Lambda)$. Let
$\mathbb{D}\colon\Delta\ni w\mapsto D(w)\subset\mathbb{T}_{w}$
be an $\mathfrak{i}$-dimensional $\varPsi$-invariant measurable distribution
for some integer $1\leq\mathfrak{i}<n$. If $\varPsi|\mathbb{D}$ has only
negative Lyapunov exponents at almost every $w\in\Delta$ and $\mathbb{D}$ is
such that $\lim_{\ell\to\infty}D(w_{\ell})=D(w)$ provided, of course, that
this limit exists for $w_{\ell}\to w$ in $\Delta$, then $\varPsi|\mathbb{D}$
is uniformly contracting.
###### Proof.
Without any loss of generality, assume $\Lambda=\overline{\Delta}$. Let
$\mathscr{F}_{1}^{*\sharp}(\Delta)=\left\\{(w,x)\in\mathscr{F}_{1}^{*\sharp}\,|\,w\in\Delta\textrm{
and }x\in D(w)\right\\},$
which is $\varPsi^{\sharp}$-invariant. Then, it is easily seen that
$Y:=\overline{\mathscr{F}_{1}^{*\sharp}(\Delta)}$ is an
$\varPsi^{\sharp}$-invariant compact subbundle of $\mathscr{F}_{1}^{*\sharp}$
over $\Lambda$, such that
$P(Y-\mathscr{F}_{1}^{*\sharp}(\Delta))=0\quad\textrm{for all
}P\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{inv}}(Y,\varPsi^{\sharp}|Y).$
Moreover, according to Theorem 2.1 we obtain
$\int_{Y}\omega^{*}\,dP<0\quad\forall\,P\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(Y,\varPsi^{\sharp}|Y),$
since $\varPsi|\mathbb{D}$ is nonuniformly contracting for any
$\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(\Lambda,\phi|\Lambda)$. From the continuous-
time version of a semi-uniform theorem of [19] ([9, Lemma 3.1]), it follows
that there exist constants $\sigma>0$ and $T_{0}>0$ such that
$\displaystyle\int_{Y}\omega^{*}\,dP\leq-\sigma\quad\forall\,P\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(Y,\varPsi^{\sharp}|Y)$
and uniformly, for all $T\geq T_{0}$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\omega^{*}(\varPsi^{\sharp}(t+s,y))\,dt\leq-\sigma/2$
for all $y\in Y$ and for any $s\in\mathbb{R}$. Next, by the identity
$\frac{1}{T}\log\|\varPsi_{t,w}x\|=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\omega^{*}(\varPsi^{\sharp}(t,(w,x)))\,dt$
for all $(w,x)\in\mathscr{F}_{1}^{*\sharp}$ and for any $T\not=0$, we can
easily obtain that $\varPsi|\mathbb{D}$ is uniformly contracting.
This proves the theorem. ∎
Notice here that if the distribution $\mathbb{D}$ is continuous; that is,
$D(w_{\ell})\to D(w)$ provided that $w_{\ell}\to w$ in $\Lambda$, then from
[5] one can directly obtain the uniform contraction of $\varPsi|\mathbb{D}$.
## 3\. Shadowing property and approximation of ergodic measures
If $g\in\mathrm{Diff}^{1}(M)$ is conjugated to an Anosov diffeomorphism, then
$\overline{\textrm{Per}(g)}=\Omega(g)$ and $g$ has the shadowing property (see
[17, Proposition 8.5]). Naturally, we ask if every ergodic measure of $g$ can
be approximated by periodic measures or not. Under our context, this is the
case.
Let $S$ be a $C^{1}$-differential system on $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$ as in
$\S\ref{sec2}$ and $\Lambda$ an $\phi$-invariant nonempty compact subset of
$\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$. We say that $(\phi,\Lambda)$ has the _shadowing by
periodic points property_ provided that to any $\epsilon>0$, there corresponds
to some $\alpha>0$, such that for any orbit arc
$\phi([0,\tau],w)\subset\Lambda,\tau\geq 2$ with $\|w-\tau_{\cdot}w\|<\alpha$,
there exists a periodic point $p\in\Lambda$ with period $\tau$ satisfying
$\|t_{\cdot}w-t_{\cdot}p\|<\epsilon$ for all $t\in[0,\tau]$. In this case, we
say that the orbit $\phi(t,p)$ $\epsilon$-shadows the orbit arc
$\phi([0,\tau],w)$. Notice here that we require $p\in\Lambda$.
An $\phi$-invariant Borel probability measure $\mu$ on $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$ is
called a _periodic measure_ if it is supported on a periodic orbit of $\phi$;
that is, $\textrm{supp}(\mu)=\overline{\phi(\mathbb{R},p)}$ for some periodic
point $p$. The following result shows that periodic measures are dense in
$\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(\Lambda,\phi)$ under the weak $*$-topology.
###### Theorem 3.1.
If the compact subsystem $(\Lambda,\phi)$ has the shadowing by periodic points
property, then periodic measures are dense in
$\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(\Lambda,\phi)$; that is, for any $\mu$ in
$\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(\Lambda,\phi)$ there is a sequence of periodic
measures $(\mu_{k})$ on $\Lambda$ such that $\mu_{k}\to\mu$ as $k$ tends to
$\infty$.
###### Proof.
Let $\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(\Lambda,\phi)$ be non-periodic, and let
$Q_{\mu}(\Lambda,\phi)$ be the quasi-regular point set of
$(\Lambda,\mu,\phi)$; that is, $w\in Q_{\mu}(\Lambda,\phi)$ if and only if
$\lim_{T\to\infty}T^{-1}\int_{0}^{T}\varphi(t_{\cdot}w)\,dt=\int_{\Lambda}\varphi\,d\mu$
for all $\varphi\in C(\Lambda)$.
For any $w\in\Lambda$ and $T>0$, using the Riesz representation theorem, we
define the empirical measure $\mu_{w,T}$ on $\Lambda$ by
$\mu_{w,T}(\varphi)=\frac{1}{T}\int_{0}^{T}\varphi(t_{\cdot}w)\,dt\quad\forall\,\varphi\in
C(\Lambda).$
Then, given any Poisson stable (recurrent) point $\hat{w}\in
Q_{\mu}(\Lambda,\phi)$ we have $\mu_{\hat{w},T}\to\mu$ as $T\to\infty$ in the
sense of weak $*$-topology; that is, $\mu_{\hat{w},T}(\varphi)\to\mu(\varphi)$
for all $\varphi\in C(\Lambda)$.
For any $\varphi\in C(\Lambda)$, let
$\|\varphi\|_{\infty}={\sup}_{x\in\Lambda}\|\varphi(x)\|$
and
$\|\varphi\|_{\textrm{L}}=\sup_{x,y\in\Lambda,x\not=y}\frac{\|\varphi(x)-\varphi(y)\|}{\|x-y\|}.$
Then $\textrm{BL}(\Lambda)=\\{\varphi\in
C(\Lambda);\,\|\varphi\|_{\infty}+\|\varphi\|_{\textrm{L}}<\infty\\}$ is dense
in $(C(\Lambda),\|\cdot\|_{\infty})$; see [12, Theorem 11.2.4].
Now, by the shadowing by periodic points property and the recurrence of the
motion $\phi(t,\hat{w})$, we can choose a sequence of periodic points $p_{i}$
with period $T_{i}\to\infty$ such that for any $i$,
$\|t_{\cdot}\hat{w}-t_{\cdot}p_{i}\|<1/i$ for all $t\in[0,T_{i}]$. Then, it is
easily seen that $\mu_{p_{i}}$, defined by
$\mu_{p_{i}}(\varphi)=\frac{1}{T_{i}}\int_{0}^{T_{i}}\varphi(t_{\cdot}p_{i})\,dt\quad\forall\,\varphi\in
C(\Lambda),$
is an ergodic periodic measure of the subsystem $(\Lambda,\phi)$.
Next, for any $\varphi\in\textrm{BL}(\Lambda)$ we have
$\displaystyle\lim_{i\to\infty}|\int\varphi\,d\mu-\int\varphi\,d\mu_{p_{i}}|$
$\displaystyle\leq\lim_{i\to\infty}|\int\varphi\,d\mu-\int\varphi\,d\mu_{\hat{w},T_{i}}|$
$\displaystyle{\quad}\quad+\limsup_{i\to\infty}|\int\varphi\,d\mu_{\hat{w},T_{i}}-\int\varphi\,d\mu_{p_{i}}|$
$\displaystyle\leq\limsup_{i\to\infty}\frac{1}{T_{i}}\int_{0}^{T_{i}}|\varphi(t_{\cdot}\hat{w})-\varphi(t_{\cdot}p_{i})|\,dt$
$\displaystyle\leq\limsup_{i\to\infty}\frac{1}{T_{i}}\int_{0}^{T_{i}}\|\varphi\|_{\textrm{L}}\|t_{\cdot}\hat{w}-t_{\cdot}p_{i}\|\,dt$
$\displaystyle\leq\limsup_{i\to\infty}\frac{\|\varphi\|_{\textrm{L}}}{i}$
$\displaystyle=0,$
which implies that $\mu_{p_{i}}\to\mu$ by the density of
$\textrm{BL}(\Lambda)$ in $(C(\Lambda),\|\cdot\|_{\infty})$, as required.
This proves the theorem. ∎
## 4\. Hyperbolicity of Katok maps
In this section, we will finish the proof of our main result Theorem B stated
in the Introduction, using the theorems introduced in $\S\S~{}\ref{sec2}$ and
3.
### 4.1.
Let $S$ be a $C^{1}$-differential system on $\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$ as in
$\S\ref{sec2}$ and $\Lambda$ an $\phi$-invariant nonempty compact subset of
$\mathbb{E}^{n+1}$.
###### Theorem 4.1.
Assume that the subsystem $(\phi,\Lambda)$ has the shadowing by periodic
points property, and, for each periodic point $p$ in $\Lambda$, let
$\lambda_{1}^{*}(p)\leq\cdots\leq\lambda_{n}^{*}(p)$ be the spectrum of
transversal Lyapunov exponents of $S$ at $p$, counting with multiplicity. If
there are some $\sigma<\varsigma$ such that $\lambda_{1}^{*}(p)\leq\sigma$ and
$\lambda_{n}^{*}(p)\geq\varsigma$ for all $p\in\mathrm{Per}(\Lambda,\phi)$,
then for all $\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(\Lambda,\phi)$, $(S,\mu)$ has
at least two transversal Lyapunov exponents $\lambda_{-}^{*}(\mu)\leq\sigma$
and $\lambda_{+}^{*}(\mu)\geq\varsigma$.
###### Proof.
Let $\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(\Lambda,\phi)$ be non-periodic. To prove
the statement, it is enough to show that $(S,\mu)$ has at least two
transversal Lyapunov exponents $\lambda_{-}^{*}(\mu)$ and
$\lambda_{+}^{*}(\mu)$ such that $\lambda_{-}^{*}(\mu)\leq\sigma$ and
$\lambda_{+}^{*}(\mu)\geq\varsigma$.
Let
$\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)=\left\\{(w,\gamma)\in\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}\,|\,w\in\Lambda\right\\}$.
From Theorem 3.1, we can take a sequence of periodic measures, say
$\\{\mu_{p_{i}}\\}$, in $\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(\Lambda,\phi)$ with
$\mu_{p_{i}}\to\mu$. By using Theorems 2.1 and 2.2, we can choose some
$P_{i}\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda),\chi^{*\sharp})\quad\textrm{with
marginal }\mu_{p_{i}}$
for all $i$, such that
$\lambda_{1}^{*}(p_{i})=\vartheta_{1}^{*}(P_{i})\leq\cdots\leq\vartheta_{n}^{*}(P_{i})=\lambda_{n}^{*}(p_{i}).$
Since
$\mathcal{M}_{\textit{inv}}(\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda),\chi^{*\sharp})$
is compact under the weak $*$-topology, there is no loss of generality in
assuming that $P_{i}\to P$ for some
$P\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{inv}}(\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda),\chi^{*\sharp})$
with marginal $\mu$; i.e., $P\circ\pi^{-1}=\mu$. Thus,
$\displaystyle\lim_{i\to\infty}\int_{\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)}\omega_{1}^{*}\,dP_{i}=\int_{\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)}\omega_{1}^{*}\,dP\leq\sigma$
and
$\displaystyle\lim_{i\to\infty}\int_{\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)}\omega_{n}^{*}\,dP_{i}=\int_{\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)}\omega_{n}^{*}\,dP\geq\varsigma$
for $\omega_{1}^{*}$ and $\omega_{n}^{*}$ both are continuous on
$\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)$. Then, by the classical ergodic
decomposition theorem we can choose at least two $P_{-}$ and $P_{+}$ in
$\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda),\chi^{*\sharp})$
with marginal $\mu$ such that
$\lambda_{-}^{*}(\mu):=\int_{\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)}\omega_{1}^{*}\,dP_{-}\leq\sigma\quad\textrm{and}\quad\lambda_{+}^{*}(\mu):=\int_{\mathscr{F}_{n}^{*\sharp}(\Lambda)}\omega_{n}^{*}\,dP_{+}\geq\varsigma.$
By Theorem 2.1 again, $\lambda_{-}^{*}(\mu)$ and $\lambda_{+}^{*}(\mu)$ both
lie in ${\rm\textsf{Sp}}_{\textsl{Lia}}^{*}(S,\mu)$, as required.
This proves the theorem. ∎
### 4.2.
To prove Theorem B, we need a further remark on Theorem A stated in
$\S\ref{sec1}$. Let $g\in\mathrm{Diff}^{1+}(M)$ be Hölder conjugated to an
Anosov $f\in\mathrm{Diff}^{1}(M)$. Theorem A asserts that all periodic points
of $g$ have only non-zero Lyapunov exponents. However, there is no information
that if there are any contracting or expanding periodic orbits. The following
lemma shows that a Katok map has no any contracting and expanding periodic
orbits.
Recall $f\in\textrm{Diff}^{1}(M)$ is said to be _Anosov_ if there is a
continuous splitting of $T_{x}M=E^{s}(x)\oplus E^{u}(x)$ for every $x\in M$
and constants $C>0,\lambda>1$ such that
$\displaystyle D_{x}f(E^{s}(x))$ $\displaystyle=E^{s}(f(x))\textrm{ and
}D_{x}f(E^{u}(x))=E^{u}(f(x)),$ $\displaystyle\|(D_{x}f^{n})\vec{v}\|$
$\displaystyle\leq C\lambda^{-n}\|\vec{v}\|\quad\forall\,\vec{v}\in E^{s}(x),\
n\in\mathbb{N},$ $\displaystyle\|(D_{x}f^{-n})\vec{u}\|$ $\displaystyle\leq
C\lambda^{-n}\|\vec{u}\|\quad\forall\,\vec{u}\in E^{u}(x),\ n\in\mathbb{N}.$
Then, the nonnegative integer
$\textrm{Ind}(x):=\dim E^{s}(x)$
for all $x\in M$ is called the _index_ of $f$ at $x$.
For any $f\in\textrm{Diff}^{1}(M)$ and $\delta>0$, as usual, for $x\in M$ let
$\displaystyle W^{s}(x)$ $\displaystyle=\left\\{y\in
M\,|\,\textrm{dist}(f^{k}x,f^{k}y)\to 0\textrm{ as }k\to\infty\right\\}$ and
$\displaystyle W_{\delta}^{s}(x)$ $\displaystyle=\left\\{y\in
M\,|\,\textrm{dist}(f^{k}x,f^{k}y)\leq\delta\textrm{ and
}\lim_{k\to\infty}\textrm{dist}(f^{k}x,f^{k}y)=0\right\\}$
be the stable set and the local stable set of $f$ at $x$, respectively. If $f$
is partially hyperbolic or $f$ is a nonuniformly partially hyperbolic
$C^{1+\alpha}$ diffeomorphism, then $W^{s}(x)$ has local smooth manifold
structure with $T_{x}W^{s}(x)=E^{s}(x)$ a.e. ([13, 16]).
Similarly, one can define the unstable manifolds $W^{u}(x)$ and
$W_{\delta}^{u}(x)$.
###### Lemma 4.2.
If $g\in\mathrm{Diff}^{1+}(M)$ is Hölder conjugated to an Anosov
$f\in\mathrm{Diff}^{1}(M)$, then all periodic points of $g$ have only non-zero
Lyapunov exponents, and such exponents are uniformly bounded away from zero,
and
$\mathrm{Ind}(p)\equiv\mathfrak{i}\quad\forall\,p\in\mathrm{Per}(g)$
for some integer $\mathfrak{i}$ with $1\leq\mathfrak{i}<n$.
###### Proof.
We first assert that for an Anosov $f\colon M^{n}\rightarrow M^{n}$, there is
an integer $\mathfrak{i}$ with $1\leq\mathfrak{i}<n$ such that
$\textrm{Ind}(\hat{x},f)=\mathfrak{i}\quad\textrm{for all }\hat{x}\in M.$
In fact, let $\Lambda_{i}=\\{\hat{x}\in M\colon\textrm{Ind}(\hat{x},f)=i\\}$
for $i=0,1,\ldots,n$. Since the splitting $T_{\hat{x}}M=E^{s}(\hat{x},f)\oplus
E^{u}(\hat{x},f)$ is continuous with respect to $\hat{x}\in M$, $\Lambda_{i}$
is closed and further open in $M$ for all $i=0,1,\ldots,n$. Thus, every
$\Lambda_{i}$ is either equal to $\varnothing$ or to $M$. Clearly,
$\Lambda_{0}=\Lambda_{n}=\varnothing$. This shows the assertion.
Let $h\colon M\rightarrow M$ be a Hölder conjugacy from $g$ to $f$. Given any
$p\in\mathrm{Per}(g)$ and let $\hat{p}=h(p)$. From Theorem A it follows that
$h(W^{s}(p;g))\subset W^{s}(\hat{p};f)$ and $h(W^{u}(p;g))\subset
W^{u}(\hat{p};f)$. Since $h$ is Hölder homeomorphic, we have $\dim
W_{\textit{loc}}^{s}(p;g)\leq\dim W_{\textit{loc}}^{s}(\hat{p};f)$ and $\dim
W_{\textit{loc}}^{u}(p;g)\leq\dim W_{\textit{loc}}^{u}(\hat{p};f)$. Then, we
can obtain that $\dim W_{\textit{loc}}^{s}(p;g)=\dim
W_{\textit{loc}}^{s}(\hat{p};f)$ and so $\mathrm{Ind}(p)=\mathfrak{i}$
constant with $1\leq\mathrm{Ind}(p)<n$.
This proves the lemma. ∎
### 4.3.
Before proving Theorem B, we first prove that a Katok map is non-uniformly
hyperbolic.
###### Theorem 4.3.
Let $g\in\mathrm{Diff}^{1+}(M)$ be Katok. Then
1. (1)
there is a $\sigma>0$ such that to any
$\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(M,g)$, $(g,\mu)$ is non-uniformly hyperbolic
and has at least two Lyapunov exponents, say $\lambda_{-}(\mu)$ and
$\lambda_{+}(\mu)$, with $\lambda_{-}(\mu)\leq-\sigma$ and
$\lambda_{+}(\mu)\geq\sigma$;
2. (2)
there is an invariant subset $\varGamma$ and a measurable function
$\delta\colon\varGamma\rightarrow(0,\infty)$ such that $\mu\varGamma=1$ for
all $\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(M,g)$ and $x\mapsto
W_{\delta(x)}^{s}(x),\ x\mapsto W_{\delta(x)}^{u}(x)$ both are well defined
and continuous for $x$ in $\varGamma$.
Here $W_{\delta}^{s}(x)$ and $W_{\delta}^{u}(x)$ mean the local stable and
unstable manifolds of $g$ at $x$, respectively.
###### Proof.
Let $g\in\mathrm{Diff}^{1+}(M)$ be Hölder conjugated to an Anosov
diffeomorphism $f\colon M\rightarrow M$. Given any
$\mu\in\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(M,g)$.
By the so-called suspension technique, from Lemma 4.2 and Theorem 4.1 it
follows immediately that $(g,\mu)$ has at least two Lyapunov exponents, say
$\lambda_{-}(\mu)$ and $\lambda_{+}(\mu)$, such that
$\lambda_{-}(\mu)\leq-\sigma$ and $\lambda_{+}(\mu)\geq\sigma$, where $\sigma$
is some positive constant which is independent of $\mu$.
We next proceed to prove that $(g,\mu)$ is non-uniformly hyperbolic. Let
$T_{x}M=E^{s}(x,g)\oplus E^{c}(x,g)\oplus E^{u}(x,g)$
for $\mu$-a.e. $x\in M$, where $E^{s}(x,g),E^{c}(x,g)$, and $E^{u}(x,g)$ stand
for the stable direction, central direction and unstable direction,
respectively, associated to the Oseledets splitting of $Dg$ at $x$ [15, 14].
We have $\dim E^{s}(x,g)\geq 1$ and $\dim E^{u}(x,g)\geq 1$ for a.e. $x$.
Since $g$ is of class $C^{1+\alpha}$ for some Hölder exponent $0<\alpha<1$,
according to Pesin theory [16] there are local stable manifold
$W_{\textit{loc}}^{s}(x;g)$ and local unstable manifold
$W_{\textit{loc}}^{u}(x;g)$ with $\dim W_{\textit{loc}}^{s}(x;g)=\dim
E^{s}(x,g)$ and $\dim W_{\textit{loc}}^{u}(x;g)=\dim E^{u}(x,g)$ for
$\mu$-a.e. $x\in M$. On the other hand, by the $C^{\alpha}$-conjugation
$h^{-1}\colon M\rightarrow M$ from the Anosov diffeomorphism $f$ to $g$, we
obtain that for $\hat{x}=h(x)$
$\dim W_{\textit{loc}}^{s}(x;g)\geq\dim
W_{\textit{loc}}^{s}(\hat{x};f)\quad\textrm{and}\quad\dim
W_{\textit{loc}}^{u}(x;g)\geq\dim W_{\textit{loc}}^{u}(\hat{x};f),$
which implies $\dim W_{\textit{loc}}^{s}(x;g)+\dim
W_{\textit{loc}}^{u}(x;g)=n$ and so $E^{c}(x,g)=\textbf{0}$ for $\mu$-a.e.
$x\in M$. Thus, $(g,\mu)$ is non-uniformly hyperbolic. This proves the
statement (1).
Next, we are going to prove the statement (2). Since $f$ is Anosov, there is
some constant $\hat{\delta}>0$ such that the local stable foliation
$\mathscr{W}^{s}=(W_{\hat{\delta}}^{s}(\hat{x};f))_{\hat{x}\in M}$ is
continuous in $\hat{x}\in M$. Let $\varGamma$ be the non-uniformly hyperbolic
Pesin regular set of $g$ [3]. Noticing that $h,h^{-1}$ both are Hölder and
$h^{-1}(W_{\hat{\delta}}^{s}(\hat{x};f))\subset W^{s}(x;g)$ where
$h(x)=\hat{x}$ for all $x\in\varGamma$, we can easily find some measurable
function $\delta\colon\varGamma\rightarrow(0,\infty)$, which satisfies the
requirements of the statement (2). This proves the statement (2).
Thus, Theorem 4.3 is proved. ∎
### 4.4.
In [6], the authors exhibit an example of a non-hyperbolic horseshoe such that
all Lyapunov exponents are non-zero and uniformly bounded away from zero for
all invariant measures. This phenomenon is named “completely nonuniformly
hyperbolic.” Theorem 4.3 implies that a Katok map $g$ of $M^{2}$ has just two
Lyapunov exponents $\lambda_{-}(\mu)<0<\lambda_{+}(\mu)$, uniformly bounded
away from zero, for all $\mu$ in $\mathcal{M}_{\textit{erg}}(M^{2},g)$.
Nevertheless, there is still an essential gap from Theorem 4.3 to Katok’s
conjecture even though in the $2$-dimensional case, the continuity of the
foliation $(W_{\delta}^{s}(x))_{x\in\varGamma}$ guaranteed by Theorem 4.3(2),
can avoid the occurrence of the completely nonuniformly hyperbolic phenomenon.
Now we can finish the proof of Theorem B using the semi-uniform ergodic
theorem Theorem 2.3.
###### Proof of Theorem B.
Let $\varGamma$ be defined by Theorem 4.3(2) and let
$T_{x}M=E^{s}(x)\oplus E^{u}(x)$
for all $x\in\varGamma$ be the Oseledets splitting of $g$ according to the
multiplicative ergodic theorem. Let $\mathfrak{i}$ be the index of $g$ and
$\mathscr{G}_{\mathfrak{i}}(T_{\varGamma}M)$ the Grassmannian manifold of
$\mathfrak{i}$-dimensional linear subspaces of $T_{\varGamma}M$. Then
$\mathbb{D}\colon\varGamma\rightarrow\mathscr{G}_{\mathfrak{i}}(T_{\varGamma}M);\
x\mapsto E^{s}(x)$
is a $Dg$-invariant measurable distribution over $\varGamma$ such that
$T_{x}W_{\delta(x)}^{s}(x)=E^{s}(x)$ and $\dim E^{s}(x)=\mathfrak{i}$ for all
$x\in\varGamma$.
Let $x_{\ell}\to x$ in $\varGamma$ and
$\lim_{\ell\to\infty}E^{s}(x_{\ell})=E(x)$ for some $\mathfrak{i}$-dimensional
linear subspace $E(x)\subset T_{x}M$. As
$W_{\delta(x_{\ell})}^{s}(x_{\ell})\to W_{\delta(x)}^{s}(x)$ as
$\ell\to\infty$ by Theorem 4.3, it follows from
$T_{x_{\ell}}W_{\delta(x_{\ell})}^{s}(x_{\ell})=E^{s}(x_{\ell})$ that
$T_{x}W_{\delta(x)}^{s}(x)=E(x)$. Thus, $E(x)=E^{s}(x)$. Then, by the
discretization of Theorem 2.3 using the terms introduced in [8], we obtain
that
$Dg\colon\bigcup_{x\in\varGamma}E^{s}(x)\rightarrow\bigcup_{x\in\varGamma}E^{s}(x)$
is uniformly contracting.
Similarly, we can show that
$Dg\colon\bigcup_{x\in\varGamma}E^{u}(x)\rightarrow\bigcup_{x\in\varGamma}E^{u}(x)$
is uniformly expanding.
Therefore, $g$ is uniformly hyperbolic on $\overline{\varGamma}$. Since
$\Omega(g)=\overline{\textrm{Per}(g)}$, we have that
$\overline{\varGamma}=\Omega(g)$. Thus, $g$ is of Axiom A. Clearly, $g$ has no
cycles.
This proves the theorem. ∎
## 5\. Volume-preserving Katok maps
Let Leb denote the standard volume measure of $M^{n}$. A Borel probability
measure $\mu$ on $M$ is called a _smooth probability measure_ if $\mu$ is
absolutely continuous with respect to Leb such that
$C\leq d\mu/d\textrm{Leb}\leq K$
for some constants $C,K>0$. If $g$ is a $C^{1+\alpha}$ volume-preserving
Anosov diffeomorphism, $g$ is ergodic due to Anosov [1, 2]. For other proof of
Anosov’s ergodicity theorem, see [20]. However, we are going to prove that if
a Katok map preserves a smooth probability measure, then it is Anosov and thus
also ergodic.
Using different approaches, it was proved independently by Bochi $\&$ Viana
[4] and Xia [20] that the uniformly hyperbolic closed sets of every
$C^{1+\alpha}$ volume-preserving diffeomorphisms have zero Lebesgue measure,
unless they coincide with the whole ambient compact manifold (Anosov case).
This result was generalized by using Pesin theory as follows:
###### Lemma 5.1 ([11]).
Let $f$ be a diffeomorphism preserving a smooth probability measure $\mu$ on a
compact, connected, and closed Riemannian manifold $M$. Let $\Lambda\subset M$
be a uniformly hyperbolic invariant Borel set (not necessarily closed). If
$\mu(\Lambda)>0$, then $f$ is Anosov and $\Lambda=M\ (\textrm{mod }0)$.
Now we can prove the ergodicity of a Katok map.
###### Corollary 5.2.
Let $g$ be a $C^{1+\alpha}$ Katok diffeomorphism of $M$ which preserves a
smooth probability measure $\mu$. Then $g$ is Anosov and ergodic with
$\Omega(g)=M$ .
###### Proof.
Theorem B and Lemma 5.1 imply that $g$ is Anosov with $\Omega(g)=M$.
This proves Corollary 5.2. ∎
###### Remark 5.3.
We noted that it was recently announced by Zhihong Xia [18] that an Anosov
diffeomorphism must be topologically transitive. Then, our Theorem B implies
that every Katok diffeomorphism must be Anosov.
### Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to Professors Huyi Hu and Yunping Jiang for discussions
on this paper.
## References
* [1] D. V. Anosov, Ergodic properties of geodesic flows on closed Riemannian manifolds of negative curvature. Soviet Math. Dokl., 4 (1963), 1153–1156.
* [2] D. V. Anosov, Geodesic flows on closed Riemannian manifolds of negative curvature. Proc. Steklov Math. Inst., 90 (1967), 1–235.
* [3] L. Barreira and Ya. Pesin, Lectures on Lyapunov Exponents and Smooth Ergodic Theory. Appendix A by M. Brin and Appendix B by D. Dolgopyat, H. Hu and Pesin. Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 69, Smooth ergodic theory and its applications (Seattle, WA, 1999), 3–106, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2001.
* [4] J. Bochi and M. Viana, Lyapunov exponents: How frequently are dynamical systems hyperbolic? in Modern Dynamical Systems and Applications, 271–297, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2004.
* [5] Y. Cao, Non-zero Lyapunov exponents and uniform hyperbolicity. Nonlinearity, 16 (2003), 1473–1479.
* [6] Y. Cao, S. Luzzato and I. Rios, Some non-hyperbolic systems with strictly non-zero Lyapunov exponents for all invariant measures: horseshoes with internal tangencies. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 15 (2006), 61–71.
* [7] A. Castro, K. Oliveira and V. Pinheiro, Shadowing by non-uniformly hyperbolic periodic points and uniform hyperbolicity. Nonlinearity, 20 (2007), 75–85.
* [8] X. Dai, Partial linearization of differentiable systems. J. Difference Equ. Appl., 11 (2005), 965–977.
* [9] X. Dai, Hyperbolicity and integral expression of the Lyapunov exponents for linear cocycles. J. Differential Equations, 242 (2007), 121–170.
* [10] X. Dai, Integral expressions of Lyapunov exponents for autonomous ordinary differential systems. Science in China Series A: Mathematics, 51 (2008), 000–000.
* [11] X. Dai, $C^{1+\alpha}$ volume preserving diffeomorphisms have no any fat hyperbolic sets. Preprint 2008.
* [12] R. M. Dudley, Real Analysis and Probability. Second edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003\.
* [13] M. Hirsch, C. Pugh and M. Shub, Invariant manifolds. Lect. Notes in Math., 583, Springer-Verlag, 1977.
* [14] S.-T. Liao, On characteristic exponents construction of a new Borel set for the multiplicative ergodic theorem for vector fields. Acta Sci. Natur. Univ. Pekinensis, 29 (1993), 277–302.
* [15] V. I. Oseledec, A multiplicative ergodic theorem, Lyapunov characteristic numbers for dynamical systems. Trudy Mosk Mat Obsec, 19 (1968), 119–210.
* [16] Ya. Pesin, Families of invariant manifolds corresponding to nonzero characteristic exponents, Math. USSR-Izv. 10 (1976), 1261–1305.
* [17] M. Shub, Global Stability of Dynamical Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg, 1987.
* [18] R. Saghin and Z. Xia, Homology of invariant foliations and its applications in dynamics. International Conference on Topology and its Applications, December 3–7, 2007 Kyoto, Japan.
* [19] R. Sturman and J. Stark, Semi-uniform ergodic theorems and applications to forced systems. Nonlinearity, 13 (2000), 113–143.
* [20] Z. Xia, Hyperbolic invariant sets with positive measures. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 15 (2006), 811–818.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-10T08:39:51 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.176431 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Xiongping Dai",
"submitter": "Xiongping Dai",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1598"
} |
0806.1600 | # A Tamed 3D Navier-Stokes Equation in Domains
Xicheng Zhang School of Mathematics and Statistics
The University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia
Department of Mathematics, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, Hubei 430074, P.R.China
Email: XichengZhang@gmail.com
###### Abstract.
In this paper, we analyze a tamed 3D Navier-Stokes equation in uniform
$C^{2}$-domains (not necessarily bounded), which obeys the scaling invariance
principle, and prove the existence and uniqueness of strong solutions to this
tamed equation. In particular, if there exists a bounded solution to the
classical 3D Navier-Stokes equation, then this solution satisfies our tamed
equation. Moreover, the existence of a global attractor for the tamed equation
in bounded domains is also proved. As simple applications, some well known
results for the classical Navier-Stokes equations in unbounded domains are
covered.
Keywords: Tamed 3D Navier-Stokes Equation, Strong Solution, Global Attractor.
## 1\. Introduction
The motion of a viscous incompressible fluid in a domain
${\Omega}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ is described by the Navier-Stokes equation
(NSE) as follows (with homogeneous boundary):
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{aligned} &\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf
u}}=\nu\Delta\mathord{{\bf u}}-(\mathord{{\bf u}}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf
u}}+\nabla P+\mathord{{\bf f}},\\\ &{\mathord{{\rm div}}}(\mathord{{\bf
u}})=0,\ \ (t,x)\in[0,\infty)\times{\Omega},\\\ &\mathord{{\bf u}}(t,x)=0,\ \
t\geqslant 0,\ \ x\in\partial{\Omega},\ \ \mathord{{\bf u}}(0)=\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0},\end{aligned}\right.$ (1)
where $\nu>0$ is the kinematic viscosity constant, $\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t,x)=(u_{1}(t,x),u_{2}(t,x),u_{3}(t,x))$ represents the velocity field,
$P=P(t,x)$ is the pressure (an unknown scalar function), $\mathord{{\bf f}}$
is a known external force.
The study of 3D NSEs has a long history. In their pioneering works, Leray [11]
and Hopf [9] proved the existence of a weak solution to equation (1). Since
then, there are many papers devoted to the study of regularities of Leray-Hopf
weak solutions (cf. [10, 19, 17, etc.]). Up to now, one knows that the
singular set of the Leray-Hopf weak solutions has Lebesgue measure zero (cf.
[11, 8, 7]). Moreover, a deep result obtained by Scheffer [16] and Caffarelli,
Kohn and Nirenberg [3] says that the singular set for a class of weak
solutions (satisfying a generalized energy inequality) has one dimensional
Hausdorff measure zero (see also [12]). However, the uniqueness and regularity
of Leray-Hopf weak solutions are still big open problems.
Most of the source of difficulties to solve equation (1) comes from the
nonlinear term $(\mathord{{\bf u}}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf u}}$ (cf. [7]). In
order to counteract this term, the authors in [15] analyzed the following
modified (called tamed therein) 3D NSE in ${\Omega}={\mathbb{R}}^{3}$:
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{aligned} &\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf
u}}=\nu\Delta\mathord{{\bf u}}-(\mathord{{\bf u}}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf
u}}+\nabla P-g^{\nu}_{N}(|\mathord{{\bf u}}|^{2})\mathord{{\bf
u}}+\mathord{{\bf f}},\\\ &{\mathord{{\rm div}}}(\mathord{{\bf u}})=0,\ \
t\geqslant 0,\ \ x\in{\mathbb{R}}^{3},\ \ \mathord{{\bf u}}(0)=\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0},\end{aligned}\right.$ (2)
where $|\mathord{{\bf u}}|^{2}:=\sum^{3}_{j=1}|u_{j}|^{2}$ and for $N>0$
$\displaystyle g^{\nu}_{N}(r):=(r-N)\cdot 1_{\\{r\geqslant N\\}}/\nu.$ (3)
The existence of a unique smooth solution to equation (2) was proved in [15]
when the initial velocity is smooth (in Sobolev spaces). The main feature of
equation (2) is that if there exists a bounded solution (say bounded by
$\sqrt{N}$ for some large $N$) to the classical NSE, then this solution must
satisfy equation (2). Therein, the property that the Leray projection operator
onto the space of divergence free vector fields commutes with the derivatives
plays a key role. But, when we consider NSE (1) in a domain, this property
does not hold in general (cf. [13, p.83-85]).
In order to deal with the Dirichlet boundary problem and keep the same feature
as equation (2), in the present paper, we consider the following globally
tamed scheme (assuming $\mathord{{\bf f}}=0$ for simplicity):
$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf u}}=\nu\Delta\mathord{{\bf
u}}-(\mathord{{\bf u}}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf u}}+\nabla
P-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}-{\mathbf{U}}\|^{2}_{\infty})(\mathord{{\bf u}}-{\mathbf{U}}),$ (4)
where $\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{\infty}:=\sup_{x\in{\Omega}}|\mathord{{\bf
u}}(x)|$, ${\mathbf{U}}$ is a reference velocity field and for
$\kappa,N\geqslant 1$
$g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(r):=\kappa\cdot(r-N)1_{\\{r\geqslant N\\}}/\nu.$
Here, $\kappa\geqslant 1$ is a dimensionless constant and $\sqrt{N}$ has the
velocity dimension.
Let $(\mathord{{\bf u}}_{N,{\mathbf{U}}},P_{N,{\mathbf{U}}})$ be a solution
pair of equation (4). Simple calculations show that $(\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N,{\mathbf{U}}},P_{N,{\mathbf{U}}})$ has the following properties:
1. (A)
(Galilean invariance): for any constant velocity vector $\mathord{{\bf
v}}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{3}$
$\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\mathord{{\bf v}}}_{N,{\mathbf{U}}}(t,x)$
$\displaystyle:=$ $\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N,{\mathbf{U}}+\mathord{{\bf v}}}(t,x-\mathord{{\bf v}}t)+\mathord{{\bf
v}},$ $\displaystyle P^{\mathord{{\bf v}}}_{N,{\mathbf{U}}}(t,x)$
$\displaystyle:=$ $\displaystyle P_{N,{\mathbf{U}}+\mathord{{\bf
v}}}(t,x-\mathord{{\bf v}}t)$
is also a solution pair of equation (4).
2. (B)
(Rotation symmetry): for any orthogonal matrix ${\mathcal{Q}}$ (i.e.
${\mathcal{Q}}{\mathcal{Q}}^{t}=I$)
$\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf u}}^{{\mathcal{Q}}}_{N,{\mathbf{U}}}(t,x)$
$\displaystyle:=$ $\displaystyle{\mathcal{Q}}^{t}\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N,{\mathcal{Q}}^{t}{\mathbf{U}}}(t,{\mathcal{Q}}x),$ $\displaystyle
P^{\mathcal{Q}}_{N,{\mathbf{U}}}(t,x)$ $\displaystyle:=$ $\displaystyle
P_{N,{\mathcal{Q}}^{t}{\mathbf{U}}}(t,{\mathcal{Q}}x)$
is also a solution pair of equation (4).
3. (C)
(Scale invariance): for any $\lambda>0$
$\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\lambda}_{N,{\mathbf{U}}}(t,x)$
$\displaystyle:=$ $\displaystyle\lambda\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{\lambda^{-2}N,\lambda^{-1}{\mathbf{U}}}(\lambda^{2}t,\lambda x),$
$\displaystyle P^{\lambda}_{N,{\mathbf{U}}}(t,x)$ $\displaystyle:=$
$\displaystyle\lambda^{2}P_{\lambda^{-2}N,\lambda^{-1}{\mathbf{U}}}(\lambda^{2}t,\lambda
x)$
is also a solution pair of equation (4).
These three properties are exhibited by the classical Navier-Stokes equations
(cf. [2]).
Intuitively, when the maximum of the fluid velocity is larger than $\sqrt{N}$,
the dissipative term $g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf u}}$ (regarded as some extra force) will
enter into the equation and restrain the flux of the liquid. In this sense,
the value of $N$ plays the role of a valve. On the other hand, when we realize
equation (4) on a computer, the value of $N$ can be reset as an arbitrarily
large number along with the process of calculations as long as there is no
explosion. So, the term involving $g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}$ plays the role of some
kind of adjustment. The parameter $\kappa$ can be understood as the extent of
the extra dissipative force, and will be used to give a better estimate for
$\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{\infty}$ in terms of $N$ (see part (III) of Theorem
2.4).
In contrast with equation (2), the tamed equation (4) in domain ${\Omega}$ is
global since $g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})$ depends
on all values of $\mathord{{\bf u}}$ in ${\Omega}$. But, better than (2), it
is easy to write down the vorticity equation: Let
$\omega=\mathrm{curl}\mathord{{\bf u}}=\nabla\wedge\mathord{{\bf u}}$. Then
$\partial_{t}\omega=\nu\Delta\omega+(\omega\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf
u}}-(\mathord{{\bf u}}\cdot\nabla)\omega-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}-{\mathbf{U}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\omega.$
We remark that in [4], Caraballo, Real and Kloeden studied the following
globally modified NSE in a bounded regular domain $\Omega$:
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{aligned} &\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)=\Delta\mathord{{\bf u}}-{\mathord{{\rm
min}}}\\{1,N/\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\\}(\mathord{{\bf
u}}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf u}}+\nabla P,\\\ &{\mathord{{\rm
div}}}(\mathord{{\bf u}})=0,\ \ (t,x)\in[0,\infty)\times{\Omega},\\\
&\mathord{{\bf u}}(t,x)=0,\ \ t\geqslant 0,\ \ x\in\partial{\Omega},\ \
\mathord{{\bf u}}(0)=\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0},\end{aligned}\right.$ (5)
and they proved the existence of a unique strong solution to this modified
equation as well as the existence of a global attractor. Nevertheless,
equation (5) does not enjoy the above properties (A)-(C).
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, all main results are
announced. In Section 3, we prepare some necessary lemmas for later use. In
the remaining sections, we shall give the proofs of main results. We want to
emphasize that for the proof of existence of strong solutions (see Section 4),
not using the usual Galerkin approximation, we only use the linearized
equations and simple Picard’s iteration. Moreover, the semigroup method used
in Fujita-Kato [6] (cf. [17]) will be used to improve the regularity of strong
solutions (see Section 5). The existence of a global attractor for the
evolution semigroup determined by equation (4) will follow by proving some
asymptotic compactness (cf. [4, 20, etc.]).
## 2\. Announcement of Main Results
Throughout this paper, all ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$-valued functions and spaces of
such functions will be denoted by boldfaced letters, and we use the following
convention: the letter $C$ with or without subscripts will denote a positive
constant whose value may change in different occasions.
Let ${\Omega}$ be a uniform $C^{3}$-regular domain of ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ (see
[1, p.84] for the definition of regular domains). Let
${\mathbf{C}}^{\infty}_{0}({\Omega})$ denote the set of all smooth functions
from ${\Omega}$ to ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ with compact supports in ${\Omega}$, and
${\mathbf{C}}^{\infty}_{0,\sigma}({\Omega})\subset{\mathbf{C}}^{\infty}_{0}({\Omega})$
the set of all smooth vector fields of divergence free. For $p>1$, let
${\mathbf{L}}^{p}({\Omega})$ be the usual ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$-valued
$L^{p}$-space with the norm denoted by
$\|\cdot\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{p}(\Omega)}=\|\cdot\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{p}}$, and
${\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}({\Omega})$ the closure of
${\mathbf{C}}^{\infty}_{0,\sigma}({\Omega})$ in ${\mathbf{L}}^{p}({\Omega})$.
For $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $p>1$, let ${\mathbf{W}}^{k,p}({\Omega})$ be the
space of ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$-valued functions with finite norm:
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{k,p}({\Omega})}:=\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{k,p}}:=\bigg{(}\sum_{j=0}^{k}\int_{\Omega}|\nabla^{j}\mathord{{\bf
u}}(x)|^{p}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}x\bigg{)}^{\frac{1}{p}}<+\infty,$
where $\nabla^{j}$ denotes the $j$-th order generalized derivative operator.
The space ${\mathbf{W}}^{1,2}_{0}({\Omega})$ (resp.
${\mathbf{W}}^{1,2}_{0,\sigma}({\Omega})$) denotes the completion of
${\mathbf{C}}^{\infty}_{0}({\Omega})$ (resp.
${\mathbf{C}}^{\infty}_{0,\sigma}({\Omega})$) with respect to the above norm
with $k=1$ and $q=2$.
Let ${\mathscr{P}}$ be the orthogonal projection from
${\mathbf{L}}^{2}({\Omega})$ to ${\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}({\Omega})$. By $A$
(called the Stokes operator) we denote the self-adjoint operator in
${\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}(\Omega)$ formally given by
$A:=-{\mathscr{P}}\Delta.$
More precisely, $\mathord{{\bf u}}\in{\mathscr{D}}(A)$ if and only if for some
$\mathord{{\bf w}}\in{\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}({\Omega})$ (written as
$A\mathord{{\bf u}}=\mathord{{\bf w}}$), it holds that
${\langle}\nabla\mathord{{\bf u}},\nabla\mathord{{\bf
v}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}={\langle}\mathord{{\bf w}},\mathord{{\bf
v}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},\quad\forall\mathord{{\bf
v}}\in{\mathbf{W}}^{1,2}_{0,\sigma}({\Omega}).$
In particular,
${\mathscr{D}}(A^{\frac{1}{2}})={\mathbf{W}}^{1,2}_{0,\sigma}({\Omega})$ and
$\displaystyle\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}=\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},\quad\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in{\mathbf{W}}^{1,2}_{0,\sigma}({\Omega}).$ (6)
Moreover, it is well known that (cf. [17, p.129])
${\mathscr{D}}(A)={\mathbf{W}}^{2,2}({\Omega})\cap{\mathbf{W}}^{1,2}_{0,\sigma}({\Omega}).$
Since $A$ is a positive self-adjoint operator in
${\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}({\Omega})$, for $\alpha\in(-1,1)$, the fractional
power $A^{\alpha}$ is well defined via the spectral representation. For
$\beta\in[0,2]$, define the Hilbert space
${\mathbf{H}}^{\beta}(\Omega):={\mathbf{H}}^{\beta}:={\mathscr{D}}(A^{\beta/2})$
with the norm $\|\cdot\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{\beta}}$ generated by inner product
${\langle}\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf
v}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{\beta}}:={\langle}\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf
v}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+{\langle}A^{\beta/2}\mathord{{\bf
u}},A^{\beta/2}\mathord{{\bf v}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
We introduce the following bilinear form $B$ on
${\mathbf{W}}^{1,2}_{0,\sigma}({\Omega})={\mathbf{H}}^{1}$:
$\displaystyle B(\mathord{{\bf v}},\mathord{{\bf
u}}):=-{\mathscr{P}}((\mathord{{\bf v}}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf u}}).$ (7)
Using ${\mathscr{P}}$ to act on both sides of equation (4), we can and shall
consider the following equivalent abstract equation
$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf u}}=-\nu A\mathord{{\bf
u}}+B(\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf u}})-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf u}},\ \ \mathord{{\bf u}}(0)=\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}.$ (8)
We give the following definition of strong solutions to the above equation.
###### Definition 2.1.
Let $\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$. A continuous function
${\mathbb{R}}_{+}\ni t\mapsto\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$
is called a strong solution of equation (8) if $\mathord{{\bf u}}\in
L^{2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}_{+};{\mathbf{H}}^{2})$ and for all $t\geqslant 0$
$\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)=\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}-\nu\int^{t}_{0}A\mathord{{\bf u}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s+\int^{t}_{0}B(\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf u}}){\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s-\int^{t}_{0}g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf u}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s\ \ \mbox{ in \
${\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}(\Omega)$.}$ (9)
Our first main result is stated as follows:
###### Theorem 2.2.
Let ${\Omega}$ be a uniform $C^{2}$-domain of ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$. For any
$\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$, there exists a unique strong
solution $\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)=\mathord{{\bf u}}_{N}(t)$ to equation (8) in
the sense of Definition 2.1, which satisfies that for any $t\geqslant 0$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+2\nu\int^{t}_{0}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},$ (10)
$\displaystyle\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\nu\int^{t}_{0}\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\frac{\kappa N}{\nu^{2}}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ (11)
and for some $T^{*}=T^{*}(\nu,\Omega,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}})$ and $C=C(\nu,\Omega,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}})$
$\displaystyle\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant
C/\sqrt{t},\ \ \forall t\geqslant T^{*}.$ (12)
Moreover, letting $\mathord{{\bf u}}_{N}(t)$ (resp. $\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{M}(t)$) be the solution of equation (8) with initial value $\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$ (resp. $\mathord{{\bf v}}_{0}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$)
and taming function $g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}$ (resp. $g^{\nu,\kappa}_{M}$), we have
for any $T>0$
$\displaystyle\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|\mathord{{\bf u}}_{N}(t)-\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{M}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}^{2}+\int^{T}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N}-\mathord{{\bf v}}_{M}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}^{2}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$
$\displaystyle\quad\leqslant C({\nu,N,M,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}},\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}},T})\cdot(|N-M|^{2}+\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}-\mathord{{\bf v}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}),$ (13)
where the constant $C({\nu,N,M,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}},\|\mathord{{\bf v}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}},T})$
continuously depends on its parameters.
###### Remark 2.3.
For $T>0$ and $N\geqslant 1$, define
${\mathbb{T}}^{T}_{N}:=\\{t\in[0,T]:\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|_{\infty}\geqslant\sqrt{N}\\}.$
By (10), (11) and (21) below, we have
$\displaystyle\lambda({\mathbb{T}}^{T}_{N})$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{N}\int^{T}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\leqslant\frac{C_{\Omega}}{N}\int^{T}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}\cdot\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\frac{C_{\Omega}}{N}\left(\int^{T}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\right)^{1/2}\cdot\left(\int^{T}_{0}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}^{2}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s\right)^{1/2}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\frac{C_{\Omega}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot(\frac{\kappa N}{\nu^{2}}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\nu T\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}})^{1/2}}{\sqrt{2}\nu N},$
where $\lambda({\mathbb{T}}^{T}_{N})$ denotes the Lebesgue measure of
${\mathbb{T}}^{T}_{N}$. This gives an estimate of the length of the time for
which $\mathord{{\bf u}}_{N}$ does not satisfy equation (1). In particular,
$\lim_{N\to\infty}\lambda({\mathbb{T}}^{T}_{N})=0,$
which shows that as $N$ goes to infinity, $\mathord{{\bf u}}_{N}$ satisfies
equation (1) at “almost all” times.
We are now interested in the estimation of $\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{\infty}$ in
terms of $N$ and prove the following result.
###### Theorem 2.4.
Let ${\Omega}$ be a uniform $C^{2}$-domain and $\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2}$. Let $\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\kappa}_{N}$ be the
unique strong solution in Theorem 2.2. We have the following conclusions:
1. (I)
There exist two continuous function
$K_{1}:{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{2}\to{\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ and
$K_{2}:{\mathbb{R}}_{+}^{3}\to{\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ such that for all $t\geqslant
0$ and $N\geqslant 1$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\kappa}_{N}(t)\|_{\infty}\leqslant
K_{1}(t,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}})+K_{2}(t,\nu,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}})\cdot N^{3},$ (14)
where $K_{1}(t,r),K_{2}(t,\nu,r)\to 0$ as $t\to 0$ or $\nu\to\infty$ or $r\to
0$. In particular, for $T>0$, if one of the following conditions is satisfied,
then there is a unique strong solution in $[0,T]$ for equation (1):
(i) $T$ is small; (ii) $\|\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}$ is
small; (iii) $\nu$ is large.
2. (II)
Let ${\Omega}={\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ or be a bounded uniform $C^{4}$-domain and
$\mathord{{\bf u}}=\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\kappa}_{N}$. Then
$\mathord{{\bf u}}\in C([0,\infty)\times\bar{\Omega};{\mathbb{R}}^{3})$
and for $i,j=1,2,3$
$\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf u}},~{}\partial_{i}\mathord{{\bf
u}},~{}\partial_{i}\partial_{j}\mathord{{\bf u}}\in
C((0,\infty)\times\bar{\Omega};{\mathbb{R}}^{3}).$
Moreover, for some $P\in C((0,\infty)\times\bar{\Omega};{\mathbb{R}})$ (with
$\int_{\Omega}P(x){\mathord{{\rm d}}}x=0$), it holds that
$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf u}}=\Delta\mathord{{\bf
u}}-(\mathord{{\bf u}}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf u}}+\nabla
P-g_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf u}},\
\forall(t,x)\in(0,\infty)\times{\Omega}.$ (15)
3. (III)
Let $\Omega={\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ and $\nu>0$. For any $\alpha>\frac{1}{2}$, there
exist $\kappa>0$ and two functions $K_{1,\alpha,\kappa},K_{2,\alpha,\kappa}$
as in (I) such that for all $t\geqslant 0$ and $N\geqslant 1$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\kappa}_{N}(t)\|_{\infty}\leqslant
K_{1,\alpha,\kappa}(t,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}})+K_{2,\alpha,\kappa}(t,\nu,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}})\cdot N^{\alpha}.$ (16)
###### Remark 2.5.
We do not know whether the $\alpha$ in (III) can be smaller than $1/2$. If
this can be proven, then (1) will have a classical solution. In fact, even for
$\alpha=1/2$, it seems also hard to prove (16).
###### Remark 2.6.
Fix $T>0$ and $N_{1}\geqslant 1$. Define a sequence of real numbers
recursively as follows:
$N_{k+1}:=\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|\mathord{{\bf u}}_{N_{k}}(t)\|^{2}_{\infty},\ \
k\in{\mathbb{N}}.$
It is easy to see that equation (1) has a explosion solution in $[0,T]$ if and
only if
$N_{1}<N_{2}<N_{3}<\cdots<N_{k}\rightarrow\infty.$
The strict monotonicity is clear. Assume that
$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}N_{k}=N_{\infty}<\infty$. By the continuous
dependence of $\mathord{{\bf u}}_{N}$ with respect to $N$ (see (13)), we have
$\lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N_{k}}(t)-\mathord{{\bf u}}_{N_{\infty}}(t)\|^{2}_{\infty}=0.$
Therefore,
$N_{\infty}=\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N_{\infty}}(t)\|^{2}_{\infty}<\infty,$
which implies that $\mathord{{\bf u}}_{N_{\infty}}(t)$ satisfies (1), no
explosion.
For $\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$, let $\\{\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t;\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0});t\geqslant 0\\}$ be the unique strong solution of
equation (8), which defines a nonlinear evolution semigroup:
$\displaystyle S(t)\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}:=\mathord{{\bf u}}(t;\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}):{\mathbf{H}}^{1}\to{\mathbf{H}}^{1}.$ (17)
By Theorem 2.2, $\\{S(t);t\geqslant 0\\}$ has the following properties:
1. (i)
$S(0)=I$ identity map on ${\mathbf{H}}^{1}$;
2. (ii)
$S(t+s)=S(t)S(s)$ for any $t,s\geqslant 0$;
3. (iii)
$[0,\infty)\times{\mathbf{H}}^{1}\ni(t,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0})\mapsto
S(t)\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$ is continuous.
###### Definition 2.7.
A compact subset ${\mathcal{A}}\subset{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$ is called a global
attractor of the evolution semigroup $\\{S(t);t\geqslant 0\\}$ if
1. (i)
${\mathcal{A}}$ is invariant under $S(t)$, i.e, for any $t>0$,
$S(t){\mathcal{A}}={\mathcal{A}}$;
2. (ii)
${\mathcal{A}}$ attracts all bounded set
${\mathcal{U}}\subset{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$, i.e.,
$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\rho(S(t){\mathcal{U}},{\mathcal{A}})=0,$
where $\rho({\mathcal{A}}_{1},{\mathcal{A}}_{2}):=\sup_{\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in{\mathcal{A}}_{1}}\inf_{\mathord{{\bf
v}}\in{\mathcal{A}}_{2}}\|\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$.
We have the following existence of global attractors of $\\{S(t),t\geqslant
0\\}$.
###### Theorem 2.8.
Let ${\Omega}$ be a bounded uniform $C^{2}$-domain of ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$. Then
there exists a global attractor ${\mathcal{A}}\subset{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$ to
$\\{S(t);t\geqslant 0\\}$ defined by (17).
## 3\. Preliminaries
In this section, we collect some necessary materials for later use. The
following lemma is from [8, Lemma 6].
###### Lemma 3.1.
Let $\phi:{\mathbb{R}}_{+}\to{\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ be an absolute continuous
function and $g:{\mathbb{R}}_{+}\to{\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ a locally Lipschitz
continuous function. Suppose that
$\Lambda:=\int^{\infty}_{0}\phi(t){\mathord{{\rm d}}}t<+\infty$ and
$g(\phi)\leqslant\alpha\phi^{2}$ for $\phi\leqslant\beta$, where
$\alpha,\beta>0$. If
$\phi^{\prime}(t)\leqslant g(\phi(t)),\ \forall t\geqslant 0,$
then for $t\geqslant(\Lambda/\beta)\exp(\alpha\Lambda)$
$\phi(t)\leqslant(e^{\alpha\Lambda}-1)/(\alpha t).$
Let $\\{E_{\lambda},\lambda>0\\}$ be the spectrum decomposition of $A$ in
${\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}({\Omega})$. The Stokes semigroup is then defined by
$e^{-tA}:=\int^{\infty}_{0}e^{-t\lambda}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}E_{\lambda},$
and for $\alpha\in[-1,1]$, $A^{\alpha}$ is given by
$A^{\alpha}:=\int^{\infty}_{0}\lambda^{\alpha}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}E_{\lambda}.$
The following lemma is easily derived from the above representations (cf.
[17]).
###### Lemma 3.2.
(i) For any $\alpha\in[0,1]$ and $\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in{\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}(\Omega)$, we have $e^{-tA}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in{\mathscr{D}}(A^{\alpha})$ and
$\|A^{\alpha}e^{-tA}\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant
t^{-\alpha}\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},\ \ \forall t>0.$
(ii) For all $\mathord{{\bf u}}\in{\mathscr{D}}(A^{\alpha})$ and $t\geqslant
0$
$A^{\alpha}e^{-tA}\mathord{{\bf u}}=e^{-tA}A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf u}},\ \
\|e^{-tA}\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant
C_{\alpha}t^{\alpha}\|A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
(iii) For any $0\leqslant\alpha<\gamma<\beta\leqslant 1$ and $\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in{\mathscr{D}}(A^{\beta})$
$\|A^{\gamma}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant\|A^{\beta}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}^{\frac{\gamma-\alpha}{\beta-\alpha}}\cdot\|A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{\frac{\beta-\gamma}{\beta-\alpha}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant\frac{\gamma-\alpha}{\beta-\alpha}\|A^{\beta}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{\beta-\gamma}{\beta-\alpha}\|A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
We recall the following well known results (cf. [17, Lemma 2.4.2 (p.142),
Lemma 2.5.2 (p.152) and Lemma 2.4.3 (p.143)]).
###### Lemma 3.3.
(i) For $\alpha\in[0,1/2]$ and $q=\frac{6}{3-4\alpha}$, there exists a
constant $C=C(\alpha,q)>0$ such that for any $\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2\alpha}$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}\leqslant
C\|A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$ (18)
(ii) For $\alpha\in[0,1/2]$ and $q=\frac{6}{3+4\alpha}$, there exists a
constant $C=C(\alpha,q)>0$ such that for any $\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in{\mathbf{L}}^{q}(\Omega)$
$\displaystyle\|A^{-\alpha}{\mathscr{P}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant C\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}.$
(19)
(iii) For $\alpha\in[1/2,1]$ and $q=\frac{6}{5-4\alpha}$, there exists a
constant $C=C(\Omega,\alpha,q)>0$ such that for any $\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2\alpha}$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{1,q}}\leqslant
C(\|A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}).$ (20)
This lemma has the following conclusions.
###### Lemma 3.4.
Let ${\Omega}$ be a uniform $C^{2}$-domain. For some $C_{\Omega}>0$ and any
$\mathord{{\bf u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2}({\Omega})$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{\infty}({\Omega})}^{2}\leqslant
C_{\Omega}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}({\Omega})}\cdot\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}({\Omega})},$ (21)
and for $\frac{3}{4}<\alpha\leqslant 1$, some $C_{\alpha,{\Omega}}>0$ and any
$\mathord{{\bf u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2\alpha}({\Omega})$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{\infty}({\Omega})}\leqslant
C_{\alpha,{\Omega}}\cdot(\|A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}({\Omega})}+\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}({\Omega})}).$ (22)
###### Proof.
Since ${\Omega}$ is a uniform $C^{2}$-domain, by [1, p. 154, Theorem 5.24]
there exists a bounded linear operator
$E:{\mathbf{W}}^{k,p}({\Omega})\mapsto{\mathbf{W}}^{k,p}({\mathbb{R}}^{3})$
such that $E\mathord{{\bf u}}=\mathord{{\bf u}}$ a.e. on ${\Omega}$. Recall
the following Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality (cf. [5, p.24, Theorem 9.3]): Let
$1\leqslant p,q\leqslant\infty$ and $\alpha\in[0,1]$ with $p\not=3$ and
$\frac{1}{r}=\alpha\left(\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{3}\right)+(1-\alpha)\frac{1}{q}.$
Then, for some $C=C(r,p,q)$ and all $\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in{\mathbf{W}}^{1,p}({\mathbb{R}}^{3})\cap{\mathbf{L}}^{q}({\mathbb{R}}^{3})$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{r}({\mathbb{R}}^{3})}\leqslant C\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{1,p}({\mathbb{R}}^{3})}^{\alpha}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}({\mathbb{R}}^{3})}^{1-\alpha}.$ (23)
Thus, by (18) we have
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{\infty}({\Omega})}^{2}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\|E\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{3})}^{2}\leqslant C\|E\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{2,2}({\mathbb{R}}^{3})}\cdot\|E\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{6}({\mathbb{R}}^{3})}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle C_{\Omega}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{2,2}({\Omega})}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{6}({\Omega})}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
C_{\Omega}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}({\Omega})}\cdot\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}({\Omega})}$
and for $q=\frac{6}{5-4\alpha}>3$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{\infty}({\Omega})}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\|E\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{\infty}({\mathbb{R}}^{3})}\leqslant C_{q}\|E\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{1,q}({\mathbb{R}}^{3})}\leqslant
C_{q,{\Omega}}\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{1,q}({\Omega})}$
$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Int2})}}{{\leqslant}}$
$\displaystyle C_{\alpha,{\Omega}}\cdot(\|A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}({\Omega})}+\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}({\Omega})}).$
The proof is complete. ∎
The contents below in this section are only used in Section 5.
###### Lemma 3.5.
For some $C,C_{\Omega}>0$ and all $\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2}={\mathscr{D}}(A)$, we have
$\displaystyle\|A^{-\frac{1}{4}}B(\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf
u}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
C\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},$ (24)
$\displaystyle\|B(\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf u}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
C_{\Omega}(\|A^{\frac{5}{8}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}).$
(25)
###### Proof.
By Hölder’s inequality, we have
$\displaystyle\|A^{-\frac{1}{4}}B(\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf
u}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Int1})}}{{\leqslant}}C\|(\mathord{{\bf
u}}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{3/2}}\leqslant
C_{\|}\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{6}}\cdot\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Int})}}{{\leqslant}}C\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
and
$\displaystyle\|B(\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf u}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\|(\mathord{{\bf
u}}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{12}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{1,12/5}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle C_{\Omega}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{1,12/5}}^{2}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Int2})}}{{\leqslant}}C_{\Omega}(\|A^{\frac{5}{8}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}),$
where the third inequality is due to
${\mathbf{W}}^{1,12/5}(\Omega)\subset{\mathbf{L}}^{12}({\Omega})$. ∎
###### Lemma 3.6.
For any $\frac{3}{4}<\gamma<\beta\leqslant 1$, there are three positive
continuous functions $F_{1},F_{3}:{\mathbb{R}}^{2}_{+}\to{\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ and
$F_{2}:{\mathbb{R}}_{+}\to{\mathbb{R}}_{+}$ such that for all $\mathord{{\bf
u}},\mathord{{\bf v}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2\beta}$
$\displaystyle\|B(\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf u}})-B(\mathord{{\bf
v}},\mathord{{\bf
v}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf u}}-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf v}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\qquad\leqslant F_{1}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2\beta}},\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2\beta}})\cdot\|A^{\beta}(\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}})\|^{\frac{\gamma}{\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}-\mathord{{\bf v}}\|^{\frac{\beta-\gamma}{\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\qquad\quad+F_{2}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2\beta}})\cdot\|A^{\beta}(\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}})\|^{\frac{1}{2\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}-\mathord{{\bf v}}\|^{1-\frac{1}{2\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\qquad\quad+F_{3}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2\beta}},\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2\beta}})\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
###### Proof.
Note that by (iii) of Lemma 3.2
$\|\nabla(\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}=\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant\|A^{\beta}(\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}})\|^{\frac{1}{2\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}-\mathord{{\bf v}}\|^{1-\frac{1}{2\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
and
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf v}}\|_{\infty}$
$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{PI3})}}{{\leqslant}}$
$\displaystyle C_{\Omega}(\|A^{\gamma}(\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}})$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
C_{\Omega}(\|A^{\beta}(\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}})\|^{\frac{\gamma}{\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|^{\frac{\beta-\gamma}{\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}-\mathord{{\bf v}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}).$
The result now follows from
$\|B(\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf u}})-B(\mathord{{\bf v}},\mathord{{\bf
v}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{\infty}\cdot\|\nabla(\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{\infty}\cdot\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf v}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
and
$\displaystyle\|g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf u}}-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf v}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\frac{\kappa}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}-\mathord{{\bf v}}\|_{\infty}\cdot(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{\infty}+\|\mathord{{\bf v}}\|_{\infty})\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ $\displaystyle+\frac{\kappa}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
∎
We introduce some notations. Let $I$ be a closed interval of $t$, and let
${\mathbb{X}}$ be a Banach space. By $C(I;{\mathbb{X}})$ we denote the set of
all continuous ${\mathbb{X}}$-valued functions defined on $I$. For
$0<\theta<1$, $C^{\theta}(I;{\mathbb{X}})$ means the set of all functions
which are strongly Hölder continuous with the exponent $\theta$. If $I$ is not
closed, $v\in C^{\theta}(I;{\mathbb{X}})$ means that $v\in
C^{\theta}(I_{1};{\mathbb{X}})$ for any closed interval $I_{1}$ contained in
$I$.
The following lemma is easily deduced from Lemma 3.2 (cf. [6, 14]).
###### Lemma 3.7.
For $T>0$, let $\mathord{{\bf
f}}:[0,T]\mapsto{\mathbf{H}}^{0}={\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}({\Omega})$ be
continuous and consider
$\mathord{{\bf w}}(t):=\int^{t}_{0}e^{-(t-s)A}\mathord{{\bf
f}}(s){\mathord{{\rm d}}}s.$
1. (i)
For any $0\leqslant\alpha<\theta<1$
$A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf w}}\in
C^{1-\theta}([0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{0}),\quad\|A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf
w}}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant C_{\alpha}\cdot
t^{1-\alpha}\cdot\sup_{s\in[0,T]}\|\mathord{{\bf f}}(s)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
2. (ii)
If $\mathord{{\bf f}}\in C([0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{0})\cap
C^{\alpha}((0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{0})$ for some $\alpha\in(0,1)$, then for any
$0<\theta<\alpha$
$A\mathord{{\bf w}}\in
C^{\theta}((0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{0}),\quad\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf w}}\in
C((0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{2\theta}).$
Moreover, $(0,T]$ can be replaced by $[0,T]$ in the above condition and
conclusions.
###### Proof.
The first conclusion is direct from Lemma 3.2. For the second, fixing
$\delta\in(0,T)$, we write
$\mathord{{\bf w}}(t)=e^{-(t-\delta)A}\mathord{{\bf
w}}(\delta)+\int^{t}_{\delta}e^{-(t-s)A}\mathord{{\bf f}}(s){\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s=:\Psi_{\delta}(t)+\Phi_{\delta}(t).$
It is easy to see that
$\Psi_{\delta}(\cdot)\in C^{\infty}((\delta,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{0})$
and
$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\Phi_{\delta}(t)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
e^{-(t-\delta)A}\mathord{{\bf
f}}(t)-\int^{t}_{\delta}Ae^{-(t-s)A}(\mathord{{\bf f}}(s)-\mathord{{\bf
f}}(t)){\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-A\Phi_{\delta}(t)+\mathord{{\bf f}}(t),\quad\delta\leqslant
t\leqslant T.$
(ii) now follows from Lemma 3.2. ∎
For $\alpha\in[0,1]$, let ${\mathbf{W}}^{k+\alpha,2}({\Omega})$ be the complex
interpolation space between ${\mathbf{W}}^{k,2}({\Omega})$ and
${\mathbf{W}}^{k+1,2}({\Omega})$. The following lemma is easily derived by
[19, p.23, Proposition 2.2] and the interpolation theorem (cf. [21]).
###### Lemma 3.8.
Let $k\in{\mathbb{N}}\cup\\{0\\}$ and ${\Omega}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ be a
bounded domain of class $C^{k+2}$. For any $\mathord{{\bf
f}}\in{\mathbf{W}}^{\alpha,2}({\Omega})$, $0\leqslant\alpha\leqslant k$, there
exist unique functions $\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in{\mathbf{W}}^{2+\alpha,2}({\Omega})$ and $P\in W^{1+\alpha,2}({\Omega})$
(with $\int_{\mathcal{O}}P{\mathord{{\rm d}}}x=0$), which solve the following
Stokes problem in the distribution sense:
$\nu\Delta\mathord{{\bf u}}=\nabla P+\mathord{{\bf f}},\ \ {\mathord{{\rm
div}}}(\mathord{{\bf u}})=0,\ \ \mathord{{\bf u}}|_{\partial{\Omega}}=0.$
Moreover, there exists a constant $C_{\alpha,\nu}>0$ such that
$\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{2+\alpha,2}({\Omega})}+\|P\|_{W^{1+\alpha,2}({\Omega})}\leqslant
C_{\alpha,\nu}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf f}}\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{\alpha,2}({\Omega})}.$
## 4\. Proof of Theorem 2.2
In this section, we use the following equivalent norm in
${\mathbf{H}}^{\beta}$ ($\beta\in[0,2]$)
$\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{\beta}}=\|(I+A)^{\beta/2}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},\ \ \mathord{{\bf u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{\beta}.$
We first prove:
###### Lemma 4.1.
For any $\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf v}},\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime},\mathord{{\bf v}}^{\prime}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2}$ we have
$\displaystyle{\langle}B(\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\prime},\mathord{{\bf
u}})-g_{N}^{\nu,\kappa}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf u}}-B(\mathord{{\bf
v}}^{\prime},\mathord{{\bf v}})+g_{N}^{\nu,\kappa}(\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf v}},(I+A)(\mathord{{\bf
u}}-\mathord{{\bf v}}){\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ (26)
$\displaystyle\qquad\leqslant\frac{3\nu}{4}\|\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+\frac{\nu}{8}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}-\mathord{{\bf v}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+\frac{\kappa
N}{\nu}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle\qquad\quad+\frac{C_{\Omega}}{\nu^{3}}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}-\mathord{{\bf
v}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\cdot((1+4\kappa)\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\kappa\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}})^{2}.$
###### Proof.
Set
$\mathord{{\bf w}}=\mathord{{\bf u}}-\mathord{{\bf v}},\ \ \ \mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}=\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\prime}-\mathord{{\bf v}}^{\prime},$
and write (26) as the following four terms’ sum
$\displaystyle I_{1}$ $\displaystyle:=$ $\displaystyle{\langle}B(\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime},\mathord{{\bf w}}),(I+A)\mathord{{\bf
w}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},$ $\displaystyle I_{2}$ $\displaystyle:=$
$\displaystyle{\langle}B(\mathord{{\bf w}}^{\prime},\mathord{{\bf
v}}),(I+A)\mathord{{\bf w}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},$ $\displaystyle
I_{3}$ $\displaystyle:=$
$\displaystyle-{\langle}g_{N}^{\nu,\kappa}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf w}},(I+A)\mathord{{\bf
w}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},$ $\displaystyle I_{4}$ $\displaystyle:=$
$\displaystyle-{\langle}[g_{N}^{\nu,\kappa}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{\infty})-g_{N}^{\nu,\kappa}(\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{\infty})]\mathord{{\bf v}},(I+A)\mathord{{\bf
w}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
By $ab\leqslant\frac{\nu}{4\epsilon}a^{2}+\frac{\epsilon}{\nu}b^{2}$, we have
$\displaystyle I_{1}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\|B(\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime},\mathord{{\bf w}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|(I+A)\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\nu}\|(\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}^{2}+\frac{\nu}{2}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}^{2}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}^{2}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{\nu}{2}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}^{2}$
and similarly,
$I_{2}\leqslant\frac{1}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}^{2}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{\nu}{4}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}^{2}.$
For $I_{3}$, by $g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(r)\geqslant\frac{\kappa}{\nu}(r-N)$ we
have
$\displaystyle I_{3}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-
g_{N}^{\nu,\kappa}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{\infty})\cdot\|(I+A)^{1/2}\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle-\frac{\kappa}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{\infty}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\frac{\kappa N}{\nu}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}.$
For $I_{4}$, by
$|g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(r)-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(r)|\leqslant\frac{\kappa}{\nu}|r-r^{\prime}|$
we have
$\displaystyle I_{4}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\frac{\kappa}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}+\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty})\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf w}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\frac{\kappa}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}\cdot(2\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}+\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty})\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf w}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{2\kappa}{\nu}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}})\cdot(\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}\|\mathord{{\bf v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}})$
$\displaystyle+\frac{\kappa}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}^{2}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf w}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\frac{\kappa}{2\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{\infty}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}^{2}+\frac{2\kappa}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{\infty}\|\mathord{{\bf v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}^{2}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{\kappa}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}^{2}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\cdot(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\|\mathord{{\bf v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}).$
Combining the above calculations, we obtain
$\displaystyle I_{1}+I_{2}+I_{3}+I_{4}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\frac{3\nu}{4}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+\frac{\kappa N}{\nu}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\frac{(1-\kappa)}{2\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{\infty}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{1}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|_{\infty}^{2}\cdot((1+3\kappa)\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\kappa\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}})$
$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{PI2})}}{{\leqslant}}$
$\displaystyle\frac{3\nu}{4}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+\frac{\kappa N}{\nu}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\frac{(1-\kappa)}{2\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{\infty}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{C_{\Omega}}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot((1+4\kappa)\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\kappa\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}})$
$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\kappa\geqslant 1)}}{{\leqslant}}$
$\displaystyle\frac{3\nu}{4}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+\frac{\nu}{8}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+\frac{\kappa N}{\nu}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{C^{2}_{\Omega}}{\nu^{3}}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}^{\prime}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\cdot((1+4\kappa)\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\kappa\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}})^{2},$
which produces the desired estimate. ∎
### 4.1. Proof of Existence
Let $\mathord{{\bf v}}\in C([0,\infty);{\mathbf{H}}^{1})\cap
L^{2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}_{+};{\mathbf{H}}^{2})$. We first consider the
following linearized equation:
$\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf u}}=-\nu A\mathord{{\bf u}}+B(\mathord{{\bf
v}},\mathord{{\bf u}})-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf u}},\ \ \mathord{{\bf u}}(0)=\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}.$
By the standard theory of PDE, there is a unique strong solution
$\mathord{{\bf u}}$ to above equation with
$\mathord{{\bf u}}\in C([0,\infty);{\mathbf{H}}^{1})\cap
L^{2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}_{+};{\mathbf{H}}^{2}).$
Let us construct the approximation sequence of equation (8) as follows: Set
$\mathord{{\bf u}}_{1}(t)\equiv 0$. For $k=2,3,\cdots$, let
$\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k}(t)\in C([0,\infty);{\mathbf{H}}^{1})\cap
L^{2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}_{+};{\mathbf{H}}^{2})$ (27)
solve the following equation
$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k}=-\nu A\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}+B(\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k-1},\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k})-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k},\ \ \mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}(0)=\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}.$ (28)
Firstly, note that
${\langle}A\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k},\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}=\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
and
${\langle}B(\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k-1},\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k}),\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}=-{\langle}(\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k},\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}=-\frac{1}{2}{\langle}{\mathord{{\rm
div}}}\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k-1},|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}|^{2}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}=0.$
By the chain rule, we have from (28) that
$\displaystyle{\mathord{{\rm d}}}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}/{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}t=-2\nu\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}-2g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty})\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant-2\nu\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$ (29)
Integrating both sides of (29) yields that
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+2\nu\int^{t}_{0}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t\leqslant\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},\ \ \forall t\geqslant 0.$ (30)
Secondly, for any $T>0$ we have
$\displaystyle\int^{T}_{0}|g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty})|^{2}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}t\leqslant\frac{\kappa}{\nu}\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\int^{T}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{4}_{\infty}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t$
$\displaystyle\qquad\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{PI2})}}{{\leqslant}}C\cdot\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\sup_{t\in[0,T]}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\int^{T}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}t\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{PI4})}}{{<}}+\infty$
and
$\displaystyle\int^{T}_{0}\|B(\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k-1},\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k})\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle C\int^{T}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t$ (31)
$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{PI3})}}{{\leqslant}}$
$\displaystyle C\int^{T}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}\cdot\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}t\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{PI4})}}{{<}}+\infty.$
Thus, recalling ${\mathbf{H}}^{0}={\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}(\Omega)$, from
(28) one has
$\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k}\in
L^{2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}_{+};{\mathbf{H}}^{0}).$
Consider the evolution triple
${\mathbf{H}}^{2}\subset{\mathbf{H}}^{1}\subset{\mathbf{H}}^{0}.$
By the chain rule (cf. [19, p.176, Lemma 1.2]) and Young’s inequality, we have
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}}{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\nu\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+{\langle}B(\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1},\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k}),A\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty})\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ (32) $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle-\frac{\nu}{2}\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{1}{2\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty})\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle-\frac{\nu}{2}\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{1-2\kappa}{2\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{\kappa N}{\nu}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},$
where the last step is due to
$g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(r)\geqslant\frac{\kappa}{\nu}(r-N).$
Integrating both sides of (32) and using (30) and $\kappa\geqslant 1$, we
obtain
$\displaystyle\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\nu\int^{t}_{0}\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s\leqslant\frac{\kappa
N}{\nu^{2}}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},\ \ \forall t\geqslant 0.$ (33)
Now set
$\mathord{{\bf w}}_{k,m}(t):=\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k}(t)-\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{m}(t).$
Then
$\displaystyle\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf w}}_{k,m}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-A\mathord{{\bf w}}_{k,m}+B(\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1},\mathord{{\bf w}}_{k,m})+B(\mathord{{\bf w}}_{k-1,m-1},\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{m})$ $\displaystyle-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}-\big{[}g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty})-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{m-1}\|^{2}_{\infty})\big{]}\mathord{{\bf v}}_{m}.$
Again, by [19, p.176, Lemma 1.2] and Lemma 4.1 we have
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}}{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\nu\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+\nu\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$ (35)
$\displaystyle+{\langle}B(\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k-1},\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}),(I+A)\mathord{{\bf w}}_{k,m}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle+{\langle}B(\mathord{{\bf w}}_{k-1,m-1},\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{m}),(I+A)\mathord{{\bf w}}_{k,m}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty}){\langle}\mathord{{\bf w}}_{k,m},(I+A)\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle-\big{[}g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty})-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{m-1}\|^{2}_{\infty})\big{]}{\langle}\mathord{{\bf v}}_{m},\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle-\frac{\nu}{4}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+\frac{\nu}{8}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k-1,m-1}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+(\nu+\frac{\kappa
N}{\nu})\|\mathord{{\bf w}}_{k,m}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{C_{\Omega}}{\nu^{3}}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k-1,m-1}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\cdot((1+4\kappa)\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\kappa\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{m}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}})^{2}.$
Integrating this inequality and using (30) and (33), we get
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\frac{\nu}{2}\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$
$\displaystyle\qquad\leqslant\frac{\nu}{4}\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k-1,m-1}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s+C_{\nu,N}\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$
$\displaystyle\qquad\quad+C_{\nu,N,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}}\cdot\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k-1,m-1}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s.$
Set
$h(t):=\varlimsup_{k,m\to\infty}\sup_{s\in[0,t]}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}(s)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
and
$f(t):=\varlimsup_{k,m\to\infty}\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{k,m}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s.$
Then by (30), (33) and Fatou’s lemma, we have
$\frac{\nu}{2}f(t)\leqslant\frac{\nu}{4}f(t)+C_{\nu,N,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}}\int^{t}_{0}h(s){\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$
and
$h(t)\leqslant\frac{\nu}{4}f(t)+C_{\nu,N,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}}\int^{t}_{0}h(s){\mathord{{\rm d}}}s\leqslant
2C_{\nu,N,\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}}\int^{t}_{0}g(s){\mathord{{\rm d}}}s.$
Hence, by Gronwall’s inequality we have
$h(t)=f(t)=0,\ \ \forall t\geqslant 0.$
Thus, there exists a function $\mathord{{\bf u}}\in
C([0,\infty);{\mathbf{H}}^{1})\cap
L^{2}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}_{+};{\mathbf{H}}^{2})$ such that for any $T>0$
$\displaystyle\varlimsup_{k\to\infty}\sup_{s\in[0,T]}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}-\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\varlimsup_{k\to\infty}\int^{T}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}(s)-\mathord{{\bf u}}(s)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s=0.$
Lastly, taking limits $k\to\infty$ for
$\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k}(t)=\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}-\int^{t}_{0}A\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s+\int^{t}_{0}B(\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k-1},\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k}){\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s-\int^{t}_{0}g(\|\mathord{{\bf u}}_{k-1}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$
and inequalities (30) and (33), we can see that $\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)$
satisfies (9), (10) and (11).
### 4.2. Proof of Decay Estimate (12)
Following the method of Heywood [8], by the chain rule and [8, p.649 (14)], we
have
$\displaystyle\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}}{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-2\nu\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+2{\langle}B(\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf
u}}),A\mathord{{\bf
u}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}-2g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-\nu\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+C_{\nu,\Omega}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{4}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+C^{\prime}_{\nu,{\Omega}}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{6}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
Note that
$\int^{\infty}_{0}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{k}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}t\leqslant\frac{\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}}{2\nu}=:\Lambda.$
In Lemma 3.1, if we take $\phi(t)=\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$, $\beta=1/(C^{\prime}_{\nu,{\Omega}}\Lambda)$
and $\alpha=C_{\nu,\Omega}+1/\Lambda$, then
$\displaystyle\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant\frac{e^{C_{\nu,\Omega}\Lambda+1}-1}{(C_{\nu,\Omega}+1/\Lambda)t}\leqslant
C_{3}t^{-1}$
for
$t\geqslant(C^{\prime}_{\nu,{\Omega}}\Lambda)e^{C_{\nu,\Omega}\Lambda+1}=T^{*}$.
Thus, (12) follows.
### 4.3. Proof of Continuous Dependence (13)
Set
$\mathord{{\bf w}}_{N,M}(t):=\mathord{{\bf u}}_{N}(t)-\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{M}(t).$
Once again, by the chain rule (cf. [19, p.176, Lemma 1.2]) we have
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}}{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+{\langle}B(\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N},\mathord{{\bf w}}_{N,M}),\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$ $\displaystyle+{\langle}B(\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M},\mathord{{\bf v}}_{M}),\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N}\|^{2}_{\infty})\|\mathord{{\bf w}}_{N,M}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle-\big{[}g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N}\|^{2}_{\infty})-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{M}\|^{2}_{\infty})\big{]}{\langle}\mathord{{\bf v}}_{M},\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle-\big{[}g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{M}\|^{2}_{\infty})-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{M}(\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{M}\|^{2}_{\infty})\big{]}{\langle}\mathord{{\bf v}}_{M},\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}.$
Noting that
$|g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(r)-g_{M}(r)|\leqslant\frac{\kappa}{\nu}|N-M|,\ \ \forall
r\geqslant 0,\ \ N,M\geqslant 1,$
as in the proof of existence, by Lemma 4.1 and Young’s inequality we find that
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{2}\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}}{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle-\frac{\nu}{8}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+(\nu+\frac{\kappa N}{\nu})\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{C_{\Omega}}{\nu^{3}}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\cdot((1+4\kappa)\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\kappa\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{M}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}})^{2}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{\kappa}{\nu}|N-M|\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{M}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Es22})(\ref{Es222})}}{{\leqslant}}$
$\displaystyle-\frac{\nu}{16}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}+C_{\nu,N,M,\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0},\mathord{{\bf v}}_{0}}\|\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{N,M}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+C_{\nu,\mathord{{\bf v}}_{0}}|N-M|^{2},$
where $C_{\nu,\mathord{{\bf v}}_{0}}=4\kappa^{2}\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}/\nu^{3}$,
$C_{\nu,N,M,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0},\mathord{{\bf v}}_{0}}=(\nu+\frac{\kappa
N}{\nu})+\frac{C_{\Omega}}{\nu^{3}}((1+4\kappa)K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}}+\kappa K_{\nu,M,\mathord{{\bf v}}_{0}})^{2}$
and
$K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}}:=\frac{\kappa N}{\nu^{2}}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}.$
The estimate (13) now follows by Gronwall’s inequality.
## 5\. Proof of Theorem 2.4
### 5.1. Proof of Part (I)
Let $\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)$ be the unique strong solution of equation (8). By
Duhamel’s formula, we may write
$\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
e^{-At}\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}+\int^{t}_{0}e^{-(t-s)A}B(\mathord{{\bf
u}},\mathord{{\bf u}}){\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s-\int^{t}_{0}e^{-(t-s)A}g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf u}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$ (36)
$\displaystyle=:$ $\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf w}}_{1}(t)+\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{2}(t)+\mathord{{\bf w}}_{3}(t).$
First of all, it is clear that $\mathord{{\bf w}}_{1}\in
C^{\infty}((0,T];{\mathbf{H}}^{2})$ and
$\displaystyle\|A\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{1}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$ (37)
For $\mathord{{\bf w}}_{2}(t)$, by (i) of Lemma 3.2 we have
$\displaystyle\|A^{\frac{5}{8}}\mathord{{\bf w}}_{2}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\int^{t}_{0}\|A^{\frac{7}{8}}e^{-(t-s)A}A^{-\frac{1}{4}}B(\mathord{{\bf
u}},\mathord{{\bf u}})\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$ (38)
$\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\int^{t}_{0}\frac{\|A^{-\frac{1}{4}}B(\mathord{{\bf
u}},\mathord{{\bf
u}})\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}}{(t-s)^{\frac{7}{8}}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{PI2})}}{{\leqslant}}C_{\Omega}\cdot\int^{t}_{0}\frac{\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}}{(t-s)^{\frac{7}{8}}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$
$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Es222})}}{{\leqslant}}$
$\displaystyle C_{\Omega}K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}}\cdot
t^{\frac{1}{8}},$
where
$K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}}:=\frac{\kappa N}{\nu^{2}}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}+\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}\|^{2}.$
For $\mathord{{\bf w}}_{3}(t)$, recalling (6) and by Lemma 3.2, we have for
$\alpha\in[1/2,1)$
$\displaystyle\|A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf w}}_{3}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\int^{t}_{0}g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\cdot\|A^{\alpha}e^{-(t-s)A}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty}\cdot\frac{1}{(t-s)^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}}\cdot\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$
$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{PI2})}}{{\leqslant}}$
$\displaystyle C_{\Omega}\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}}\cdot\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\frac{1}{(t-s)^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
C_{\Omega}\int^{t}_{0}\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\frac{1}{(t-s)^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s$ $\displaystyle+C_{\Omega}\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\frac{1}{(t-s)^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle:I_{1}+I_{2}.$
By (10), (11) and Hölder’s inequality we have
$I_{1}\leqslant C_{\Omega}K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}}t^{1-\alpha}\left(\int^{t}_{0}\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}(s)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s\right)^{1/2}\leqslant
C_{\Omega}K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}}^{3/2}\cdot t^{1-\alpha}$
and
$I_{2}\leqslant C_{\Omega}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}}^{\frac{1}{2}}t^{1-\alpha}\left(\int^{t}_{0}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}(s)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s\right)^{1/2}\leqslant
C_{\Omega}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}}^{1/2}\cdot
t^{1-\alpha}.$
Hence
$\displaystyle\|A^{\alpha}\mathord{{\bf
w}}_{3}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant C_{\Omega}\Big{(}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}}^{1/2}+K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}}^{3/2}\Big{)}\cdot
t^{1-\alpha}.$ (39)
Combining (36), (37), (38) and (39), we find that
$\displaystyle\|A^{\frac{5}{8}}\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\|A^{\frac{5}{8}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+C_{\Omega}K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}}\cdot
t^{\frac{1}{8}}$ $\displaystyle+C_{\Omega}\Big{(}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}}^{1/2}+K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}}^{3/2}\Big{)}\cdot t^{3/8}$
$\displaystyle=:$ $\displaystyle M_{0}(t,\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0})$
and by (25) and (10)
$\displaystyle\|B(\mathord{{\bf u}}(t),\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t))\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
C_{\Omega}(\|A^{\frac{5}{8}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}})$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
C_{\Omega}\cdot(M_{0}(t,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0})^{2}+\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}).$
By (10) of Lemma 3.7, we have for any $\frac{3}{4}<\gamma<1$
$\displaystyle\|A^{\gamma}\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\|A^{\gamma}\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+C_{\Omega}\cdot(M_{0}(t,\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0})^{2}+\|\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}})\cdot
t^{1-\gamma}$ (40) $\displaystyle+C_{\Omega}\Big{(}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}}^{1/2}+K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}}^{3/2}\Big{)}\cdot
t^{1-\gamma},$
which then yields the estimate (14) by (22).
### 5.2. Proof of Part (II)
In this subsection, we assume ${\Omega}={\mathbb{R}}^{3}$ or ${\Omega}$ is a
bounded uniform $C^{4}$-domain. Our proof is concentrated on the case of
bounded domain. Clearly, it also works for ${\Omega}={\mathbb{R}}^{3}$.
Below, fix $T>0$ and set
$\mathord{{\bf f}}(s):=B(\mathord{{\bf u}}(s),\mathord{{\bf
u}}(s))-g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf u}}(s)\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf
u}}(s).$
Then by Lemma 3.6 and (22), (40)
$[0,T]\ni s\mapsto\mathord{{\bf
f}}(s)\in{\mathbf{H}}^{0}={\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}({\Omega})\ \mbox{ is
continuous.}$
By (i) of Lemma 3.7, we have for any $\beta\in(0,1)$ and $0<\theta<1$
$\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf u}}\in C^{\theta}([0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{0})\cap
C([0,T];{\mathbf{H}}^{2\beta}).$ (41)
Thus, by Lemma 3.6 and (22), for any $\frac{3}{4}<\gamma<\beta\leqslant 1$,
there are constants $C_{1},C_{2},C_{3}>0$ such that for all $t,s\in[0,T]$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf f}}(t)-\mathord{{\bf
f}}(s)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
C_{1}\cdot\|A^{\beta}(\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)-\mathord{{\bf
u}}(s))\|^{\frac{\gamma}{\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)-\mathord{{\bf u}}(s)\|^{1-\frac{\gamma}{\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
(42) $\displaystyle+C_{2}\cdot\|A^{\beta}(\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)-\mathord{{\bf
u}}(s))\|^{\frac{1}{2\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)-\mathord{{\bf u}}(s)\|^{1-\frac{1}{2\beta}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle+C_{3}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)-\mathord{{\bf
u}}(s)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
Choosing $\beta$ close to $1$ and $\gamma$ close to $\frac{3}{4}$ and using
(40) and (41), we find that for any $0<\alpha<\frac{1}{4}$
$\mathord{{\bf f}}\in C^{\alpha}([0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{0}).$
Thus, by (ii) of Lemma 3.7 and (36) we have, for any $0<\alpha<\frac{1}{4}$
$A\mathord{{\bf u}}\in
C^{\alpha}((0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{0}),\quad\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf u}}\in
C((0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{2\alpha})$
Using induction and (42) with $\beta=1$ as well as (41), one finds that for
any $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ and $0<\alpha<1-\left(\frac{3}{4}\right)^{n+1}$
$\mathord{{\bf f}}\in C^{\alpha}((0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{0})$
and
$A\mathord{{\bf u}}\in C^{\alpha}((0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{0}),\ \
\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf u}}\in C((0,T],{\mathbf{H}}^{2\alpha}).$
In particular, by
${\mathbf{H}}^{\alpha}\subset{\mathbf{W}}^{\alpha,2}({\Omega})$ for
$\alpha\in[0,2]$ we have
$\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf u}}\in
C^{\alpha}((0,T],{\mathbf{W}}^{2,2}({\Omega})),\ \ \partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\in C((0,T],{\mathbf{W}}^{9/5,2}({\Omega})).$ (43)
Set
$\mathord{{\bf b}}(t):=(\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)+g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)\|^{2}_{\infty})\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t).$
As in the proof of Lemma 3.6, it is not hard to verify by (43) that
$\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf b}}(t)\in C((0,T];{\mathbf{W}}^{1,2}({\Omega})).$
(44)
Consider the Stokes equation:
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{aligned} &\nu\Delta\mathord{{\bf u}}+\nabla
P=\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf u}}+\mathord{{\bf b}}\ \mbox{ in ${\Omega}$},\\\
&{\mathord{{\rm d}}}\mathord{{\bf u}}=0\ \mbox{ in ${\Omega}$},\ \mathord{{\bf
u}}|_{\partial{\Omega}}=0.\end{aligned}\right.$
By (43), (44) and Lemma 3.8 with $\alpha=1$, we have
$\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)\in C((0,T],{\mathbf{W}}^{3,2}({\Omega})).$
As above, a simple calculation shows that
$\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf b}}(t)\in C((0,T];{\mathbf{W}}^{2,2}({\Omega})).$
(45)
By (43), (45) and Lemma 3.8 with $\alpha=\frac{9}{5}$ again, we further have
$\displaystyle\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)\in
C((0,T],{\mathbf{W}}^{\frac{19}{5},2}({\Omega}))$ (46)
and
$\displaystyle P\in C((0,T],W^{\frac{14}{5},2}({\Omega})).$ (47)
By (43), (46), (47) and the Sobolev embedding theorem (cf. [21, Theorem
4.6.1]), we finally obtain that
$\partial_{t}\mathord{{\bf u}},~{}\partial_{i}\mathord{{\bf
u}},~{}\partial_{i}\partial_{j}\mathord{{\bf u}},~{}P\in
C((0,T]\times\bar{\Omega};{\mathbb{R}}^{3})$
and (15) holds.
### 5.3. Proof of Part (III)
In this subsection, we assume ${\Omega}={\mathbb{R}}^{3}$.
###### Lemma 5.1.
For fixed $q\geqslant 2$ and $r\geqslant 1$, there exists
$\kappa:=\kappa(q):=Cq^{4}$, where $C$ is a universal constant, such that for
any $N\geqslant 1$ and $t\geqslant 0$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\kappa}_{N}(t)\|^{r}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}\leqslant\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{r}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}+\frac{r\kappa}{\nu}\cdot
N\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\kappa}_{N}\|^{r}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$ (48)
and
$\displaystyle\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\kappa}_{N}\|^{2}_{\infty}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\kappa}_{N}\|^{r}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\leqslant\frac{2\nu}{r\kappa}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{r}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}+2N\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\kappa}_{N}\|^{r}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s.$ (49)
###### Proof.
Let $\mathord{{\bf u}}:=\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\kappa}_{N}$. Taking the scalar
product for both sides of equation (15) with $q|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{q-2}\mathord{{\bf u}}$, and then integrating over ${\mathbb{R}}^{3}$, we
find by the integration by parts formula
$\displaystyle\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}}{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-q\nu\||\nabla\mathord{{\bf u}}||\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{(q-2)/2}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}-\frac{4(q-2)\nu}{q}\|\nabla|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{q/2}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ $\displaystyle+q{\langle}\nabla
P,|\mathord{{\bf u}}|^{q-2}\mathord{{\bf
u}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}-q\cdot g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}},$
where we have used that
$q{\langle}(\mathord{{\bf u}}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf u}},|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{q-2}\mathord{{\bf u}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}={\langle}\mathord{{\bf
u}},\nabla|\mathord{{\bf u}}|^{q/2}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}=0.$
Let $f$ be an increasing smooth function on $[0,\infty)$. We further have
$\displaystyle\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}f(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}})}{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle f^{\prime}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}})\Big{[}-q\nu\||\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}||\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{(q-2)/2}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}-\frac{4(q-2)\nu}{q}\|\nabla|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{q/2}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ (50) $\displaystyle+q{\langle}\nabla
P,|\mathord{{\bf u}}|^{q-2}\mathord{{\bf
u}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}-q\cdot g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}\Big{]}.$
On the other hand, taking the divergence for equation (15) we have
$\Delta P={\mathord{{\rm div}}}[(\mathord{{\bf u}}\cdot\nabla)\mathord{{\bf
u}}],$
which gives
$P=-(-\Delta)^{-1}{\mathord{{\rm div}}}[(\mathord{{\bf
u}}\cdot\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}})]=-(-\Delta)^{-1}\partial_{j}\partial_{i}(u^{i}\cdot u^{j}).$
So, by the Calderón-Zygmund inequality we get for any $\gamma\geqslant 2$ (cf.
[18])
$\displaystyle\|P\|_{L^{\gamma}}\leqslant C_{1}\cdot\gamma\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2\gamma}}^{2},$ (51)
Here and below, $C_{i},i=1,2,3$ are universal constants. Thus, by Young’s
inequality and Hölder’s inequality we have
$\displaystyle q{\langle}\nabla P,|\mathord{{\bf u}}|^{q-2}\mathord{{\bf
u}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q{\langle}P,|\mathord{{\bf u}}|^{q-2}{\mathord{{\rm div}}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+q{\langle}P,\nabla|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{q-2}\cdot\mathord{{\bf u}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle q\nu\||\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}|\cdot|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{(q-2)/2}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{C_{2}q^{3}}{\nu}\||P|\cdot|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{(q-2)/2}\|^{2}_{L^{2}}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
q\nu\||\nabla\mathord{{\bf u}}|\cdot|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{(q-2)/2}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{C_{2}q^{3}}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q-2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q+2}}\cdot\|P\|^{2}_{L^{(q+2)/2}}$
$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Lp3})}}{{\leqslant}}$
$\displaystyle q\nu\||\nabla\mathord{{\bf u}}|\cdot|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{(q-2)/2}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{C_{3}q^{5}}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q+2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q+2}}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
q\nu\||\nabla\mathord{{\bf u}}|\cdot|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{(q-2)/2}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{C_{3}q^{5}}{\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}.$
Substituting this estimate into (50), we get
$\displaystyle\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}f(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}})}{{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}t}+\frac{4(q-2)\nu}{q}f^{\prime}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}})\cdot\|\nabla|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{q/2}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ $\displaystyle\qquad\leqslant
f^{\prime}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}})\cdot\Big{[}\frac{C_{3}q^{5}}{\nu}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}-q\cdot
g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}\Big{]}.$
Now noticing that
$g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(r)\geqslant\frac{\kappa(r-N)}{\nu},\ \ r\geqslant 0,$
we find that if
$\displaystyle\kappa=2C_{3}q^{4},$ (52)
then
$\displaystyle\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}f(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}})}{{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}t}+\frac{4(q-2)\nu}{q}f^{\prime}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}})\cdot\|\nabla|\mathord{{\bf
u}}|^{q/2}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$ $\displaystyle\qquad\leqslant
f^{\prime}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}})\cdot\Big{[}\frac{q\kappa}{\nu}\cdot
N\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}-\frac{q\kappa}{2\nu}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}\Big{]}.$
(53)
Lastly, taking $f_{\epsilon}(x):=(\epsilon+x)^{r/q}$ in (53), then integrating
with respect to $t$ and letting $\epsilon\downarrow 0$ yield (48) and (49). ∎
###### Lemma 5.2.
Fix $r_{0}\geqslant 1$ and $q_{0}\geqslant 2$. Let $\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{2}_{2}$ and set $N_{0}:=C\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}_{2}}$ for some universal constant $C$. There
exists $n_{0}:=n_{0}(\nu,N_{0},q_{0},r_{0})$ large enough such that for all
$n\geqslant n_{0}$, $N\geqslant N_{0}\vee 1$ and $t\geqslant 0$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N}^{\kappa_{n}}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{0}+2q_{0}n/r_{0}}}\leqslant
2N^{\frac{n}{2n+r_{0}}}+2N^{\frac{n+1}{2n+r_{0}}}\left[\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\kappa_{n}}_{N}\|^{r_{0}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{0}}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\right]^{\frac{1}{2n+r_{0}}},$ (54)
where $\kappa_{n}=2C_{3}\cdot[(2n+r_{0})q_{0}/r_{0}]^{4}$ (see (52)). In
particular, there is an $n_{0}:=n_{0}(\nu,N_{0})$ large enough such that for
all $n\geqslant n_{0}$, $N\geqslant N_{0}\vee 1$ and $t\geqslant 0$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{N}^{\kappa_{n}}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{6(n+1)}}\leqslant 3N^{\frac{1}{2}}.$
(55)
###### Proof.
Let $\mathord{{\bf u}}:=\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\kappa}_{N}$. First of all, by the
Gagliado-Nireberg inequality (23), there is a universal constant
$C_{0}\geqslant 1$ such that for any $q\geqslant 2$
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q}}\leqslant\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{1-2/q}_{\infty}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2/q}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant C_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{2}_{2}}=:N^{1/2}_{0}.$ (56)
Define
$q_{n}:=q_{n-1}+2q_{0}/r_{0}=(2n+r_{0})q_{0}/r_{0}\ \ $
and
$r_{n}:=r_{0}q_{n}/q_{0}=2n+r_{0}.$
Then we have
$\displaystyle\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{n+1}}}^{r_{n+1}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{\infty}^{2}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{n}}}^{r_{n}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$ (by (49))
$\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\frac{2\nu}{r_{n}\cdot\kappa(q_{n})}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{r_{n}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{n}}}+2N\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{n}}}^{r_{n}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$ (by
$r_{n}\kappa(q_{n})\geqslant 2$) $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\nu\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{r_{n}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{n}}}+2N\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{n}}}^{r_{n}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$ (by iterating)
$\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle\nu\sum_{k=0}^{n}(2N)^{k}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{r_{n-k}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{n-k}}}+(2N)^{n+1}\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{0}}}^{r_{0}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$ (by (56) )
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\nu\sum_{k=0}^{n}(2N)^{k}\cdot
N_{0}^{r_{n-k}/2}+(2N)^{n+1}\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{0}}}^{r_{0}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$ (by
$r_{n}=2n+r_{0}$) $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{\nu((2N)^{n+1}N_{0}^{r_{0}/2}-N_{0}^{n+1+r_{0}/2})}{2N-N_{0}}$
$\displaystyle+(2N)^{n+1}\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{0}}}^{r_{0}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s$ (by $N\geqslant
N_{0}\vee 1$) $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\frac{\nu
N_{0}^{r_{0}/2}(2N)^{n+1}}{N}+(2N)^{n+1}\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{0}}}^{r_{0}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s.$
Hence, by (48)
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)\|^{r_{n}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{n}}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{n}}}^{r_{n}}+r_{n}\kappa(q_{n})\cdot
N_{0}^{r_{0}/2}(2N)^{n}$
$\displaystyle+\frac{r_{n}\kappa(q_{n})N}{\nu}\cdot(2N)^{n}\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{r_{0}}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{q_{0}}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s.$
Now taking the root $1/r_{n}$ and noting that
$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(r_{n}\kappa(q_{n}))^{1/r_{n}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Ka})}}{{=}}\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}(2C_{3}r_{n}q^{4}_{n})^{1/r_{n}}=1,$
we obtain the desired estimate (54).
As for (55), it follows by taking $r_{0}=2$ and $q_{0}=6$ in (54) and noting
that
$\int^{t}_{0}\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{6}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Int})}}{{\leqslant}}C\int^{t}_{0}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Es22})}}{{\leqslant}}\frac{C}{2\nu}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
The proof is complete. ∎
We are now in a position to give
Proof of (16): By (20), (40) and (10) we have
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\kappa}_{N}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{1,4}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle C(\|A^{7/8}\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\kappa}_{N}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\kappa}_{N}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}})$ (58) $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle C\|A^{7/8}\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+C\cdot(M_{0}(t,\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0})^{2}+\|\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}})\cdot t^{1/8}$
$\displaystyle+C_{\Omega}\Big{(}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}}^{1/2}+K_{\nu,N,\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}}^{3/2}\Big{)}\cdot
t^{1/8}+C\|\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
By the Gagliado-Nireberg inequality (23) and (55), we have
$\|\mathord{{\bf u}}^{\kappa}_{N}(t)\|_{\infty}\leqslant C\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\kappa}_{N}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{W}}^{1,4}}^{\frac{2}{n+3}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}^{\kappa}_{N}(t)\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{6(n+1)}}^{\frac{n+1}{n+3}}.$
Letting $n$ be large enough, the estimate (16) follows from (55) and (58).
## 6\. Proof of Theorem 2.8
We need the following simple lemma. For the reader’s convenience, a short
proof is provided here.
###### Lemma 6.1.
Let $({\mathbb{X}},\|\cdot\|_{\mathbb{X}})$ be a uniformly convex Banach space
and $K\subset{\mathbb{X}}$. Then $K$ is relatively compact in ${\mathbb{X}}$
if and only if there exists a family of finite dimensional subspaces
$\\{{\mathbb{X}}_{n},n\in{\mathbb{N}}\\}$ of ${\mathbb{X}}$ such that
$\displaystyle\sup_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\sup_{x\in
K}\|\Pi_{n}x\|_{{\mathbb{X}}}<+\infty$ (59)
and
$\displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{x\in
K}\|(I-\Pi_{n})x\|_{{\mathbb{X}}}=0,$ (60)
where $\Pi_{n}$ is the projection operator from ${\mathbb{X}}$ to
${\mathbb{X}}_{n}$, i.e., $\Pi_{n}x\in{\mathbb{X}}_{n}$ is the unique element
such that
$\|x-\Pi_{n}x\|_{{\mathbb{X}}}=\inf_{y\in{\mathbb{X}}_{n}}\|x-y\|_{{\mathbb{X}}}.$
###### Proof.
(“Only if”:) Let $K$ be relatively compact in ${\mathbb{X}}$. For any
$n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, there are finite points $\\{x_{1},\cdots,x_{m}\\}\subset
K$ such that
$K\subset\cup_{i=1}^{m}B_{1/n}(x_{i}),$
where $B_{1/n}(x_{k})$ denotes the ball in ${\mathbb{X}}$ with center $x_{k}$
and radius $1/n$. Now put
${\mathbb{X}}_{n}:=\mbox{span}\\{x_{1},\cdots,x_{m}\\}.$
It is easy to see that the corresponding $\Pi_{n}$ satisfy (59) and (60).
(“If”:) Fix any sequence $\\{x_{k},k\in{\mathbb{N}}\\}\subset K$. It suffices
to prove that there is a subsequence $x_{k_{l}}$ such that $x_{k_{l}}$
converges to some point $x\in{\mathbb{X}}$. For any $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, since
${\mathbb{X}}_{n}$ is finite dimensional, by (59) there is a subsequence
$x_{k^{(n)}_{l}}$ and $y_{n}\in{\mathbb{X}}_{n}$ such that
$\Pi_{n}x_{k^{(n)}_{l}}$ converges to $y_{n}$ as $l\rightarrow\infty$. By the
diagonalization method, one can find a common subsequence $x_{k_{l}}$ such
that for any $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$
$\lim_{l\rightarrow\infty}\|\Pi_{n}x_{k_{l}}-y_{n}\|_{\mathbb{X}}=0.$
Noting that
$\|y_{n}-y_{m}\|_{{\mathbb{X}}}\leqslant\|\Pi_{n}x_{k_{l}}-y_{n}\|_{\mathbb{X}}+\|\Pi_{n}x_{k_{l}}-y_{n}\|_{\mathbb{X}}+\|\Pi_{n}x_{k_{l}}-P_{m}y_{n}\|_{\mathbb{X}},$
we have by (60) that $\\{y_{n},n\in{\mathbb{N}}\\}$ is a Cauchy sequence in
${\mathbb{X}}$. So, there is an $x\in{\mathbb{X}}$ such that $y_{n}$ converges
to $x$ in ${\mathbb{X}}$. By (60) again, it is easy to find that $x_{k_{l}}$
converges to $x$ in ${\mathbb{X}}$. The proof is complete. ∎
Since we have assumed that ${\Omega}$ is a bounded domain in Theorem 2.8,
${\mathbf{H}}^{1}={\mathbf{W}}^{1,2}_{0,\sigma}({\Omega})$ is compactly
embedded in ${\mathbf{H}}^{0}={\mathbf{L}}^{2}_{\sigma}({\Omega})$. Let
$0<\lambda_{1}\leqslant\lambda_{2}\leqslant\cdots\leqslant\lambda_{k}\to\infty$
be the eigenvalues of $A$, and ${\mathscr{E}}:=\\{\mathord{{\bf
e}}_{k};k\in{\mathbb{N}}\\}$ the corresponding orthonormal eigenvectors, i.e.,
$\displaystyle A\mathord{{\bf e}}_{k}=\lambda_{k}\mathord{{\bf e}}_{k},\ \
{\langle}\mathord{{\bf e}}_{k},\mathord{{\bf
e}}_{j}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}=\delta_{kj}.$ (61)
From this, one knows that the following Poincare inequality holds:
$\displaystyle\sqrt{\lambda_{1}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},\quad\forall\mathord{{\bf u}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}.$
(62)
Moreover, by (21) and (62) we have
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{2}_{\infty}\leqslant
C_{0}\cdot\|A\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$ (63)
We have:
###### Lemma 6.2.
For $\epsilon>0$, let ${\mathcal{B}}_{\epsilon}:=\\{\mathord{{\bf
v}}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}:\|\mathord{{\bf
v}}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\leqslant\epsilon\\}$. Then ${\mathcal{B}}_{\epsilon}$
is an absorbing set of $\\{S(t);t\geqslant 0\\}$, i.e., for any bounded set
${\mathcal{U}}\subset{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$, there exists $t_{\mathcal{U}}>0$ such
that for any $t>t_{\mathcal{U}}$
$S(t){\mathcal{U}}\subset{\mathcal{B}}_{\epsilon}.$
###### Proof.
By the chain rule and (62), we have
${\mathord{{\rm d}}}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}/{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t=-2\nu\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}-2g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant-2\nu\lambda_{1}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}},$
which implies
$\displaystyle\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}e^{-2\nu\lambda_{1}t}.$ (64)
As the calculation of (32), by Young’s inequality we have
$\displaystyle\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}}{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}t}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle-\nu\|A\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{2\kappa
N}{\nu}\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Le4})}}{{\leqslant}}$
$\displaystyle-\nu\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+C_{\nu,\kappa}\cdot N\cdot\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle-\frac{\nu}{2}\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+C_{\nu,\kappa}\cdot N^{2}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
$\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle(\ref{Poi})}}{{\leqslant}}$
$\displaystyle-\frac{\nu\lambda_{1}}{2}\cdot\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+C_{\nu,\kappa}\cdot N^{2}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot e^{-2\nu\lambda_{1}t}.$
Integrating this differential inequality yields that
$\displaystyle\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant
e^{-\nu\lambda_{1}t/2}\Big{[}\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+C_{\nu,\kappa}\cdot N^{2}\cdot\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot(1-e^{-3\nu\lambda_{1}t/2})/(\nu\lambda_{1})\Big{]}.$
(65)
Hence, for any $\mathord{{\bf u}}_{0}\in{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$
$\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\|S(t)\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}=0.$
The result follows. ∎
We now use Lemma 6.1 to prove the following compactness result.
###### Lemma 6.3.
For any $t>0$, $S(t)$ is a compact operator from ${\mathbf{H}}^{1}$ to
${\mathbf{H}}^{1}$, i.e., maps a bounded set in ${\mathbf{H}}^{1}$ into a
relatively compact in ${\mathbf{H}}^{1}$.
###### Proof.
Let ${\mathcal{U}}\subset{\mathbf{H}}^{1}$ be a bounded set. Let $\Pi_{n}$ be
the projection operator from ${\mathbf{H}}^{1}$ to span$\\{\mathord{{\bf
e}}_{k}:k=1,\cdots,n\\}$, i.e.,
$\displaystyle\Pi_{n}\mathord{{\bf v}}:=\sum_{k=1}^{n}{\langle}\mathord{{\bf
v}},\mathord{{\bf e}}_{k}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\mathord{{\bf e}}_{k}.$
(66)
First of all, by (65) we have
$\displaystyle\sup_{n\in{\mathbb{N}}}\sup_{\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\in{\mathcal{U}}}\|\Pi_{n}S(t)\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\leqslant\sup_{\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\in{\mathcal{U}}}\|S(t)\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}<+\infty.$ (67)
Write
$\Pi^{c}_{n}:=I-\Pi_{n}$
By (61) and (66) we have
$\Pi^{c}_{n}A=A\Pi^{c}_{n}.$
Thus, from (9) we get
$\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)=\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}-\nu\int^{t}_{0}A\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf u}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s+\int^{t}_{0}\Pi^{c}_{n}B(\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf
u}}){\mathord{{\rm d}}}s-\int^{t}_{0}g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf u}}{\mathord{{\rm d}}}s.$
By the chain rule (cf. [19, p.176, Lemma 1.2]) we have
$\displaystyle\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}}{{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}t}\|\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-2\nu\|A\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+2{\langle}\Pi^{c}_{n}B(\mathord{{\bf
u}},\mathord{{\bf u}}),\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}{\rangle}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle-2g^{\nu,\kappa}_{N}(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty})\cdot\|\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$
$\displaystyle-\nu\|A\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\frac{1}{\nu}\|\Pi^{c}_{n}B(\mathord{{\bf
u}},\mathord{{\bf u}})\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}.$
Noting that
$\|\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}=\|A^{\frac{1}{2}}\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant\frac{1}{\lambda_{n}}\|A\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}$
and
$\|\Pi^{c}_{n}B(\mathord{{\bf u}},\mathord{{\bf
u}})\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{\infty}\cdot\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\leqslant C\cdot\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\cdot\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{3}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}=:h(t),$
we have
$\displaystyle\frac{{\mathord{{\rm d}}}}{{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}t}\|\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\nu\lambda_{n}\|\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}\leqslant\frac{h(t)}{\nu}.$
Solving this differential inequality yields that
$\displaystyle\|\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}$
$\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
e^{-\nu\lambda_{n}t}\left(\|\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\int^{t}_{0}\frac{1}{\nu}e^{\nu\lambda_{n}s}h(s){\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\right)$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
e^{-\nu\lambda_{n}t}\left(\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\frac{1}{\nu}\left(\int^{t}_{0}e^{2\nu\lambda_{n}s}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\right)^{1/2}\left(\int^{t}_{0}h(s)^{2}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\right)^{1/2}\right)$ $\displaystyle\leqslant$ $\displaystyle
e^{-\nu\lambda_{n}t}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}+\frac{1}{\nu\sqrt{2\nu\lambda_{n}}}\left(\int^{t}_{0}h(s)^{2}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\right)^{1/2}.$
On the other hand, by (11) we have
$\int^{t}_{0}h(s)^{2}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\leqslant\sup_{s\in[0,t]}\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}(s)\|^{6}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\int^{t}_{0}\|A\mathord{{\bf
u}}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}{\mathord{{\rm
d}}}s\leqslant\frac{1}{\nu}\Big{(}\frac{\kappa N}{\nu^{2}}\|\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}+\|\nabla\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{L}}^{2}}\Big{)}^{4}.$
Hence, by $\lambda_{n}\uparrow\infty$ we obtain
$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\in{\mathcal{U}}}\|\Pi^{c}_{n}S(t)\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}=\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\sup_{\mathord{{\bf
u}}_{0}\in{\mathcal{U}}}\|\Pi^{c}_{n}\mathord{{\bf
u}}(t)\|^{2}_{{\mathbf{H}}^{1}}=0,$
which combined with (67) yields by Lemma 6.1 that $S(t){\mathcal{U}}$ is
relatively compact in ${\mathbf{H}}^{1}$. ∎
Proof of Theorem 2.8: It follows from [20, p. 23 Theorem 1.1 and (1.12’)] and
Lemmas 6.2 and 6.3.
Acknowledgements:
The author would like to thank Professor Benjamin Goldys for providing him an
excellent environment to work in the University of New South Wales. His work
is supported by ARC Discovery grant DP0663153 of Australia.
## References
* [1] R.A. Adams and J.F. Fournier: Sobolev Spaces. Second Edition, Academic Press, 2003.
* [2] A.L. Bertozzi, A.J. Majda: Vorticity and Incompressible Flow. Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
* [3] L. Caffarelli, R. Kohn, L. Nirenberg: Partial regularity of suitable weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 35 (1982), no. 6, 771–831.
* [4] T. Caraballo, J. Real and P.E. Kloeden: Unique Strong Solutions and $V$-Attractors of a Three Dimensional System of Globally Modified Navier-Stokes Equations. Advanced Nonlinear Studies, 6(2006), 411-436.
* [5] A. Friedman: Partial Differential Equations, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, INC., NewYork, 1969.
* [6] H. Fujita, T. Kato: On the Navier-Stokes Initial Value Problem. I. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 16 (1964), 269–315.
* [7] G.P. Galdi: An introduction to the Navier-Stokes initial-boundary value problem. Fundamental directions in mathematical fluid mechanics, 1–70, Adv. Math. Fluid Mech., Birkhäuser, Basel, 2000.
* [8] J.G. Heywood: The Navier-Stokes Equations: On the Existence, Regularity and Decay of Solutions, Indiana University Mathematics Journal, Vol.29, No.5 (1980), 639-681.
* [9] E. Hopf: Uber die Aufangswertaufgabe für die hydrodynamischen Grundgleichungen, Math. Nachr., 4, 1950-1951, 213-231.
* [10] O.A. Ladyzhenskaya: The mathematical theory of viscous incompressible flow. Second English edition, revised and enlarged. Translated from the Russian by Richard A. Silverman and John Chu. Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 2 Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, New York-London-Paris 1969 xviii+224.
* [11] J. Leray: Sur le mouvement d’un liquide visquex emplissant l’espace, Acta Math., 63(1934), 193-248.
* [12] F. Lin: A new proof of the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg theorem. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 51 (1998), no. 3, 241–257.
* [13] P.L. Lions: Mathematical Topics in Fluid Mechanics, Volume 1, Incompressible Models. Oxford Lect. Series in Math. and its App. 3, 1996.
* [14] A. Pazy: Semi-groups of linear operators and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1985.
* [15] M. Röckner, X. Zhang: Tamed 3D Navier-Stokes Equation: Existence, Uniqueness and Regularity. Preprint.
* [16] V. Scheffer: Hausdorff measure and the Navier-Stokes equations. Comm. Math. Phys. 55 (1977), no. 2, 97–112.
* [17] H. Sohr: The Navier-Stokes Equations: An Elementary Functional Analytic Approach. Advanced Texts, Birkhäuser Verlag, 2001.
* [18] E.M. Stein: Singular Integrals and Differentiability Properties of Functions. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1970.
* [19] R. Temam: Navier-Stokes equations: Theory and numerical analysis. Originally published: Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1977. AMS, Providence, Rhode Island, 2001.
* [20] R. Temam: Infinite-Dimensional Dynamical Systems in Mechanics and Physics. Applied Math. Sci., 68. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997
* [21] H. Triebel: Interpolation Theory, Function Spaces, Differential Operators. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam-New York-Oxford,1978.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-10T08:49:40 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.182985 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Xicheng Zhang",
"submitter": "Xicheng Zhang",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1600"
} |
0806.1795 | # NUCLEAR PAIRING AT FINITE TEMPERATURE AND
ANGULAR MOMENTUM 111To appear in the Proceedings of the First Workshop on
State of the Art in Nuclear Cluster Physics, Strasbourg 13 - 16 May, 2008.
N. DINH DANG Heavy-Ion Nuclear Physics Laboratory, Nishina Center for
Accelerator-Based Science,
RIKEN 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako city, 351-0198 Saitama, Japan
and
Institute for Nuclear Science and Technique, Hanoi, Vietnam
dang@riken.jp N. QUANG HUNG 222On leave of absent from the Institute of
Physics and Electronics, Hanoi, Vietnam. Heavy-Ion Nuclear Physics Laboratory,
Nishina Center for Accelerator-Based Science,
RIKEN 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako city, 351-0198 Saitama, Japan
nqhung@riken.jp
###### Abstract
An approach is proposed to nuclear pairing at finite temperature and angular
momentum, which includes the effects of the quasiparticle-number fluctuation
and dynamic coupling to pair vibrations within the self-consistent
quasiparticle random-phase approximation. The numerical calculations of
pairing gaps, total energies, and heat capacities are carried out within a
doubly folded multilevel model as well as several realistic nuclei. The
results obtained show that, in the region of moderate and strong couplings,
the sharp transition between the superconducting and normal phases is smoothed
out, causing a thermal pairing gap, which does not collapse at a critical
temperature predicted by the conventional Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer’s (BCS)
theory, but has a tail extended to high temperatures. The theory also predicts
the appearance of a thermally assisted pairing in hot rotating nuclei.
## 1 Introduction
The effect of temperature and angular momentum on pairing properties is an
interesting subject in the study of nuclear structure. Because of its
simplicity, the BCS theory is often used, which offers a good description of
pairing correlation in the macroscopic systems such as metallic
superconductors. It predicts a collapse of the pairing gap at $T_{\rm c}$,
which signals the sharp superfluid-normal (SN) phase transition at finite
temperature. The BCS theory, however, ignores quantal and thermal
fluctuations, which are significant in finite small systems. Therefore, it
needs to be corrected for the application to finite nuclei. Various
theoretical approaches have been proposed to study the effects of fluctuations
on nuclear pairing [2, 3, 4]. Their results show that, at zero angular
momentum, thermal fluctuations smear out the sharp SN phase transition,
resulting in a pairing gap, which does not collapse at finite temperature. In
rotating nuclei, a phenomenon of temperature induced pair correlations, which
reflects the strong fluctuations of the order parameter in small systems, has
also been predicted [5]. The recent microscopic approach, called the modified
BCS (MBCS) theory [6] has shown, for the fist time, that the microscopic
source causing the non-collapsing pairing gap is the quasiparticle-number
fluctuation (QNF).
Recently, we proposed the self-consistent quasiparticle random-phase
approximation (SCQRPA) [7], which includes the QNF as well as the quantal
fluctuations due to dynamic coupling to pair vibrations. The purpose of
present work is to extend this approach to finite temperature and finite
angular momentum.
## 2 Formalism
The pairing Hamiltonian is considered, which describes a system of $N$
particles interacting via a pairing force with the parameter $G$ and rotating
with angular velocity $\gamma$ and a fixed angular momentum projection $M$ on
the laboratory (or body) fixed $z-$ axis:
$H=\sum_{k}\epsilon_{k}(N_{k}+N_{-k})-G\sum_{k,k^{\prime}}P_{k}^{\dagger}P_{k^{\prime}}-\lambda\hat{N}-\gamma\hat{M}~{},\hskip
14.22636ptN_{\pm k}=a_{\pm k}^{\dagger}a_{\pm k}~{},\hskip
14.22636ptP_{k}^{\dagger}=a_{k}^{\dagger}a_{-k}^{\dagger}~{},$ (1)
where $a_{\pm k}^{\dagger}$ ($a_{\pm k}$) is the operator that creates
(annihilates) a particle with angular momentum $k$, spin projection $m_{k}$ or
$-m_{k}$, and energy $\epsilon_{k}$. For simplicity, the subscripts $k$ label
the single-particle states $|k,m_{k}\rangle$ with $m_{k}>$ 0, whereas $-k$
denote the time-reversal states $|k,-m_{k}\rangle$. The particle number
operator $\hat{N}$ is defined as
$\hat{N}=\sum_{k}(a_{k}^{\dagger}a_{k}+a_{-k}^{\dagger}a_{-k})$, whereas
$\hat{M}=\sum_{k}m_{k}(a_{k}^{\dagger}a_{k}-a_{-k}^{\dagger}a_{-k})$ is the
$z$-projection of total angular momentum. The variational procedure is applied
to minimize the expectation value of this Hamiltonian in the grand canonical
ensemble. The result yields the final equations for the pairing gap, particle
number and total angular momentum, which include the effect of QNF in the form
$\Delta_{k}=\Delta+\delta\Delta_{k}=G\sum_{k^{\prime}}u_{k^{\prime}}v_{k^{\prime}}\langle{\cal
D}_{k^{\prime}}\rangle+G\frac{\delta{\cal N}_{k}^{2}}{\langle{\cal
D}_{k}\rangle}u_{k}v_{k}~{},$ (2) $N=2\sum_{k}\bigg{[}v_{k}^{2}\langle{\cal
D}_{k}\rangle+\frac{1}{2}\big{(}1-\langle{\cal
D}_{k}\rangle\big{)}\bigg{]}~{},\hskip
14.22636ptM=\sum_{k}m_{k}(n_{k}^{+}-n_{k}^{-})~{},$ (3)
where the quasiparticle energy $E_{k}$ and renormalized single-particle energy
$\epsilon_{k}^{\prime}$ are given as
$E_{k}=\sqrt{(\epsilon^{\prime}_{k}-Gv_{k}^{2}-\lambda)^{2}+\Delta_{k}^{2}}~{},$
(4) $\epsilon_{k}^{\prime}=\epsilon_{k}+\frac{G}{\langle{\cal
D}_{k}\rangle}\sum_{k^{\prime}}(u_{k^{\prime}}^{2}-v_{k^{\prime}}^{2})\bigg{(}\langle{\cal
A}_{k}^{\dagger}{\cal A}_{k^{\prime}}\rangle+\langle{\cal
A}_{k}^{\dagger}{\cal A}_{k^{\prime}}^{\dagger}\rangle_{k\neq
k^{\prime}}\bigg{)}~{},$ (5)
with $\langle{\cal D}_{k}\rangle=1-n_{k}^{+}-n_{k}^{-}$, and ${\cal
A}^{\dagger}_{k}\equiv\alpha_{k}^{\dagger}\alpha_{-k}^{\dagger}$. The
expectation values $\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{k}{\cal A}_{k^{\prime}}\rangle$
and $\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{k}{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{k^{\prime}}\rangle$ are
evaluated by solving a set of coupled equations, which contain the SCQRPA $X$
and $Y$ amplitudes. The QNF is given as $\delta{\cal
N}_{k}^{2}=n_{k}^{+}(1-n_{k}^{+})+n_{k}^{-}(1-n_{k}^{-})$, where the
quasiparticle occupation numbers $n_{\pm k}$ are found from the integral
equations
$n_{k}^{\pm}=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\frac{\gamma_{k}^{\pm}(\omega)(e^{\beta\omega}+1)^{-1}}{[\omega-
E_{k}\pm\gamma
m_{k}-M_{k}^{\pm}(\omega)]^{2}+[\gamma_{k}^{\pm}(\omega)]^{2}}d\omega~{},$ (6)
with the mass operators $M_{k}^{\pm}(\omega)$ obtained by solving the set of
equations for double-time quasiparticle Green’s functions and those of a
quasiparticle coupled with SCQRPA pair vibrations. The quasiparticle dampings
are given as $\gamma_{k}^{\pm}(\omega)=\Im m[M_{k}^{\pm}(\omega\pm
i\varepsilon)]$.
The proposed approach is called the FTBCS1+SCQRPA theory. Neglecting the
coupling to SCQRPA, i.e. the factors $\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{k}{\cal
A}_{k^{\prime}}\rangle$ and $\langle{\cal A}^{\dagger}_{k}{\cal
A}^{\dagger}_{k^{\prime}}\rangle$, it becomes the FTBCS1 theory, which is
different from the conventional FTBCS theory by the presence of the QNF. The
violation of particle number at zero angular momentum is approximately removed
by applying the Lipkin-Nogami (LN) method. The corresponding approaches are
called the FTLN1+SCQRPA and FTLN1.
## 3 Results
The numerical calculations are carried out within the $\Omega$ doubly
degenerate equidistant model with the number $\Omega$ of levels equal to that
of particles, $N$, as well as for 20O, 44Ca, 56Fe, and 120Sn. The results
obtained show that, at zero angular momentum, under the effect of QNF within
the FTBCS1 (FTLN1), the sharp SN phase transition predicted by the FTBCS
theory is smoothed out. As the result, the pairing gap does not collapse at
$T=T_{\rm c}$, but has a tail, which extends to high $T$. The dynamic coupling
to the SCQRPA vibrations significantly improves the agreement with the exact
results for the total energies and heat capacities obtained for $N=10$ as well
as those obtained 56Fe within the finite-temperature quantum Monte Carlo
method [8] [Figs. 1 (a) – 1 (c)]. However, for heavy nuclei such as 120Sn, the
SCQRPA corrections are found to be negligible in comparison with the FTBCS1
(FTLN1) results.
For 20O and 44Ca, the FTBCS1 pairing gaps, obtained at different $M$,
decreases as $T$ increases and do not collapses at high $T$. At $M$ higher
than the critical value $M_{\rm c}$, where the FTBCS gap for $T=0$ disappears,
there appear thermally assisted pairing correlations, in which the FTBCS1 gap
reappears at a given $T_{1}>0$, and remains finite at $T>T_{1}$ [Fig. 1 (d)].
This phenomenon is caused by the QNF within the FTBCS1 theory. At $T=0$, the
QNF is zero, so the FTBCS and FTBCS1 gaps are the same as functions of $M$ (or
$\gamma$), and both collapse at $M=M_{\rm c}$. However, with increasing $T$,
the FTBCS1 gaps, which are obtained at different $T$, collapse at $M>M_{\rm
c}$, and remain finite even at very high $T$, whereas those given by the
conventional FTBCS theory vanish at $M\geq M_{\rm c}$ and $T\geq T_{\rm c}$
[Figs. 1. (e) and 1 (f)].
file=fig.eps,width=8.5cm
Figure 1: Left panels: Pairing gaps (a), total energies (b), and heat
capacities (c) obtained within the FTBCS (dotted lines), FTBCS1 (thin solid
lines), FTLN1 (thin dashed lines), FTBCS1+SCQRPA (thick solid lines) and
FTLN1+SCQRPA (thick dashed lines) for neutrons in 56Fe. Boxes and crosses with
error bars connected by dash-dotted lines are results of Ref. 8. Right panels:
pairing gaps as functions of $T$ at different $M$ (d), and as functions of $M$
(e) and $\gamma$ (f) at various $T$ obtained within the FTBCS1 theory for
neutrons in 20O.
## References
* [1] L. G. Moretto, Phys. Lett. B 35, 397 (1971); Nucl. Phys. A 185, 145 (1971).
* [2] L. G. Moretto, Phys. Lett. B 40, 1 (1972).
* [3] A. L. Goodman, Nucl. Phys. A 352, 30 (1981); Phys. Rev. C 29, 1887 (1984).
* [4] R. Rossignoli, P. Ring, and N.D. Dang, Phys. Lett. B 297, 9 (1992).
* [5] S. Frauendorf, _et. al._ , Phys. Rev. B 68, 024518 (2003).
* [6] N.D. Dang and V. Zelevinsky, Phys. Rev. C 64, 064319 (2001); N.D. Dang and A. Arima, Phys. Rev. C 67, 014304 (2003); N. D. Dang, Nucl. Phys. A 784, 147 (2007).
* [7] N.Q. Hung and N.D. Dang, Phys. Rev. C 76, 054302 (2007), Ibid. 77, 029905(E) (2008).
* [8] S. Rombouts, K. Heyde, and N. Jachowicz, Phys. Rev. C 58, 3295 (1998).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-11T06:59:19 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.193331 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "N. Dinh Dang and N. Quang Hung",
"submitter": "Nguyen Quang Hung",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1795"
} |
0806.1967 | 11institutetext: Institut für Theoretische Astrophysik, Zentrum für Astronomie
der Universitä Heidelberg, Albert-Ueberle-Str.2, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
11email: jmerten@ita.uni-heidelberg.de 22institutetext: Max-Planck-Institut
für Astronomie, Königstuhl 17, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany 33institutetext:
INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, Via Ranzani 1, 40127 Bologna, Italy
44institutetext: INFN-National Institute for Nuclear Physics, Sezione di
Bologna, Viale B. Pichat 6/2, 40127 Bologna, Italy
# Combining weak and strong cluster lensing: Applications to simulations and
MS 2137
Julian Merten 11 Marcello Cacciato 22 Massimo Meneghetti 3344 Claudia Mignone
1122 Matthias Bartelmann 11
(Accepted for publication in A&A on March 28, 2009.)
###### Abstract
Aims. While weak lensing cannot resolve cluster cores and strong lensing is
almost insensitive to density profiles outside the scale radius, combinations
of both effects promise to constrain density profiles of galaxy clusters well,
and thus to allow testing of the CDM expectation on dark-matter halo density
profiles.
Methods. We develop an algorithm further that we had recently proposed for
this purpose. It recovers a lensing potential optimally reproducing
observations of both strong and weak-lensing effects by combining high
resolution in cluster cores with the larger-scale information from weak
lensing. The main extensions concern the accommodation of mild non-linearity
in inner iterations, the progressive increase in resolution in outer
iterations, and the introduction of a suitable regularisation term. The
linearity of the method is essentially preserved.
Results. We demonstrate the success of the algorithm with both idealised and
realistic simulated data, showing that the simulated lensing mass distribution
and its density profile are well reproduced. We then apply it to weak and
strong lensing data of the cluster MS 2137 and obtain a parameter-free
solution which is in good qualitative agreement with earlier parametric
studies.
###### Key Words.:
Gravitational lensing - Galaxies: clusters: general - Galaxies: clusters:
individual: MS 2137 - Cosmology: theory
## 1 Introduction
The mass distribution in dark-matter halos and the level of substructure in
them are among the central predictions of the CDM paradigm for cosmic
structure formation. The density profile should asymptotically fall off
$\propto r^{-3}$ at large radii $r$ and flatten considerably within a radial
scale $r_{\mathrm{s}}$ (Navarro et al. 1996).The mass distribution should be
richly substructured by sublumps of matter with a differential mass function
approximated by a power law, $dn/dM\propto M^{\alpha}$ with a slope slighly
shallower than $\alpha=-2$ (Madau et al. 2008; Springel et al. 2008).
Galaxy clusters should be weakly influenced by baryonic physics, thus their
density profiles and mass distributions outside the cooling radius should well
reflect those expected for dark matter. Do they? Although tentative answers
exist, showing that estimated density profiles do at least not contradict the
CDM expectation, accurate constraints are still missing. Due to its
insensitivity to the physical state of the matter, gravitational lensing is
perhaps the most promising tool for determining matter distributions.
Weak lensing lacks the resolution necessary to constrain the density profile
in cluster centres, while strong lensing is confined to the innermost cluster
cores. In combination, they may be able to test the CDM predictions on density
profiles well.
Several methods have been suggested to combine weak and strong cluster lensing
(Bradač et al. 2005; Cacciato et al. 2006; Diego et al. 2007). Among them is
our own algorithm aiming at the lensing potential. It is based on minimising a
$\chi^{2}$ function comparing observed shear measurements with suitable second
derivatives of the potential. Expressing the derivatives in terms of finite
differences leads to a system of linear equations whose direct inversion
yields the solution.
We extend our earlier work in several ways. First, we no longer use the
lowest-order approximation in which measured ellipticities estimate the shear,
and introduce the reduced shear instead. The non-linearity accommodated in
this way can be resolved into an iterative scheme using linear inversion in
each step. Second, we wrap the algorithm into an outer iteration loop in which
the grid resolution is progressively enhanced. While this step introduces
correlations between adjacent pixels that have to be dealt with, it prepares
the insertion of the strong-lensing constraints available in cluster cores.
Third, we introduce a regularisation term for the two purposes of avoiding
overfitting and smoothly joining the strong- and weak-lensing solutions.
Finally, to account for the additional computational time we enabled the code
to run on parallel machines.
We investigate the performance of our algorithm using two sets of synthetic
data, one idealised and one realistic, before we proceed to apply it to the
well-known strong-lensing cluster MS 2137, for which we obtain a high-
resolution, parameter-free reconstruction.
A brief summary of the lensing notation in Sect. 2 is followed by an outline
of the method in Sect. 3 and a description of its implementation in Sect. 4.
We present the results in Sect. 5 and conclude in Sect. 6. Details of the
algorithm are given in Appendix A.
## 2 Lensing formalism
### 2.1 Basic quantities
We adopt the standard notation introduced to describe isolated lenses in the
thin-lens approximation (e.g. P. Schneider 1992; Narayan & Bartelmann 1996; P.
Schneider 2006). Two-dimensional, projected lensing mass distributions are
covered by angular coordinates $\@vec{\theta}=(\theta_{1},\theta_{2})$. The
lensing potential $\psi(\@vec{\theta})$, which is the appropriately scaled
Newtonian potential projected on the sky, contains all information necessary
to describe a single-plane lens. The deflection angle, convergence and shear
are derivatives of $\psi(\@vec{\theta})$ with respect to $\theta_{1}$ and
$\theta_{2}$,
$\displaystyle\@vec{\alpha}$ $\displaystyle=\nabla\psi$ (1)
$\displaystyle\kappa$
$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\nabla^{2}\psi=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial\theta_{1}^{2}}+\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial\theta_{2}^{2}}\right)\psi=\frac{1}{2}(\psi_{,11}+\psi_{,22})$
(2) $\displaystyle\gamma_{1}$
$\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial\theta_{1}^{2}}-\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial\theta_{2}^{2}}\right)\psi=\frac{1}{2}(\psi_{,11}-\psi_{,22})$
(3) $\displaystyle\gamma_{2}$
$\displaystyle=\frac{\partial^{2}}{\partial\theta_{1}\theta_{2}}\psi=\psi_{,12}\;.$
(4)
### 2.2 Lensing by galaxy clusters
We concentrate on lensing by galaxy clusters. Let us first focus on weak
lensing, which means $\kappa\ll 1$ (see Bartelmann & Schneider (2001) for a
review). To first order, shape distortions of background galaxies are
determined by the Jacobian matrix of the lens mapping,
$\mathcal{A}(\@vec{\theta})=\left(\delta_{ij}-\frac{\partial^{2}\psi(\@vec{\theta})}{\partial\theta_{i}\partial\theta_{j}}\right)=\begin{pmatrix}1-\kappa-\gamma_{1}&-\gamma_{2}\\\
-\gamma_{2}&1-\kappa+\gamma_{2}\end{pmatrix}\;.$ (5)
The intrinsic ellipticities of the background galaxies require that their
images be averaged to extract the weak-lensing signal from them. We assume
that averages over ten or more galaxies are necessary for the uncertainty of
an individual ellipticity measurement to fall below 10% of the signal
(Cacciato et al. 2006). The expectation value for the measured ellipticity is
then
$\left<\varepsilon\right>=\left\\{\begin{aligned}
\frac{Z(z)\gamma}{1-Z(z)\kappa}&\qquad\textrm{for }|g|\leq 1\\\
\frac{1-Z(z)\kappa}{Z(z)\gamma^{*}}&\qquad\textrm{for
}|g|>1\end{aligned}\;,\right.$ (6)
where the reduced shear
$g(\@vec{\theta})\equiv\frac{\gamma(\@vec{\theta})}{1-\kappa(\@vec{\theta})}$
(7)
and the distance weight function
$Z(z)\equiv\frac{D_{\infty}D_{\text{ds}}}{D_{\text{d}\infty}D_{\text{s}}}H(z-z_{\text{d}})$
(8)
appear. In the last equation, $z_{\text{d}}$ is the redshift of the lens,
while $D_{\infty}$ and $D_{\text{d}\infty}$ are the angular-diameter distances
between observer and infinity and between lens and infinity, respectively.
While the probes of weak lensing are slightly distorted background galaxies
whose signal needs to be treated statistically, strong lensing is based on
greater effects. Another difference from weak lensing is that strong lensing
only occurs in galaxy clusters near their cores where the lens becomes
critical. These regions are typically of the order of 100 kpc in radius. The
main observations are
* •
multiple images of background sources, which all carry the same spectral
information of the source, which enables their unambiguous identification
through a spectral or colour analysis, and
* •
highly distorted images of background sources like gravitational arcs or
arclets, which lie close to critical curves of clusters.
Critical curves are closed point sets in the lens plane where the Jacobian
becomes singular,
$\det\mathcal{A}_{\text{crit}}=\left(1-\kappa_{\text{crit}}\right)^{2}-|\gamma_{\text{crit}}|^{2}=0\;.$
(9)
## 3 Outline of the method
Our non-parametric maximum-likelihood reconstruction method aims at recovering
the lensing potential $\psi$. The reasons for this choice are that the lensing
potential is much smoother than e.g. the convergence, which renders it much
less susceptible to noise, and that both convergence and shear are derivatives
of the lensing potential so that no integration is needed to convert one to
the other. The method described and applied here develops further and extends
those presented in Bartelmann et al. (1996); Seitz et al. (1998); Cacciato et
al. (2006).
The method takes as input the result of galaxy-shape and strong-lensing
measurements, i.e. the two ellipticity parameters per galaxy and the strongly
lensed images at their angular positions. As we pointed out before, an
ellipticity measurement of a single galaxy image is useless as a weak lensing
signal because of the intrinsic source ellipticity. Each data point is thus
obtained by averaging over a certain number of background galaxy
ellipticities.
We then divide the observed galaxy-cluster field into a grid of $N$ cells,
assign an averaged ellipticity to each cell, and thus obtain $N$ data points
for our $\chi^{2}$-minimisation. The ensuing reconstruction will strongly
depend on the grid resolution. Furthermore, if a number of $M$ grid cells,
which we shall call pixels from now on, contains strongly lensed images, we
gain $M$ additional constraints for the reconstruction.
Since the weak and strong-lensing constraints are independent of each other,
but reflect the same underlying gravitational potential, the overall
$\chi^{2}$ becomes the sum of two independent contributions,
$\chi^{2}(\psi)=\chi^{2}_{\text{w}}(\psi)+\chi^{2}_{\text{s}}(\psi)\;.$ (10)
Our method is non-parametric in the sense that it does not assume a
parameterised model for the mass or potential distribution. It assigns an
initially unknown potential value to each grid point and refines the set of
potential values on the grid during the $\chi^{2}$-minimisation. We are thus
searching for a discrete representation of the lensing potential, which is
optimally capable of reproducing the observed lensing effects.
The reconstruction proceeds by minimising $\chi^{2}$ with respect to the
potential values $\psi_{l}$ at all grid positions $l$,
$\frac{\partial\chi^{2}(\psi)}{\partial\psi_{l}}=\frac{\partial\chi^{2}_{\text{w}}(\psi)}{\partial\psi_{l}}+\frac{\partial\chi^{2}_{\text{s}}(\psi)}{\partial\psi_{l}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle!}}{{=}}0\;.$
(11)
The main advantage of the maximum-likelihood approach is its enormous
flexibility. In principle, one can incorporate every additional observable
constraint that can be connected in some way to the lensing potential. This is
of course not restricted to lensing. One simply has to add separate and
independent $\chi^{2}$-functions and minimise their sum with respect to the
discrete potential values. Even if we are only using weak and strong lensing
constraints for now, future improvements of our method should include as many
of these constraints as possible.
### 3.1 Resolution issues
Figure 1: Top panel: Very coarse grid of $10\times 10$ pixels. An example for
a pixel with ten galaxies included is shown in blue. The irregular
distribution of galaxies with several void areas is clearly seen. This problem
is fixed in the bottom panel, showing a grid of $20\times 20$ pixels. The
circles show the adaptive averaging scales for each individual pixel, which
causes overlap, illustrated in blue.
Before we can start computing the $\chi^{2}$-functions for our joint lensing
reconstruction, we have to address two issues concerning the resolution of our
reconstruction grid. The first is related to the weak-lensing regime. If we
want to average over at least ten galaxies per pixel, the typical background-
galaxy density in the field of a cluster would not allow a higher resolution
than $\sim 10\times 10$ pixels, which is of course way too coarse to see any
cluster substructures. In addition, pixels of a homogeneous grid can occur
which contain fewer than 10 or even no galaxies because of the inhomogeneous,
random galaxy distribution.
We solve these problems by an adaptive averaging procedure, in which we
average galaxy ellipticities within circles around each pixel centre. Their
radii are stepwise increased until each circle contains the desired number of
galaxies. Different pixels will need different radii, depending on the local
galaxy density in that area of the field. On a fine grid, galaxies shared by
neighbouring pixels will of course cause these pixels to be correlated (see
Fig.1).
The second issue concerns the strong-lensing regime, in particular the arc
positions. Since strong lensing is confined to much smaller scales than weak
lensing, essential positional information is lost if the strong-lensing
constraints are incorporated at the same resolution as weak lensing. This
requires us to refine the grid near cluster centres until it is capable of
resolving the exact arc positions (see Fig. 2).
Figure 2: Zoom into the inner part of the cluster. The left panel illustrates
that a coarse, $20\times 20$ grid covering the whole field is by far not able
to resolve arc positions. The right panel shows a $100\times 100$ pixel
resolution with respect to the whole field, which is able to follow the arc
positions.
### 3.2 Defining maximum likelihood functions
The most important ingredient of our cluster reconstruction is the
$\chi^{2}$-function (Eq. 10) that we need to minimise. Consider first the
weak-lensing term. As discussed before, the weak-lensing grid pixels are
correlated because of the adaptive-averaging procedure, and the expectation
value of the ellipticity is the reduced shear rather than the shear. Thus we
find, for $|g|\leq 1$,
$\chi^{2}_{\text{w}}(\psi)=\left(\left\langle\varepsilon\right\rangle-\frac{Z(z)\gamma(\psi)}{1-Z(z)\kappa(\psi)}\right)_{i}\mathcal{C}^{-1}_{ij}\left(\left\langle\varepsilon\right\rangle-\frac{Z(z)\gamma(\psi)}{1-Z(z)\kappa(\psi)}\right)_{j}\;,$
(12)
where $\left\langle\varepsilon\right\rangle$ represents the results of the
averaging process for each pixel. We are using Einstein’s sum convention here
and below. The case $|g|>1$ is not relevant in our reconstruction because it
only affects at most very few pixels on the reconstruction grid.
Eq. 12 illustrates the first major improvements in our method since Cacciato
et al. (2006). First, we introduce the reduced shear instead of the shear as a
reconstruction constraint. Furthermore, we introduce the adaptive averaging
technique which adapts to the actual galaxy distribution of the field. Thus,
the error in the $\chi^{2}$-function is quantified by the non-diagonal
covariance matrix $\mathcal{C}_{ij}$, which we evaluate now. The standard
deviation $\sigma_{i}$ for each weak lensing pixel is obtained during the
averaging process as the standard deviation from the mean. This standard
deviation has three contributions assumed independent,
$\sigma=\sigma_{\text{int}}+\sigma_{\text{meas}}+\sigma_{\text{sys}}\;,$ (13)
which are the noise due to the intrinsic ellipticity $\sigma_{\text{int}}$,
noise introduced by measurement uncertainties $\sigma_{\text{meas}}$ and a
systematic noise term $\sigma_{\text{sys}}$ which arises from the fact that
the galaxies over which we average cover spatial ranges in which the
properties of the lens may change. Here one can also see that the radii of the
averaging circles should not become too large, otherwise the coherence in the
lensing signal tends to be lost.
Starting from the definition of the covariance matrix,
$\mathcal{C}_{ij}=\left\langle(x_{i}-\langle x_{i}\rangle)(x_{j}-\langle
x_{j}\rangle)\right\rangle\;,$ (14)
where $x_{i}$ is the ellipticity sample of the pixel with index $i$ and using
that the correlation between two pixels due to the averaging process will be
proportional to the overlap between the averaging circles attached to them as
shown in Fig. 1, we arrive at
$\mathcal{C}_{ij}=w_{ij}\sigma_{i}\sigma_{j}\;.$ (15)
The weight factors $w_{ij}$ are obtained from the number of galaxies contained
in the overlap area of both circles,
$w_{ij}=\frac{2N_{ij}}{N_{i}+N_{j}}\;,$ (16)
where $N_{i}$ and $N_{j}$ are the galaxy numbers contained in the circles
around pixel centres $i$ and $j$, and $N_{ij}$ is the number of galaxies
contained in their overlap. These weights have the expected properties, i.e.
they are unity if $i=j$ and vanish for completely independent and uncorrelated
pixels.
The strong-lensing term looks much simpler. By definition, the determinant of
the Jacobian vanishes on the critical line. Thus, if we know which pixels are
traversed by the critical curve, we can define
$\chi^{2}_{\text{s}}(\psi)=\frac{\left(\det{\mathcal{A}}(\psi)\right)^{2}_{i}}{\sigma^{2}_{\text{s}}}=\frac{\left((1-Z(z)\kappa(\psi))^{2}-|Z(z)\gamma(\psi)|^{2}\right)^{2}_{i}}{\sigma^{2}_{\text{s}}}\;,$
(17)
where the strong-lensing error estimate $\sigma_{s}$ is mainly caused by the
finite pixel size of our grid, since this determines the inaccuracy of the
position of the critical curve. We approximate this uncertainty to first order
with the help of the Einstein angle (see Cacciato et al. 2006),
$\sigma_{\text{s}}\approx\left.\frac{\partial\det\mathcal{A}}{\partial\theta}\right|_{\theta_{c}}\delta\theta\approx\frac{\delta\theta}{\theta_{E}}\;,$
(18)
with the pixel size $\delta\theta$. This expression holds exactly for an
isothermal sphere, but can be used as a good approximation for the noise of
the critical-curve position.
To evaluate Eq. (11), we have to connect convergence and shear to the grid
values of the potential, which we shall do in the next section.
### 3.3 Lensing potential and convergence maps
The lensing potential which we are reconstructing is not directly observable,
but linear combinations of its second derivatives are. Therefore, we can
always add a constant, a linear function in $\@vec{\theta}$, or a harmonic
function to it without changing the observables. Furthermore, if ellipticities
are the only quantities measured, the lensing potential is affected by the so-
called mass-sheet degeneracy (Falco et al. 1985), which arises because
ellipticities are invariant against isotropic scaling of the Jacobian matrix.
Note that such transformations also leave the critical curves of a lens
unchanged. These degrees of freedom allow the following transformation of the
potential (Bradač et al. 2004):
$\psi(\@vec{\theta},z)\rightarrow\psi^{\prime}(\@vec{\theta},z)=\frac{1-\lambda}{2}\@vec{\theta}^{2}+\lambda\psi(\@vec{\theta},z)\;,$
(19)
where $\lambda\neq 0$ is an otherwise arbitrary constant.
This is the reason why the reconstructed, discretised potential may look
shifted or distorted. However, this is not a problem because we only need its
curvature. We obtain physically meaningful quantities like convergence or
shear by simply applying Eqs. (2), (3) and (4) to $\psi$. We shall use the
convergence mainly to describe the reconstruction of a galaxy cluster, because
it intuitively reflects the cluster’s mass distribution through its surface
mass density.
Due to the mass-sheet degeneracy (Falco et al. 1985), the convergence is
unique only up to the transformations
$\kappa(\@vec{\theta},z)\rightarrow\kappa^{\prime}(\@vec{\theta},z)=(1-\lambda)+\lambda\kappa(\@vec{\theta},z)$
(20)
with $\lambda\neq 0$. If our observed field is sufficiently large, we assume
that $\kappa\rightarrow 0$ towards the field boundary, so we can use Eq. (20)
again for normalisation.
More elaborate methods require observables in the reconstruction which are not
invariant under the mass-sheet transformation and depend on potential and
convergence. One example is the source magnification, which Bartelmann et al.
(1996) suggested to include in the maximum-likelihood approach. Another
approach to lift the mass-sheet degeneracy was proposed by Bradač et al.
(2004, 2005), who proposed to exploit the knowledge of the source-redshift
distribution.
Having obtained the convergence, possibly transformed according to the mass-
sheet degeneracy, mass estimates are straightforward. If we know the lens
redshift and fix the cosmological model, we also know the physical area of one
pixel. If we additionally know at least the mean redshift of the sources, we
can calculate the surface mass density, which yields an estimate for the total
cluster mass after summing over the whole grid. Recall, however, that this
returns a distance-weighted integral over the entire mass of cosmic structures
along the line-of-sight from the observer to the sources.
## 4 Implementation
We shall now proceed to the specific implementation and the description of the
required numerical methods and algorithms. As we already pointed out we
significantly developed our method with the introduction of an adaptive
averaging scheme and the use of the reduced shear instead of the shear. The
price that we pay for these improvements is correlated reconstruction pixels
and a relatively complicated two-level iteration scheme that we will describe
in this section. As a result the runtime of our method increased dramatically
which made it necessary to increase the speed of the reconstruction algorithm.
The most important step towards speeding up the calculations is the
parallisation of our code, using the well-known MPI library
### 4.1 Preparing weak lensing data
We start with the analysis of the weak lensing data. It is provided in the
form of a table containing columns for the position and ellipticity
measurement for each distorted background galaxy. It should be noted that the
coordinates are arbitrary as long as they all refer to the same coordinate
system. We express the coordinates in arcseconds relative to the brightest
cluster galaxy (BCG). The reconstruction grid is set up by assigning
coordinates to each pixel centre.
The adaptive averaging process proceeds by enlarging circles around each pixel
centre until they contain a pre-assigned, constant number of background
galaxies. Once this number of galaxies is reached, the average and the
standard deviation of the ellipticity are calculated and assigned to the
pixel.
The covariance matrix between two pixels is determined by the number of
galaxies shared between them. Its final entries are obtained using Eq. (15),
because we can now calculate the weightings $w_{ij}$ (see Eq. 16). This
procedure has to be done for both ellipticity components, and the resulting
covariance matrices must be inverted.
### 4.2 Preparing strong lensing data
Handling the strong-lensing data, we have to cope with the fact that we cannot
observe the critical curves directly. We thus need a good approximation for
their locations, which is given by arc positions that can be observed very
well. We show in Fig. 3 that arcs follow the position of the critical curves,
as long as the resolution of the grid is not extremely high. However, even at
the higher resolution of the finely resolved central grid, the difference in
the pixel positions between arcs and critical curves is at most two pixels.
Cacciato et al. (2006) showed that deviations of this size do not affect the
reconstruction significantly.
A more severe problem is that the arcs sample the critical curves only very
sparsely. We cannot expect to obtain full knowledge of the critical curve
through observations. It will be one aim of future work to use high-resolution
observations of cluster fields which tend to show more strongly lensed images
and thus allow tracing of the critical curve in more detail. Another
possibility would be to rely on critical-curve reconstructions from parametric
strong-lensing analyses, and to feed that critical curve into the code. The
drawback of this approach is that one gives up the completely non-parametric
nature of the reconstruction by using profile assumptions in the critical-
curve determination. In either case, the critical curves are characterised by
a table listing the approximate positions of critical points.
We finally point out that we are using arcs as approximate indicators for
critical-curve locations rather than multiple-image systems as strong-lensing
constraints. This is for several reasons, first of all the identification of
multiple image systems is not always possible since it requires multi-color
observations and the subtraction of cluster members to look for hidden images.
Moreover, due to resolution issues the reconstruction cannot be extremely
accurate in the cluster centre and as a result we do not expect large changes
by using multiple images instead of critical points.
But nevertheless one should use as many constraints as possible, which is the
reason why future versions of our method will also contain multiple-image
system information, if available, to give an optimal reconstruction result.
Figure 3: Arc position and estimated position of the critical curves for the
real cluster MS 2137. The critical curves were estimated by a parametric
strong lensing reconstruction from Comerford et al. (2006). Left panel shows
32x32 grid resolution where one can see no deviation. Right panel shows 75x75
where one sees that the deviation in position is still small.
### 4.3 Grid methods
We now proceed to combine lensing theory and the measurements, and to
implement the method numerically.
We defined the $\chi^{2}$-functions in Sect. 3.2 using the discretised
lensing-potential values as minimisation parameters. The observable to be
reproduced in the case of weak lensing is the reduced shear, and the location
of a vanishing determinant of the Jacobian in the case of strong lensing.
In order to minimise the resulting $\chi^{2}$-function with respect to the
lensing potential, we have to write the convergence and the shear in terms of
the discrete potential values. The relation between these quantities is given
by Eqs. (2), (3) and (4) with the second derivatives replaced by finite-
differencing schemes.
Given a certain grid resolution, we want to obtain the lensing potential at
each grid position $(x,y)$ with $1\leq x\leq M$, $1\leq y\leq N$. We enumerate
these grid positions sequentially line by line and use the central difference
quotients for discrete representations of the second derivatives at a given
grid position. Our finite differencing scheme is identical to that chosen by
Cacciato et al. (2006), and the corresponding coefficients are given in Fig.
4. At the edges and borders of the grid different (one-sided) finite-
differencing schemes need to be used.
With our way of enumerating the pixels, we can write the discrete potential
$\@vec{\psi}$ on the $N\times M$ grid in the form of a vector
$\@vec{\psi}\in\mathbb{R}^{NM}$. This only slightly complicates addressing the
correct positions in the vector. Direct left and right neighbours are just
separated by $\pm 1$ positions in the vector, while top and bottom neighbours
are separated by $\pm N$ positions. The advantage of this enumeration is that
the finite differencing becomes a simple matrix multiplication,
$\displaystyle\kappa_{i}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\mathcal{K}_{ij}\psi_{j}$ (21) $\displaystyle\gamma^{1}_{i}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\mathcal{G}^{1}_{ij}\psi_{j}$ (22)
$\displaystyle\gamma^{2}_{i}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\mathcal{G}^{2}_{ij}\psi_{j}\;.$ (23)
Here,
$\mathcal{K}_{ij},\enspace\mathcal{G}^{1}_{ij},\enspace\mathcal{G}^{2}_{ij}$
are sparse band matrices encoding the information on the finite-differencing
scheme. The fact that we know these matrices perfectly is the key point to
increase the speed of our reconstruction algorithms, which plays an important
role with respect to runtime, besides the parallelisation of the code. Without
several numerical tricks the runtime of a complete reconstruction would not
stay at an acceptable level.
Figure 4: Finite differences schemes. Written in the cells are the
coefficients in the difference quotients. Left panel: Scheme for the
convergence; centre panel: scheme for the first shear component; right panel:
scheme for the second shear component.
Using these finite-differencing schemes, $\chi^{2}$ can be minimised by
solving the linear system of equations
$\mathcal{B}_{lk}\psi_{k}=\mathcal{V}_{l}\;,$ (24)
where the coefficient matrix $\mathcal{B}_{lk}$ and the result vector
$\mathcal{V}_{l}$ contain on the one hand observed ellipticity and critical
curve information and on the other hand the convergence and shear matrices.
The calculation is detailed in the Appendix.
### 4.4 Regularisation and 2-step-iteration
#### 4.4.1 Regularisation
We now introduce a regularisation term $R(\psi)$ into the $\chi^{2}$ function
Eq. (10) to obtain
$\chi^{2}(\psi)=\chi^{2}_{\text{w}}(\psi)+\chi^{2}_{\text{s}}(\psi)+R(\psi)\;.$
(25)
The regularisation term depends on the potential and is defined such as to
disfavour unwanted solutions. This is necessary to prevent the reconstruction
from following intrinsic noise patterns, which do not reflect intrinsic
features of the true underlying potential. Here, we use a simple
regularisation term scheme simply comparing the convergence obtained with that
found in the preceding iteration,
$R=\eta_{i}\left(\kappa_{i}^{\text{before}}-\kappa_{i}(\psi)\right)^{2}\;.$
(26)
Its amplitude $\eta_{i}$ controls the relative strength of the regularisation
and is crucial for the reconstruction. It should be chosen such that the
overall $\chi^{2}$ is of order unity and of course low enough for changes in
the reconstruction to take effect. Minimising the regularised $\chi^{2}$ of
Eq. (26) again leads to a linear system which contributes one additional term
to the coefficient matrix and the result vector. The complete calculation is
presented in the Appendix. In our reconstruction we also regularize on the two
shear components which give similar terms. Note that it is not useful to
directly regularize the potential since it looks very different in each
iteration step, as described in Sect. 3.3.
#### 4.4.2 Inner-level iteration
As the full expressions for the $\chi^{2}$ minimisation show, it is not
precisely a linear system, but includes non-linear prefactor terms in the
coefficient matrix and the result vector. We solve this problem in the same
way as Bradač et al. (2005) did by means of an iterative approach in which the
non-linear terms are computed from the preceding iteration. Starting from a
first guess for the convergence, we express the corresponding non-linear terms
by constant factors, as can be seen in the Appendix.
Bradač et al. (2005) showed that the initial guess of the convergence does not
affect the final reconstruction, but at most the number of iterations. We
confirm their result, which implies that the initial guess of a flat
convergence is appropriate. We minimise $\chi^{2}$ and obtain a solution for
the lensing potential. From it, we calculate convergence and shear, which we
insert as new guesses into the non-linear terms in the next step of the
reconstruction. This yields a convergent iterative process. We control the
convergence of the procedure by comparing its results between subsequent
iterations. If the change falls below a given threshold, we stop the
iteration. The drawback of this method is that we now need several iterations
(3-5 in practice) for a complete reconstruction, which takes some time at high
resolution.
#### 4.4.3 Outer-level iteration
The regularisation term also helps in a second type of iteration, which we
call outer-level iteration. The background-galaxy density of today’s
observations allows a resolution of only $\sim 10\times 10$ uncorrelated
pixels. Higher resolution is desirable at the expense of correlated pixels,
which will affect the reconstruction. Also the convergence values in some
individual pixels will increase at higher resolution, which renders the
initial guess of a vanishing convergence increasingly less accurate, giving
rise to many inner-level iterations.
These problems can easily be avoided by introducing another iteration as
follows:
* •
One begins at the lowest possible resolution, where the pixels are not or
almost not correlated. This resolution will be too coarse for fine-structure
noise patterns to appear.
* •
Starting from the initial convergence set to zero, the inner-level iteration
is performed until the reconstruction converges.
* •
The obtained result for the potential is then interpolated by a bicubic spline
algorithm to a slightly higher resolution.
* •
This interpolation is taken as the comparison function in the regularisation
and as a new initial guess in the inner-level iteration at the higher
resolution.
* •
This process is repeated until the final resolution is reached.
This two-level iteration delivers by far the best reconstruction results, but
with the disadvantage of increased CPU time due to the higher number of
iterations. The result of the gradual transition from low to high resolution
can be seen in Fig. 5.
Figure 5: Convergence maps of a simulated cluster. Left panel: Initial
reconstruction starting at a resolution of $15\times 15$ pixels. Right panel:
Final resolution of $32\times 32$ pixels, reached after several iterations.
### 4.5 Strong lensing at high resolution
#### 4.5.1 Interpolation
Even when a weak-lensing reconstruction as described in the previous sections
has converged, the grid resolution is far from being fine enough to follow the
shape of the critical curves. We deal with the problem by interpolating the
lensing potential from the final weak-lensing reconstruction and calculate
convergence and shear at that refined resolution. Then, we zoom into the
cluster core where the strong-lensing information is available. The
interpolation is done by a bicubic spline interpolation routine which is
reliable enough to create just a small amount of additional noise. The
interpolated result serves as template for the following high-resolution
reconstruction.
Figure 6: Left panel: Complete combined weak and strong lensing reconstruction
at low resolution of a simulated cluster. Right panel: Zoom into the
interpolated cluster core of the low-resolution reconstruction.
#### 4.5.2 Modified maximum likelihood function
Now, we have to remove the weak-lensing term from the $\chi^{2}$ function,
$\chi^{2}(\psi)=\chi^{2}_{\text{s}}(\psi)+R(\psi)\;,$ (27)
because no weak-lensing data points are available at the high resolution
required in the core. The strong-lensing data points, however, are available
at high resolution, because the critical points can be determined very
accurately. Yet, the weak-lensing reconstruction enters even at this
resolution level through the regularisation term. Thus, the result is based on
the weak-lensing constraints.
We finish the reconstruction by inserting the high-resolution cluster-core
result into the result obtained at a coarser resolution, which consists of the
complete cluster field. Due to the regularisation function the strong-lensing
result fits nicely into the weak-lensing results since we do not allow that
the two different reconstructions differ significantly at pixels where no
strong-lensing constraints are available. This is also the last major change
in our method compared to Cacciato et al. (2006). The use of the
regularisation function as a tool to match results on different scales
improves the quality of our reconstructions significantly.
## 5 Results
### 5.1 Tests with synthetic data
We first repeat the tests also carried out in Cacciato et al. (2006). We take
simulated clusters from the $N$-body simulations described in Bartelmann et
al. (1998) and compute maps of their reduced shear and their critical curves.
Based on this information, we try to reconstruct the known potential of the
simulated cluster. Since this is an idealised lensing scenario which does not
include a realistic background-galaxy distribution or image analysis, it is
sufficient to compare the convergence map obtained by the reconstruction with
the real convergence map of the simulated cluster. The results confirm the
reliability of our method and are shown in Figs. 7 and 8. In particular, Fig.
8 shows how significantly the results are improved when the strong-lensing
constraints on a refined grid are added. Otherwise the central density peak is
underestimated by almost 20%.
Figure 7: Left panel: Convergence map of the high-resolution reconstruction.
As one can see, the resolution is much higher in the inner part of the map.
The colour scale is logarithmic and the contours start at $\kappa=0.1$ spaced
by $\Delta\kappa=0.08$. Right panel: The convergence map of the original
cluster rebinned at the resolution of the reconstruction. The colour scale and
the contour levels are identical in both panels. Figure 8: The radial $\kappa$
profile along the main diagonal of the critical cluster field.
### 5.2 The lensing simulator
Next, we use the method detailed in Meneghetti et al. (2008) to simulate an
observation of another cluster field. The target of this simulated observation
is the galaxy cluster g72, described in several previous papers (Dolag et al.
2005; Puchwein et al. 2005; Meneghetti et al. 2007). This cluster was
simulated with different physics. For the present work we have used a pure
dark matter simulation. The cluster is at redshift $z_{\text{c}}=0.297$ and
has a main halo mass of $M_{200}=6.7\times 10^{14}M_{\odot}/h$. It is in the
process of merging with a massive substructure of mass $M_{200}\sim 3\times
10^{14}M_{\odot}/h$. In the projection chosen for this simulation the subclump
is located at $\sim 150\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{kpc}/h$ north of the main
clump. A second massive substructure is present at a distance of $\sim
2.5\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{Mpc}/h$ from the cluster centre. The projected
density of the cluster is shown in Fig. 10.
We mimic a $2500^{\prime\prime}\times 2500^{\prime\prime}$ SUBARU observation
of this cluster and of the sky behind it in the R-band assuming an exposure
time of 6000s and an isotropic, Gaussian PSF of $0.6^{\prime\prime}$ FWHM. The
distortion field, which is used to lens the background galaxies, is calculated
from the cluster mass distribution following the method described in
Meneghetti et al. (2007). The background galaxies have realistic morphologies,
being drawn from shapelet decompositions of real galaxies taken from the
Hubble-Ultra-Deep Field (HUDF). Their luminosity and redshift distributions
also reflect those of the HUDF (Coe et al. 2006).
The weak lensing analysis of the field was carried out by F. Bellagamba (Univ.
of Bologna) using an advanced KSB method (Kaiser et al. 1995). It returned an
ellipticity catalogue of 39788 background sources. For the strong lensing
analysis we followed two different approaches. First, we used the known
complete critical curves to obtain a result under optimal conditions. In a
second reconstruction we choose a kind of worst-case scenario where we used
four estimated points of the critical curve. These point were determined
following an observational approach. First, we identified in the simulation a
few fold arcs. Then, we isolated the brightest knots along the lensed images,
which are used to constrain the position of the critical lines passing in
between them.
A first qualitative look at the obtained convergence map already shows a very
nice agreement in orientation, shape and substructure of the real cluster and
the reconstruction. See Fig. 10, where we show the convergence map of the
reconstruction which uses only four critical-curve points. In addition we
performed a more quantiative analysis, by reconstructing the total mass within
a certain radius. Here we used the average redshift of the sources and assumed
that the mean convergence vanishes at the borders of the field to correct the
mass-sheet degeneracy. The result is shown in Fig. 11, and shows a good
agreement with the real cluster mass on all scales. Note that we plot both
reconstructions here, which are practically indistinguishable.
Figure 9: This figure illustrates how the critical curve estimators are
obtained from given multiple lensed images of the simulation. In the bottom-
right corner of the plot we show the pixel size of the final, finely resolved
iteration.
Figure 10: Left panel: Real convergence map of the simulated cluster. Right
panel: Convergence map of the high-resolution reconstruction. The colour scale
in both maps is linear and the sidelength corresponds to $\sim
10\leavevmode\nobreak\ \text{Mpc}$. Figure 11: Top panel: The real and the
reconstructed total mass of the simulated cluster within a certain radius.
Bottom panel: The residuals from the real mass at different scales. Both
panels show both reconstructions, based on the full critical-curve knowledge
and on only a few points of the critical curve respectively.
### 5.3 MS 2137
We finally apply our reconstruction algorithm to the galaxy cluster MS 2137.
It is a cluster at redshift $z_{c}=0.313$, dominated by a bright cD galaxy. It
shows a giant tangential arc, a radial arc which was the first to be
discovered (see Fort et al. 1992), and three additional arclets. The
spectroscopic redshifts of the arcs were determined to be $z_{\text{1}}=1.501$
and $z_{\text{2}}=1.502$ (Sand et al. 2002). The tangential arc and two of the
arclets belong to the same source. The radial arc also produces one counter
image. The cluster has been studied several times before, see Gavazzi et al.
(2003); Gavazzi (2005); Comerford et al. (2006) and Sand et al. (2008). All
these studies used parametric reconstruction routines differing from our
method.
The weak-lensing analysis is based on an VLT/FORS observation obtained during
August 2001. Its results were kindly provided by R. Gavazzi (IAP, Paris). The
field size is $410^{\leavevmode\nobreak\ \prime\prime}\times
410^{\leavevmode\nobreak\ \prime\prime}$. The ellipticity catalogue was
obtained with a KSB-method (Kaiser et al. 1995) and returned 1500 ellipticity
measurements on background galaxies. The arc positions were obtained from an
HST/WFPC2 exposure using the F702W filter. During the reconstruction, the
measured arc redshifts were used. Based on the experience from the tests with
simulated data, we averaged over 15 galaxies per reconstruction pixel. The
low-resolution reconstruction was performed on a $25\times 25$ pixel grid
which was gradually refined to $40\times 40$ pixels for a reconstruction which
resolves the arcs better (see Fig. 12). Unfortunately, there is a large void
in the background-galaxy data in the upper middle part of the field. In this
area, the reconstruction is thus unable to resolve any structures.
A comparison with former reconstructions is shown in Fig. 13. In the weak-
lensing regime we have a close agreement with the Gavazzi (2005) results,
which is expected, since we are using the same weak lensing data. In the
strong-lensing regime we are in good agreement with the latest reconstructions
of Donnarumma et al. (2009) and Comerford et al. (2006), but it tends to
prefer a lower central mass than Gavazzi (2005). The reason for this is still
unclear, but the reconstructions of Comerford et al. (2006) and Donnarumma et
al. (2009) seem to prefer a lower mass in the strong lensing regime. The
discrepancy between those works is discussed in Donnarumma et al. (2009).
Figure 12: High resolution reconstruction of MS 2137 on a refined $40\times
40$ pixel grid. The side length corresponds to 1.8 Mpc. The contours start at
$\kappa=0.1$ and are spaced by $\Delta\kappa=0.18$ Figure 13: Comparison of
our results with other reconstructions. The plot shows the reconstructed mass
within a certain radius. Also indidcated is the transition between the weak
and the strong lensing regime by means of the radius, in which all multiple
images of the cluster are contained.
## 6 Conclusions
We have extended the algorithm proposed by Cacciato et al. (2006) which
reconstructs the lensing potential of galaxy clusters on a two-level grid,
combining weak and strong-lensing data. Our extensions concern three aspects:
First, the shear is replaced by the reduced shear to improve the
reconstruction in the mildly non-linear regime. The non-linearity introduced
in this way is solved by an inner iteration loop which preserves the linear
minimisation of the $\chi^{2}$ function. Second, the spatial resolution of the
potential grid is gradually increased in an outer iteration loop. While this
step causes correlations between neighbouring pixels, which need to be dealt
with using a non-diagonal covariance matrix, it prepares for the introduction
of a highly resolved grid covering the strong-lensing observations in the
cluster core. Third, we add a regularisation term to the $\chi^{2}$ function,
avoiding overfitting of noise and allowing a smooth transition from the inner,
high-resolution to the outer, coarse-resolution grid.
These extensions of the algorithm, especially the introduction of the full
$\chi^{2}$-function and the increased number of iterations made it necessary
to drastically increase the numerical performance of the reconstruction
routines. This was done with fast, numerical multiplication schemes and the
parallelisation of the code to run on MPI machines. Applications of this
algorithm to synthetic data show that the known, simulated cluster lenses are
accurately reproduced, although intrinsic ellipticities, measurement and shot
noise inevitably lead to a considerable noise level of the reconstruction in
the case of realistic data. Still, the quantitative analysis of our
convergence maps shows a very good agreement with the expected result. An
application to the galaxy cluster MS 2137 qualitatively confirms the results
of earlier, parametric studies that show an almost axially symmetric,
presumably relaxed mass distribution. Although there is still room for
potentially important further improvements, our algorithm should now be ready
for reliable recoveries of lensing potentials, density distributions and
density profiles of real galaxy clusters.
###### Acknowledgements.
This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through
the Collaborative Research Centre SFB 439, “Galaxies in the Young Universe”.
J.M. is supported by the Heidelberg Graduate School of Fundamental Physics
(HGSFP) and C.M. is supported by the International Max Planck Research School
(IMPRS) for Astronomy and Cosmic Physics at the University of Heidelberg. J.M.
and M.C. want to thank G. Mamon and R. Gavazzi for useful discussions at IAP.
Furthermore, we want to thank F. Bellagamba, M. Radovich and K. Dolag for
their contribution to this work.
## Appendix A Linearisation in grid space
The matrix representation of the finite differences (Eqs. 21, 22 and 23)
allows a simplification of the $\chi^{2}$ minimisation. For weak lensing, it
reads
$\chi^{2}_{\text{w}}=\chi^{2}_{1}+\chi^{2}_{2}\;,$ (28)
containing one term each for the two ellipticity components.
Of course, we have to perform the minimisation for both components, but we
show only the calculation for one component. Correspondingly, the quantities
$\varepsilon,\gamma,\mathcal{C},\mathcal{G}$ represent
$\varepsilon^{1},\gamma^{1},\mathcal{C}^{1},\mathcal{G}^{1}$ and
$\varepsilon^{2},\gamma^{2},\mathcal{C}^{2},\mathcal{G}^{2}$, respectively.
One $\chi^{2}$ contribution is
$\begin{split}\chi^{2}&=\left(\varepsilon_{i}-\frac{Z_{i}\gamma_{i}}{1-Z_{i}\kappa_{i}}\right)\mathcal{C}^{-1}_{ij}\left(\varepsilon_{j}-\frac{Z_{j}\gamma_{j}}{1-Z_{j}\kappa_{j}}\right)\\\
&=\underbrace{\frac{\mathcal{C}^{-1}_{ij}}{(1-Z_{i}\kappa_{i})(1-Z_{j}\kappa_{j})}}_{\mathcal{F}_{ij}}\left(\varepsilon_{i}(1-Z_{i}\kappa_{i})-Z_{i}\gamma_{i}\right)\left(\varepsilon_{j}(1-Z_{j}\kappa_{j})-Z_{j}\gamma_{j}\right)\\\
&=\mathcal{F}_{ij}\left[(\varepsilon_{i}-\varepsilon_{i}Z_{i}\kappa_{i}-Z_{i}\gamma_{i})(\varepsilon_{j}-\varepsilon_{j}Z_{j}\kappa_{j}-Z_{j}\gamma_{j})\right]\\\
&=\mathcal{F}_{ij}\left[\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}-\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{j}\kappa_{j}-\varepsilon_{i}Z_{j}\gamma_{j}-\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}\kappa_{i}+\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\kappa_{i}\kappa_{j}\right.\\\
&\enspace\enspace\enspace\enspace\enspace\left.+\varepsilon_{i}Z_{i}Z_{j}\kappa_{i}\gamma_{j}-\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}\gamma_{i}+\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\kappa_{j}\gamma_{i}+Z_{i}Z_{j}\gamma_{i}\gamma_{j}\right]\;,\\\
\end{split}$ (29)
where we combined the non-linear factors $(1-Z\kappa)$ in the matrix prefactor
$\mathcal{F}_{ij}$. We deal with this term by the iterative approach described
in Sect. 4.4.2. In each iteration, this term is simply kept constant.
Now, we minimise this equation with respect to the potential values
$\psi_{l}$,
$\frac{\partial\chi^{2}(\psi)}{\partial\psi_{l}}\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\text{!}}}{{=}}0$
(30)
The derivative of $\chi^{2}$ with respect to $\psi_{l}$ is
$\begin{split}\frac{\partial\chi^{2}(\psi)}{\partial\psi_{l}}=\mathcal{F}_{ij}&\left[-\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\kappa_{j}(\psi)-\varepsilon_{i}Z_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\gamma_{j}(\psi)\right.\\\
&\left.-\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\kappa_{i}(\psi)\right.\\\
&+\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\kappa_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\kappa_{j}(\psi)+\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\kappa_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\kappa_{i}(\psi)\\\
&+\varepsilon_{i}Z_{i}Z_{j}\kappa_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\gamma_{j}(\psi)+\varepsilon_{i}Z_{i}Z_{j}\gamma_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\kappa_{i}(\psi)\\\
&-\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\gamma_{i}(\psi)+\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\kappa_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\gamma_{i}(\psi)\\\
&\left.+\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\gamma_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\kappa_{j}(\psi)+Z_{i}Z_{j}\gamma_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\gamma_{j}(\psi)\right.\\\
&\left.+Z_{i}Z_{j}\gamma_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\gamma_{i}(\psi)\right]\;.\end{split}$
(31)
Using $\gamma_{i}=\mathcal{G}_{ik}\psi_{k}$,
$\kappa_{i}=\mathcal{K}_{ik}\psi_{k}$ and
$\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\psi_{k}=\mathcal{K}_{ik}\delta_{kl}$,
we can replace the remaining derivatives,
$\begin{split}\frac{\partial\chi^{2}(\psi_{k})}{\partial\psi_{l}}=\mathcal{F}_{ij}&\left[-\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jk}\delta_{kl}-\varepsilon_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}_{jk}\delta_{kl}-\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\delta_{kl}\right.\\\
&+\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\psi_{k}\mathcal{K}_{jk}\delta_{kl}++\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jk}\psi_{k}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\delta_{kl}\\\
&+\varepsilon_{i}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\psi_{k}\mathcal{G}_{jk}\delta_{kl}+\varepsilon_{i}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}_{jk}\psi_{k}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\delta_{kl}\\\
&-\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}_{ik}\delta_{kl}+\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jk}\psi_{k}\mathcal{G}_{ik}\delta_{kl}\\\
&\left.+\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}_{ik}\psi_{k}\mathcal{K}_{jk}\delta_{kl}+Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}_{ik}\psi_{k}\mathcal{G}_{jk}\delta_{kl}\right.\\\
&\left.+Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}_{jk}\psi_{k}\mathcal{G}_{ik}\delta_{kl}\right]\;.\end{split}$
(32)
The last equation shows that we can now write Eq. 30 as a linear system of
equations,
$\mathcal{B}_{lk}\psi_{k}=\mathcal{V}_{l}\;,$ (33)
with the coefficient matrix
$\begin{split}\mathcal{B}_{lk}=\mathcal{F}_{ij}&\left[\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\mathcal{K}_{jl}+\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jk}\mathcal{K}_{il}+\varepsilon_{i}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\mathcal{G}_{jl}\right.\\\
&+\varepsilon_{i}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}_{jk}\mathcal{K}_{il}+\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jk}\mathcal{G}_{il}+\varepsilon_{i}Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}_{ik}\mathcal{K}_{jl}\\\
&\left.+Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}_{ik}\mathcal{G}_{jl}+Z_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}_{jk}\mathcal{G}_{il}\right]\;,\end{split}$
(34)
and the result vector
$\mathcal{V}_{l}=\mathcal{F}_{ij}\left[\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jl}+\varepsilon_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}_{jl}+\varepsilon_{i}\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}\mathcal{K}_{il}+\varepsilon_{j}Z_{i}\mathcal{G}_{il}\right]\;.$
(35)
We now repeat this exercise for the strong lensing term, where
$\chi^{2}_{\text{s}}=\frac{(\det\mathcal{A})^{2}_{i}}{\sigma^{2}_{i}}=\frac{((1-Z_{i}\kappa_{i})^{2}-|Z_{i}\gamma_{i}|^{2})^{2}}{\sigma^{2}_{i}}\;.$
(36)
Again, we isolate the non-linear terms and take them as constant during each
iteration step,
$\begin{split}&\frac{\partial\chi^{2}_{\text{s}}(\psi_{k})}{\partial\psi_{l}}=\frac{2(\det\mathcal{A})_{i}}{\sigma^{2}_{i}}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}(\det\mathcal{A}(\psi_{k}))_{i}\\\
&=\frac{2(\det\mathcal{A})_{i}}{\sigma^{2}_{i}}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}(1-Z_{i}\kappa_{i}(\psi_{k})^{2}-\frac{\partial}{\psi_{l}}|Z_{i}\gamma_{i}(\psi_{k})|^{2}\right]\\\
&=\frac{2(\det\mathcal{A})_{i}}{\sigma^{2}_{i}}\left[2(1-Z_{i}\kappa_{i}(\psi_{k}))\left(-Z_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\kappa_{i}(\psi_{k})\right)\right.\\\
&\left.-\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\left(Z^{2}_{i}\gamma^{2}_{1i}(\psi_{k})+Z^{2}_{i}\gamma^{2}_{2i}(\psi_{k})\right)\right]\\\
&=\frac{2(\det\mathcal{A})_{i}}{\sigma^{2}_{i}}\left[2(1-Z_{i}\kappa_{i}(\psi_{k}))(-Z_{i}\mathcal{K}_{il})-2Z_{i}\gamma_{1i}(\psi_{k})Z_{i}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{il}\right.\\\
&\left.-2Z_{i}\gamma_{2i}(\psi_{k})Z_{i}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{il}\right]\\\
&=\frac{4(\det\mathcal{A})_{i}}{\sigma^{2}_{i}}\left[Z_{i}^{2}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\mathcal{K}_{il}\psi_{k}-Z_{i}\mathcal{K}_{il}-Z^{2}_{i}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{ik}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{il}\psi_{k}-Z_{i}\mathcal{K}_{il}\right.\\\
&\left.-Z^{2}_{i}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{ik}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{il}\psi_{k}\right]\;.\end{split}$
(37)
This yields another linear system,
$\mathcal{B}^{*}_{lk}\psi_{k}=\mathcal{V}^{*}_{l}\;,$ (38)
with the coefficient matrix for strong lensing
$\mathcal{B}^{*}_{lk}=\frac{4(\det\mathcal{A})_{i}}{\sigma^{2}_{i}}Z^{2}_{i}(\mathcal{K}_{ik}\mathcal{K}_{il}-\mathcal{G}^{1}_{ik}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{il}-\mathcal{G}^{2}_{ik}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{il})$
(39)
and the result vector
$\mathcal{V}^{*}_{l}=\frac{4(\det\mathcal{A})_{i}}{\sigma^{2}_{i}}Z_{i}\mathcal{K}_{il}\;.$
(40)
Also the regularisation term in Eq. (25) has to be minimised,
$\begin{split}\frac{\partial
R(\psi_{k})}{\partial\psi_{l}}&=\eta_{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\left(\kappa^{b}_{i}-\kappa_{i}(\psi_{k})\right)^{2}\\\
&=2\eta_{i}(\kappa^{b}_{i}-\kappa_{i})\left(-\frac{\partial}{\partial\psi_{l}}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\psi_{k}\right)\\\
&=2\eta_{i}\left(\kappa_{i}^{b}-\mathcal{K}_{ik}\psi_{k}\right)\left(-\mathcal{K}_{il}\right)\\\
&=2\eta_{i}\left(-\kappa^{b}_{i}\mathcal{K}_{il}+\mathcal{K}_{ik}\mathcal{K}_{il}\psi_{k}\right)\;,\end{split}$
(41)
which contributes one additional term to the coefficient matrix and the result
vector,
$\mathcal{B}^{\text{reg}}_{lk}=\sum\limits_{i}\eta_{i}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\mathcal{K}_{il}$
(42)
and
$\mathcal{V}^{\text{reg}}_{l}=\sum\limits_{i}\eta_{i}\kappa^{b}_{i}\mathcal{K}_{il}\;.$
(43)
Finally, we collect the results to obtain the solution for Eq. 11, given in
terms of a linear system with the following coefficient matrix
$\begin{split}\mathcal{B}_{lk}=&\sum\limits_{i,j}\mathcal{F}^{1}_{ij}Z_{i}Z_{j}\\\
&\cdot\left[\varepsilon^{1}_{i}\varepsilon^{1}_{j}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\mathcal{K}_{jl}+\varepsilon^{1}_{i}\varepsilon^{1}_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jk}\mathcal{K}_{il}+\varepsilon^{1}_{i}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{jl}+\varepsilon^{1}_{i}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{jk}\mathcal{K}_{il}\right.\\\
&\left.+\varepsilon^{1}_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jk}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{il}+\varepsilon^{1}_{j}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{ik}\mathcal{K}_{jl}+\mathcal{G}^{1}_{ik}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{jl}+\mathcal{G}^{1}_{jk}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{il}\right]\\\
&+\sum\limits_{i,j}\mathcal{F}^{2}_{ij}Z_{i}Z_{j}\\\
&\cdot\left[\varepsilon^{2}_{i}\varepsilon^{2}_{j}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\mathcal{K}_{jl}+\varepsilon^{2}_{i}\varepsilon^{2}_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jk}\mathcal{K}_{il}+\varepsilon^{2}_{i}\mathcal{K}_{ik}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{jl}+\varepsilon^{2}_{i}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{jk}\mathcal{K}_{il}\right.\\\
&\left.+\varepsilon^{2}_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jk}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{il}+\varepsilon^{2}_{j}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{ik}\mathcal{K}_{jl}+\mathcal{G}^{2}_{ik}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{jl}+\mathcal{G}^{2}_{jk}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{il}\right]\\\
&+\sum\limits_{m}\frac{4(\det\mathcal{A})_{m}}{\sigma^{2}_{m}}Z^{2}_{m}\\\
&\cdot\left[\mathcal{K}_{mk}\mathcal{K}_{ml}-\mathcal{G}^{1}_{mk}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{ml}-\mathcal{G}^{2}_{mk}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{ml}\right]\\\
&+\sum\limits_{n}\eta_{n}\mathcal{K}_{nk}\mathcal{K}_{nl}\end{split}$ (44)
and the result vector
$\begin{split}\mathcal{V}_{l}&=\sum\limits_{i,j}\mathcal{F}^{1}_{ij}\left[\varepsilon^{1}_{i}\varepsilon^{1}_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jl}+\varepsilon^{1}_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{jl}+\varepsilon^{1}_{i}\varepsilon^{1}_{j}Z_{i}\mathcal{K}_{il}+\varepsilon^{1}_{j}Z_{i}\mathcal{G}^{1}_{il}\right]\\\
&+\sum\limits_{i,j}\mathcal{F}^{2}_{ij}\left[\varepsilon^{2}_{i}\varepsilon^{2}_{j}\mathcal{K}_{jl}+\varepsilon^{2}_{i}Z_{j}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{jl}+\varepsilon^{2}_{i}\varepsilon^{2}_{j}Z_{i}\mathcal{K}_{il}+\varepsilon^{2}_{j}Z_{i}\mathcal{G}^{2}_{il}\right]\\\
&+\sum\limits_{m}\frac{4(\det\mathcal{A})_{m}}{\sigma^{2}_{m}}Z_{m}\mathcal{K}_{ml}\\\
&+\sum\limits_{n}\eta_{n}\kappa^{b}_{n}\mathcal{K}_{nl}\;,\end{split}$ (45)
where $i,j,n$ indicate the summation over the complete grid, and $m$ over
those pixels which are assumed to be traversed by a critical curve.
## References
* Bartelmann et al. (1998) Bartelmann, M., Huss, A., Colberg, J. M., Jenkins, A., & Pearce, F. R. 1998, A&A, 330, 1
* Bartelmann et al. (1996) Bartelmann, M., Narayan, R., Seitz, S., & Schneider, P. 1996, ApJ, 464, L115+
* Bartelmann & Schneider (2001) Bartelmann, M. & Schneider, P. 2001, Phys. Rep, 340, 291
* Bradač et al. (2004) Bradač, M., Lombardi, M., & Schneider, P. 2004, A&A, 424, 13
* Bradač et al. (2005) Bradač, M., Schneider, P., Lombardi, M., & Erben, T. 2005, A&A, 437, 39
* Cacciato et al. (2006) Cacciato, M., Bartelmann, M., Meneghetti, M., & Moscardini, L. 2006, A&A, 458, 349
* Coe et al. (2006) Coe, D., Benítez, N., Sánchez, S. F., et al. 2006, AJ, 132, 926
* Comerford et al. (2006) Comerford, J. M., Meneghetti, M., Bartelmann, M., & Schirmer, M. 2006, ApJ, 642, 39
* Diego et al. (2007) Diego, J. M., Tegmark, M., Protopapas, P., & Sandvik, H. B. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 958
* Dolag et al. (2005) Dolag, K., Vazza, F., Brunetti, G., & Tormen, G. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 753
* Donnarumma et al. (2009) Donnarumma, A., Ettori, S., Meneghetti, M., & Moscardini, L. 2009, ArXiv e-prints, astro-ph/0902.4051
* Falco et al. (1985) Falco, E. E., Gorenstein, M. V., & Shapiro, I. I. 1985, ApJ, 289, L1
* Fort et al. (1992) Fort, B., Le Fevre, O., Hammer, F., & Cailloux, M. 1992, ApJ, 399, L125
* Gavazzi (2005) Gavazzi, R. 2005, A&A, 443, 793
* Gavazzi et al. (2003) Gavazzi, R., Fort, B., Mellier, Y., Pelló, R., & Dantel-Fort, M. 2003, A&A, 403, 11
* Kaiser et al. (1995) Kaiser, N., Squires, G., & Broadhurst, T. 1995, ApJ, 449, 460
* Madau et al. (2008) Madau, P., Diemand, J., & Kuhlen, M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1260
* Meneghetti et al. (2007) Meneghetti, M., Argazzi, R., Pace, F., et al. 2007, A&A, 461, 25
* Meneghetti et al. (2008) Meneghetti, M., Melchior, P., Grazian, A., et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 403
* Narayan & Bartelmann (1996) Narayan, R. & Bartelmann, M. 1996, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, astro-ph/9606001
* Navarro et al. (1996) Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, ApJ, 462, 563
* P. Schneider (1992) P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, E. F. 1992, Gravitational Lenses (Springer Verlag)
* P. Schneider (2006) P. Schneider, C. Kochanek, J. W. 2006, Gravitational Lensing: Strong, Weak and Micro (Springer Verlag)
* Puchwein et al. (2005) Puchwein, E., Bartelmann, M., Dolag, K., & Meneghetti, M. 2005, A&A, 442, 405
* Sand et al. (2002) Sand, D. J., Treu, T., & Ellis, R. S. 2002, ApJ, 574, L129
* Sand et al. (2008) Sand, D. J., Treu, T., Ellis, R. S., Smith, G. P., & Kneib, J.-P. 2008, ApJ, 674, 711
* Seitz et al. (1998) Seitz, S., Schneider, P., & Bartelmann, M. 1998, A&A, 337, 325
* Springel et al. (2008) Springel, V., Wang, J., Vogelsberger, M., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1685
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-11T20:59:09 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.199557 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "J. Merten, M. Cacciato, M. Meneghetti, C. Mignone, M. Bartelmann",
"submitter": "Julian Merten",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1967"
} |
0806.1988 | # Statistical Characterization of a 1D Random Potential Problem – with
applications in score statistics of MS-based peptide sequencing
Gelio Alves and Yi-Kuo Yu111To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail
address: yyu@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov National Center for Biotechnology Information,
National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD
20894
###### Abstract
We provide a complete thermodynamic solution of a 1D hopping model in the
presence of a random potential by obtaining the density of states. Since the
partition function is related to the density of states by a Laplace transform,
the density of states determines completely the thermodynamic behavior of the
system. We have also shown that the transfer matrix technique, or the so-
called dynamic programming, used to obtain the density of states in the 1D
hopping model may be generalized to tackle a long-standing problem in
statistical significance assessment for one of the most important proteomic
tasks – peptide sequencing using tandem mass spectrometry data.
###### keywords:
Statistical Significance , Dynamic Programming , Mass Spectrometry , Directed
Paths in Random Media , Peptide Identification
## 1 Introduction
Important in both fundamental science and numerous applications, optimization
problems of various degrees of complexity are challenging (see [1] for an
excellent introduction). Optimization conditioned by constraints that may vary
from event to event is of especial theoretical and practical importance. As a
first example, when dealing with a system under a random potential, each
realization of the random potential demands a separate optimization resulting
in a different ground state. The thermodynamic behavior of such a system in a
quenched random potential crucially depends on the random potential realized.
A similar but practical problem may arise in routing passengers at various
cities to reach their destinations. In the latter case, the optimal routing
depends on the number of passengers at various locations, the costs from one
location to the others, which likely to vary from time to time. This type of
conditional optimization also occurs in modern proteomics problem, that is, in
the mass spectrometry (MS) based peptide sequencing. In this case, each tandem
MS (MS2) spectrum constitute a different condition for optimization which aims
to find a database peptide or a de novo peptide to best explain the given MS2
spectrum.
When the cost function of an optimization problem can be expressed as a sum of
independent local contributions, the problem usually can be solved using the
transfer matrix method that is commonly employed in statistical physics. A
well-studied example of this sort in statistical physics is the directed
polymer/path in a random medium (DPRM) [2, 3, 4]. Even when a small non-local
energetics is involved, the transfer matrix approach still proves useful [5].
As an example, the close relationship between the DPRM problem and MS-based
peptide sequencing, where a small nonlocal energetics is necessary to enhance
the peptide identifications, was sketched in an earlier publication [5] and
the cost value distribution from many possible solutions other than the
optimal one is explored. Indeed, obtaining the cost value distribution from
all possible solutions in many cases is harder than finding the optimal
solution alone. In this paper, we will provide the solution to a generic
problem that enables a full characterization of the peptide sequencing score
statistics, instead of just the optimal peptide. The 1D problem considered is
essentially a hopping model in the presence of a random potential. The
solution to this problem may also be useful in other applications such as in
routing of passengers and even internet traffic.
In what follows, we will first introduce the generic 1D hopping model in a
random potential, followed by its transfer matrix (or dynamic programming)
solution. We then discuss the utility of this solution in the context of MS-
based peptide sequencing, and demonstrate with real example from mass spectrum
in real MS-based proteomics experiments. In the discussion section, we will
sketch the utility of the transfer matrix solution in other context and then
conclude with a few relevant remarks.
## 2 1D hopping in random potential
Along the $x$-axis, let us consider a particle that can hop with a set of
prescribed distances $\\{m_{i}\\}_{i=1}^{K}$ towards the positive $\hat{x}$
direction. That is, if the particle is currently at location $x_{0}$, it can
move to location $x_{0}+m_{1}$, $x_{0}+m_{2}$, …$x_{0}+m_{K}$ in the next time
step. At each hopping step, the particle will accumulate an energy $-s(x)$
from location $x$ that it just visited. The score $s(x)$ (negative of the on-
site potential energy) is assumed positive and may only exist at a limited
number of locations. For locations that $s(x)$ do not exist, we simply set
$s(x)=0$ there. The energy of a path starting from the origin specified by the
sequential hopping events $p\equiv\\{m_{h_{1}},m_{h_{2}},\ldots,m_{h_{L}}\\}$
would have visited locations $\\{x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{L}\\}$ with
$x_{i}\equiv\sum_{j=1}^{i}m_{h_{j}}$ and has energy
$E_{p}(x=x_{L})\equiv-\sum_{i=1}^{L-1}s\left(x_{i}\right)\equiv-S_{p}(x)\;.$
In general, there can be more than one path terminated at the same point.
Treating each path as a state with energy given by $E_{p}$, one ends up having
the following recursion relation for the partition function
$Z(x)\equiv\sum_{p}e^{-\beta E_{p}(x)}$
$Z(x)=\sum_{i=1}^{K}e^{\beta s(x-m_{i})}Z(x-m_{i})\;,$ (1)
where $\beta=1/T$ plays the role of inverse temperature (with $k_{B}=1$
chosen). If one were only interested in the best score terminated at point
$x$, it will be given by the zero temperature limit $\beta\to\infty$ and the
recursion relation may be obtained by taking the logarithm on both sides of
(1) and divided by $\beta$ then taking $\beta\to\infty$ limit to reach
$S_{\rm best}(x)=\max_{1\leq i\leq K}\\{s(x-m_{i})+S_{\rm
best}(x-m_{i})\\}\;,$ (2)
where $S_{\rm best}(x)$ records the best path score among all paths reaching
position $x$. This update method, also termed dynamic programming, records the
lowest energy and lowest energy path reaching a given point $x$. The lowest
energy among all possible at position $x$ is simply $-S_{\rm best}(x)$ and the
associated path can be obtained by tracing backwards the incoming steps. It is
interesting to observe that one can also obtain the worst score at each
position via dynamical programming
$S_{\rm worst}(x)=\min_{1\leq i\leq K}\\{s(x-m_{i})+S_{\rm
worst}(x-m_{i})\\}\;.$ (3)
The full thermodynamic characterization demands more information than the
ground state energy. In principle, one may obtain the full partition function
using eq. (1) evaluated at various temperatures. This procedure, however,
hinders analytical property such as determination of the average energy
$\langle E\rangle\equiv-\frac{\partial\ln Z}{\partial\beta}\;.$
A better starting point may be achieved if one can obtain the density of
states $D(E)$. In this case, we have
$\displaystyle Z$ $\displaystyle\equiv$ $\displaystyle\int dEe^{-\beta E}D(E)$
$\displaystyle\langle E\rangle$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\frac{\int
dEe^{-\beta E}ED(E)}{\int dEe^{-\beta E}D(E)}\;.$
Note that if the ground energy $E_{\rm grd}$ of the system is bounded from
below, the partition function is simply a Laplace transform of a modified
density of states given by
$Z=e^{-\beta E_{\rm grd}}\int_{0}^{\infty}dEe^{-\beta E}\tilde{D}(E)$
where $\tilde{D}(E)\equiv D(E-E_{\rm grd})$ and
$\langle E\rangle=E_{\rm grd}+\frac{\int_{0}^{\infty}dEe^{-\beta
E}E\tilde{D}(E)}{\int_{0}^{\infty}dEe^{-\beta E}\tilde{D}(E)}$
This implies that the density of states $D(E)$ together with the ground state
energy $E_{\rm grd}$ determine all the thermodynamic behavior of the system.
In the next section, we will explain how to obtain the density of states using
the dynamical programming technique as well as how to extend this approach to
more complicated situations that will be useful in characterizing the score
statistics in MS-based peptide sequencing.
## 3 Obtaining the Density of States
The density of states is related to the energy histogram in a simple way. The
number of states between energies $E$ and $E+\eta$ (with $\eta\ll 1$) is given
by $D(E)\eta$. If we happen to use $\eta$ as the energy bin size for energy
histogram, the count $C(E)$ in the bin with energy $E$ is simply $D(E)\eta$
and the density of states $D(E)=C(E)/\eta$. For simplicity, we will assume
that the all the on-site energies $-s(x)$ are integral multiple of $\eta$.
This implies that each path energy/score is also an integral multiple of
$\eta$. In the following subsections, we will use score density of states
instead of energy density of states.
### 3.1 The Simplest Case and its Application
We denote by $C(x,N)$ the number of paths reaching position $x$ with score
$N\eta$. With this notation, we can easily write down the recursion relation
for $C(x,N)$ as follows
$C(x,N)=\sum_{i=1}^{K}C(x-m_{i},N-\frac{s(x-m_{i})}{\eta})\;.$ (4)
This recursion relation allows us to compute the density of states in the same
manner as computing the partition function (1) except that we need to have an
additional dimension for score at each position $x$. As an even simpler
application of this recursion relation, suppose that one is only interested in
the number of paths reaching position $x$, one may sum over the energy part on
both side of (4) and arrives at
$C(x)=\sum_{i}C(x-m_{i}),$ (5)
which enables a very speedy way to compute the total number of paths reaching
position $x$. In the context of de novo peptide sequencing [6], this number
corresponds to the total number of a͡ll possible de novo peptides within a
given small mass range. Although simply obtained, this number may be useful
for providing rough statistical assessment in de novo peptide sequencing.
### 3.2 The More Realistic Case
In general, one may wish to associate with each hop an energy $h$ or one may
wish to introduce some kind of score normalization based on the number of
hopping steps. This is indeed the case when applying this framework to MS-
based peptide sequencing where a peptide length factor adding or multiplying
to the overall raw score is a common practice. In this case, it becomes
important to keep track the number of hops made in each path. We may further
categorize the counter $C(x,N)$ into $\sum_{L}C(x,N,L)$. That is, we may
separate the paths with different number of steps from one another and arrive
at a finer counter $C(x,N,L)$ which records the number of paths reaching
position $x$ with score $N\eta$ and with $L$ hopping steps.
It is rather easy to write down the recursion relation obeyed by this fine
counter
$C(x,N,L)=\sum_{i=1}^{K}C(x-m_{i},N-\frac{s(x-m_{i})}{\eta},L-1)\;.$ (6)
This recursion relation allows us to renormalize the raw score based on the
number of steps taken. For example, for RAId_DbS [7], a database search method
we developed, we divide the raw score obtained by $2(L-1)$ for any peptide
(path) of $L$ amino acids (hopping steps) to get better sensitivity in peptide
identification.
In principle, the recursion relations given by (4-6) are all one-dimensional
updates. The only difference is the internal structure of counters at each
position $x$. For (5), the counter is just an integer and has no further
structure. For (4), the counter at each position has a 1D structure indexed by
the score. For (6), the counter at each position $x$ has a 2D structure
indexed by both the score and the number of hopping steps. This means that in
terms of solving the problem using dynamical programming, it is always a 1D
dynamical programming with different degrees of internal structure that may
lengthen the execution time when shifting from the simplest case (5) to the
more complicated case (6). Obviously at each position $x$, there is an upper
bound and a lower bound for score and also for the number of hopping steps
accumulated. We shall call them $S_{\rm best}(x)$, $S_{\rm worst}(x)$, $L_{\rm
max}(x)$ and $L_{\rm min}(x)$ respectively. The first two quantities may be
obtained by eqs. (2) and (3) respectively. We provide the recursions for the
two latter quantities below
$\displaystyle L_{\rm max}(x)$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\max_{1\leq
i\leq K}\\{L_{\rm max}(x-m_{i})\\}+1\;,$ (7) $\displaystyle L_{\rm min}(x)$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\min_{1\leq i\leq K}\\{L_{\rm
min}(x-m_{i})\\}+1\;.$ (8)
Eqs. (2-3) and (7-8) provides the ranges for both the scores and the number of
cumulative hopping steps at each position $x$ via simple dynamic programming.
As we will discuss later, this information enables a memory-efficient
computations of score histograms.
## 4 Application in MS-based Peptide Sequencing
In this section, we focus on an important subject in modern biology – using MS
data to identify the numerous peptides/proteins involved in any given
biological process. Because of the peptide mass degeneracies and the limited
measurement accuracy for the peptide mass-to-charge ratio, using MS2 spectra
is more effective in peptide identifications. In a MS2 setup, a selected
peptide with its mass identified by the first spectrometer is fragmented by
noble gas, and the resulting fragments are analyzed by a second mass
spectrometer. Although such MS2-based proteomics approaches promise high
throughput analysis, the confidence level assignment for any peptide/protein
identified is challenging.
The majority of peptide identification methods are so-called database search
approaches. The main idea is to theoretically fragment each peptide in a
database to obtain the corresponding theoretical spectra. One then decides the
degree of similarity between each theoretical spectrum and the input query
spectrum using a scoring function. The candidate peptides from the database
are ranked/chosen according to their similarity scores to the query spectrum.
Although one may assign relative confidence levels among the candidate
peptides via various (empirical) means, an objective, standardized calibration
exists only recently [8]. In our earlier publications [5, 9], we proposed to
tackle this difficulty by using a de novo sequencing method to provide an
objective confidence measure that is both database-independent and takes into
account spectrum-specific noise. In this paper, we will provide concrete
algorithms for such purpose.
To begin, consider a spectrum $\sigma$ with parent ion mass range
$[w-\delta,w+\delta]$, we denote by $\Pi(w,\delta)$ the set of all “possible”
peptides with masses in this range. Given a peptide $\pi$ from
$\Pi(w,\delta)$, the associated quality score $S(\pi,\sigma)$ is defined by a
prescribed scoring system. The score distribution of $S(\pi,\sigma)$ within
$\Pi(w,\delta)$ provides naturally a likelihood measure for any given peptide
$\pi$ to the the correct one.
However, as described earlier [5], this seemingly straightforward idea faces
two difficulties in terms of implementations. First, unlike the DPRM problem
for which the function to be optimized is defined without ambiguity, the
choice of the scoring function is somewhat empirical because the parameters
used in the scoring must be trained using a training data set. Further,
because of different instruments and experimental setups, it seems impossible
to design a scoring system such that the correct peptide for each spectrum has
the highest score among all possible peptides; the application of a given
scoring function to general cases may require a leap of faith. Second, even
after the scoring function is chosen, it is not known how to find the peptide
$\pi_{o}$ that maximizes $S(\pi,\sigma)$ as well as the score distribution
${\rm pdf}(S)$ within $\Pi(w,\delta)$ other than by the generally impractical
procedure of examining all members of $\Pi(w,\delta)$.
The first difficulty can be alleviated by validating high scoring de novo
peptides via database searches [9] and is not the main focus of the current
paper. Note that a partial solution to the second problem via iterative
mapping when nonlocal score contributions exist is provided earlier [5]. Here
we tackle the second problem head on when the scoring function used does not
contain nonlocal contribution other than a final renormalization with respect
to the peptide length. Our algorithms contains two parts: computer memory
allocations and dynamical programming update. Prior to discussing these two
parts, however, we first address the important issue of choosing a good mass
unit.
### 4.1 Choosing a Good Mass Unit
The goal here is to choose a mass unit $\Delta$ and expresses the molecular
mass of each amino acid as an integral multiple of this unit. For example, one
may choose $\Delta$ to be $0.1$ Dalton (Da), and round the molecular mass of
each amino acid to be an integral multiple of $0.1$ Da. Once a mass unit is
chosen, all the masses under consideration are integral multiples of this
unit. It turns out that different choices of the mass unit leads to different
maximum cumulative mass error. As a specific example, consider using
$\Delta=0.1$ Da as the mass unit. The mass of Alanine, with true mass
$71.03711538$ Da, is now represented as $710\Delta$. This molecular mass
expression is $0.03711538$ Da smaller than the true molecular mass of Alanine.
When this happens, the integral mass representation has a mass smaller than
the true mass, and we call such type of mass error a down-error. Now the amino
acid Tryptophan with molecular mass $186.07931613$ Da will be assigned an
integral mass of $1861\Delta$, which has an extra of $(0.1-0.07931613)$ Da
compared to the true mass. We call this type of mass error the up-error.
The ratio of the mass error to the real molecular mass when multiplied by
$3000$ Da provides the cumulative maximum error that can be induced by a
single amino acid at $3,000$ Da mass. For a fixed mass unit, we went over this
mass error analysis for each of the twenty amino acids and documented the
largest up-error and down-error. The larger one between the maximum up-error
and the maximum down-error is called the max-error. To search for best mass
units that minimize the max-error at $3,000$ Da, we went over all possible
mass unit ranging from $0.005$ Da to $1.005$ Da in step of $10^{-6}$ Da.
Interestingly enough, we found a discrete list of mass units that have smaller
max-error compared to their nearby mass units. These numerically found magic
mass units are summarized in table 1.
Table 1: A list of best mass units in Da. The abbreviation “m.u.e.” stands for “maximum up-error,” while “m.d.e.” stands for “maximum down-error.” The maximum up-error, maximum down-error, and max-error are evaluated in extrapolation to $3,000$ Da as described in the text. The abbreviation “a.a.w.m.u.” stands for “amino acid with maximum up-error,” while “a.a.w.m.d.” stands for “amino acid with maximum down-error.” mass unit | m.u.e. | a.a.w.m.u. | m.d.e. | a.a.w.m.d. | max-error
---|---|---|---|---|---
0.006070 | 0.041980 | Tryptophan | 0.037455 | Cysteine | 0.041980
0.007300 | 0.041495 | Methionine | 0.061276 | Asparagine | 0.061276
0.017540 | 0.094183 | Cysteine | 0.121977 | Proline | 0.121977
0.021500 | 0.199585 | Arginine | 0.182283 | Asparagine | 0.199585
0.054470 | 0.453793 | Asparagine | 0.347792 | Alanine | 0.453793
0.065400 | 0.553492 | Lysine | 0.536989 | Alanine | 0.553492
0.109450 | 0.908287 | Proline | 0.900898 | Lysine | 0.908287
0.110300 | 0.962781 | Histidine | 0.858742 | Lysine | 0.962781
0.110320 | 0.960176 | Aspartate | 0.907801 | Histidine | 0.960176
0.500208 | 0.980357 | Cysteine | 0.983149 | (Iso)Leucine | 0.983149
1.000416 | 0.980357 | Cysteine | 0.983149 | (Iso)Leucine | 0.983149
Once a mass unit is chosen, all the amino acid masses are effectively
integers. To obtain the score histogram of all de novo peptides when queried
by a spectrum $\sigma$ with parent molecular mass $w$ (with N- and C- terminal
groups of the peptide stripped away), we first construct a mass array where
index $k$ corresponds a molecular mass $k\Delta$. To encode all possible
peptides with molecular mass up to $w$, we need to have an array of size
$w/\Delta+1$. Apparently, when a larger mass unit is used, the size of the
mass array is smaller and thus reduces computation time. However, as one may
see from table 1, the larger mass unit is also accompanied by a larger max-
error and might not be preferred when high mass accuracy is the first
priority.
### 4.2 Efficient Memory Allocation
The basic idea of our algorithm is to encode all possible peptides in the mass
array by linking pointers, analogous to the consecutive hopping steps in the
1D hopping model. For an amino acid $a$, let $n(a)$ represents its
corresponding integer mass in unit of $\Delta$. For a peptide made of
$[a_{1},a_{2},\ldots,a_{M}]$, it will have a hopping trajectory in the
molecular array given by $[0,x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{M}]$ with $x_{i\geq
1}\equiv\sum_{j=1}^{i}n(a_{j})$. Let us also denote $x_{M}$ by $x_{F}$ to
indicate that it is the terminating point of the path. Apparently, all
possible peptides with molecular masses equal to $x_{F}\Delta$ will all have
corresponding hopping paths starting at the origin and terminating at $x_{F}$.
Through appropriate pointer linking, one may therefore encode all possible
peptides with molecular mass $x_{F}\Delta$ in a one-dimensional mass array.
For a given spectrum $\sigma$, depending on the score function used, one may
calculate local score contributions at each mass index. This step is done once
only for the whole mass array, and need not be repeated for each candidate
peptide. In a typical MS2 experimental spectrum, there always exists some
level of parent ion mass uncertainty. Once the size of the mass uncertainty is
specified, we only need to examine de novo peptides whose corresponding
hopping paths terminating at a few consecutive mass indices. This indicates
that some of the mass indices of the aforementioned mass array may not even be
used in this context. Below we describe how to efficiently obtain relevant
mass indices and only allocate computer memories for those masses.
Assume that the possible terminating points are $F_{1},F_{2},\ldots,F_{k}$
with $F_{j+1}=F_{j}+1$. The update rules described in Eqs. (2-3), (5), and
(7-8) will also be used at this stage. The following pseudocode describes our
algorithm.
Initialize the mass_index = 0 entry
$S_{\rm best}=S_{\rm worst}=L_{\rm max}=L_{\rm min}=0$; $C$=1;
REMARK: Max_aa is the maximum number of amino acids considered
for (aa_index = 0; aa_index $<$ Max_aa; aa_index ++) {
label occupancy of n(aa_index);
at n(aa_index) attach a pointer back to 0;
update $S_{\rm best}$, $S_{\rm worst}$, $L_{\rm max}$, $L_{\rm min}$, $C$ at
n(aa_index);
}
for (mass_index = 1; mass_index $<=F_{k}$; mass_index ++){
if (mass_index occupied ?) {
for (aa_index = 0; aa_index $<$ Max_aa; aa_index ++) {
label occupancy of (mass_index + n(aa_index));
at mass_index+n(aa_index) attach a pointer to mass_index;
update $S_{\rm best}$, $S_{\rm worst}$, $L_{\rm max}$, $L_{\rm min}$, $C$ at
(mass_index + n(aa_index));
}
}
}
for (mass_index = $F_{k}$ ; mass_index $>=F_{1}$; mass_index --){
backtrack all possible paths $\to$ final occupied entries;
}
The last step in the algorithm above identifies relevant mass indices,
mass_indices that will be traversed by the hopping paths of all peptides with
molecular masses in the range $[F_{1}\Delta,F_{k}\Delta]$. We only need to
allocate computer memory associated with those sites. For each of these
relevant sites, we also know the values of $S_{\rm best}$, $S_{\rm worst}$,
$L_{\rm max}$, $L_{\rm min}$, and the total number of peptides reaching that
site through the algorithm above. One may therefore allocate a 2D array of
size $(S_{\rm best}(i)-S_{\rm worst}(i))/\eta\times(L_{\rm max}(i)-L_{\rm
min}(i))$ for each relevant mass_index $i$ for later use.
### 4.3 Main Algorithm and some Results
Once memory allocation for relevant mass_indices is done, we can efficiently
go through those relevant sites to obtain the 2D score histogram that we
mentioned. In the pseudocode below, update is performed using eq. (6). We now
demonstrate the very simple main algorithm
Initialize all the fine counters $C(x,N,L)=0$
except $C(x=0,N=0,L=0)$=1;
for (aa_index = 0; aa_index $<$ Max_aa; aa_index ++) {
update $C(x,N,L)$ at $x=$n(aa_index);
}
for (mass_index in ascendingly ordered relevant mass_indices){
for (aa_index = 0; aa_index $<$ Max_aa; aa_index ++) {
update $C(x,N,L)$ at $x=$(mass_index + n(aa_index));
}
}
We now define the final 2D counter
$Y(N,L)\equiv\sum_{i=1}^{k}C(F_{i},N,L)\;.$ (9)
Apparently, in the 1D hopping model when allowing $k$ consecutive terminating
points, the resulting density of states $D(E)$ can now be expressed as
$D(E=-N\eta)=\sum_{L}Y(N,L)/\eta$. If one were interested in normalizing the
final score in a path-length dependent manner, one will has the following
generic transformation
$H(E)=\sum_{L}\int
dE^{\prime}\frac{Y(E^{\prime}=-N\eta,L)}{\eta}\delta\left(E-f(E^{\prime},L)\right)$
(10)
where $f(E^{\prime},L)$ is a generic length-normalized energetic function that
takes the raw energy $E^{\prime}$ with $L$ hopping steps and turn them into a
new energy $f(E^{\prime},L)$, and $\int dE^{\prime}\to\eta\sum_{N}$ is
understood.
Using a real experimental MS2 spectrum of parent ion mass $2254.7\pm 3.0$ Da
and a raw scoring function (RAId_DbS [7] raw score without divided by $2(L-1)$
with $L$ being the peptide length), we obtained a 2D score histogram. From
this 2D score histogram, we can compute the average peptide length $\langle
L\rangle$ as well. We then transform the 2D score histogram using two
different $f$ functions. In the first case,
$f(E^{\prime},L)=E^{\prime}/2(\langle L\rangle-1)$, meaning that one just
divides the score by a constant given by $2(\langle L\rangle-1)$. In the
second case, we use the RAId_DbS scoring function where
$f(E^{\prime},L)=E^{\prime}/2(L-1)$. In Figure 1, we show the two resulting
score histograms along with the fits to theoretical distribution function [7].
As one may see from the figure, both histograms are well fitted by the
theoretical distribution function over at least 15 order of magnitudes. There
is difference, however, in the histograms obtained. In the first case, where
the score is merely divided by the average length, we have a wider score
distribution than that of the second case. This implies that a high scoring
hit out of the first type of scoring function will have a larger $P$-value
than that of the second type. This is perfectly reasonable because when using
the first type of raw scoring, very long peptides which by random chances are
more likely to hit on fragment peaks in the mass spectrum are less penalized
than the shorter peptides. As a consequence, one anticipates more false long
peptides out of the first type of scoring method than that of the second
scoring method. Therefore, one should assign a larger $P$-value to the former
case and a smaller $P$-value to the latter case. It is apparently important to
be able to obtain score histograms of the second scoring method. However, this
can only be achieved if one keeps the length information in the dynamical
programming update, see eq. (6).
Figure 1: Score histograms for raw score and RAId_DbS score. Note that the two
histogram cross each other at large score regime, indicating that the raw
score function might not be as effective as the RAId_DbS score, see text for
details.
## 5 Discussion, Summary, and Outlook
Our method may also be extended to other applications. In the case of
passenger routings, the $x$-axis actually represents time. The local score may
be viewed as the additional cost that may vary for different stops. Once the
problem is laid out, the 2D histogram obtained from our solution indicates the
number of equivalent routes in terms of additional costs and the total number
of stops. This problem should be interesting in its own right.
In this paper, we developed a new approach to obtain the density of states of
a 1D hopping problem in random potential. We have extended the simplest case
scenario and have shown that we can apply this method to provide a complete
score histogram for MS-based peptide sequencing problem. This important
information may be used for a more objective statistical significance
assignment in peptide identification. Our algorithm may also serve as a speedy
de novo algorithm. If one is only interested in getting the best scoring
peptide with length normalized score, one only needs to keep track of $S_{\rm
best}(x,L)$. Furthermore, it is straightforward to include in our de novo
algorithm post-translationally modified amino acids. The effect is simply an
enlargement of the alphabet. That is, instead of having 20 amino acids, we
will simply have more allowed masses but without needing to change any part of
the algorithm.
In the near future, we would like to build a web application that allows the
users to obtain information of interest. For example, a user might be
interested in knowing: given a parent ion molecular mass and a mass error
tolerance, how many de novo peptides can there be? Furthermore, we plan to
provide users with the full score histogram when a query spectrum is provided
and a scoring method is chosen. Our approach, founded on statistical physics,
can easily address this type of questions to provide useful information for
biological researches.
## Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National
Library of Medicine at the National Institutes of Health.
## References
* [1] M.R. Garey and D.S. Johnson, Computers and intractability, W.H. Freeman and company, New York (1979).
* [2] D.A. Huse and C.L. Henley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 2708 (1985).
* [3] M. Kardar, Nucl. Phys. B290, 582 (1987).
* [4] D.S. Fisher and D.A. Huse, Phys. Rev. B. 43, 10728 (1991).
* [5] T.P. Doerr, G. Alves and Y.-K. Yu, Physica A 354, 558-570 (2005).
* [6] J.A. Taylor and R.S. Johnson, Raid Commu. Mass Spect. 11, 1067 (1997) .
* [7] G. Alves, A.Y. Ogurtsov and Y.-K. Yu, Biology Direct 2, art. no. 25 (2007).
* [8] G. Alves, A.Y. Ogurtsov, W.W. Wu, G. Wang, R.-F. Shen and Y.-K. Yu, Biology Direct 2, art. no. 26 (2007).
* [9] G. Alves and Y.-K. Yu, Bioinformatics 21, 3726-3732 (2005).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-12T02:50:51 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.205771 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Gelio Alves and Yi-Kuo Yu",
"submitter": "Yi-Kuo Yu",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1988"
} |
0806.1994 | # Electric-field switching of exciton spin splitting in coupled quantum dots
Xiaojing Li Kai Chang kchang@red.semi.ac.cn SKLSM, Institute of
Semiconductors, Chinese Academy of Sciences, P. O. Box 912, Beijing 100083,
China
###### Abstract
We investigate theoretically the spin splitting of the exciton states in
semiconductor coupled quantum dots (CQDs) containing a single magnetic ion. We
find that the spin splitting can be switched on/off in the CQDs via the sp-d
exchange interaction using the electric field. An interesting bright-to-dark
exciton transition can be found and significantly affects the
photoluminescence spectrum. This phenonmenon is induced by the transition of
the ground exciton state, arising from the hole mixing effect, between the
bonding and antibonding states.
###### pacs:
68.65.Hb, 61.72.sd, 81.40.Rs
All-electrical control of electron spin is a central goal in the field of
spintronics and quantum information processing. There have been many proposals
concerning the experimental realization of all-electrical spintronic devices
and qubits in solid state systems in recent years. The electron spin in
quantum dots (QD) is a promising candidate for the qubitDivi2 due to very
long spin decoherent time and the feasibility of large-scale integration.
There are several different schemes to control carrier spin in semiconductor
QDs, e.g., the circular-polarized optical excitation, the spin-orbit
interaction, and the sp-d exchange interaction. The sp-d exchange interaction
between the carriers and the magnetic ions in a QD leads to giant Zeeman
splitting and could be an important testing ground for the realization of a
solid-state qubit.Kim ; Kossut ; Kai The Photoluminesence (PL) spectrum of
CdTe QDs doped with a single Mn2+ ion have demonstrated the effect of the sp-d
exchange interaction on the interband transition.Beso ; Maksimov ; Xin This
provides a unique flexibility to tailor the spin splitting of carriers and
optical property utilizing external electric fields. However, a strong
electric field is required to tune the spin splitting of the exciton in a QD
containing a single magnetic ion since the strong confinement of carriers in a
single QD prohibit the spatial separation of the electron and hole.Beso ; LiXJ
Is it possible to control the spin states of exciton easily utilizing weak
electric field in the QD system?
Recently, it was demonstrated that the orbital states of carriers in coupled
QDs (CQDs) can be tuned by an external electric field in vertically- and
laterally-coupled QDs, respectively.Ortner ; Peeters An interesting field-
induced dissociation of exciton was observed in Photoluminesence
experiments.Krenner ; Scheibner In this work, we consider the CQDs doped with
a single Mn2+ ion and find that the spin states of the exciton in such CQDs
can be easily controlled using electric fields. The spin splitting of the
exciton in the CQDs exhibits significant asymmetry with respect to the
directions of the electric fields and a switching behavior for the weak
coupling case. An interesting bright-to-dark exciton transition arising from
the bonding-antibonding hole state transition can be seen by adjusting the
parameters, e.g., the spatial separation $d$ between the two QDs.
The CQDs structure is schematically shown in Fig. 1. The electron and the hole
are confined by a square potential well in the z axis,
$V_{\perp}^{e,h}(z)=\left\\{\begin{array}[c]{c}0,[-(d/2+d_{1}),-d/2]\\\
0,[d/2,(d/2+d_{2})]\\\ \Delta V^{e,h},otherwise\end{array}\right.,$ (1)
and laterally by a parabolic potential
$V_{\parallel}^{e,h}(\rho)=m_{e,h}\omega_{e,h}^{2}\rho^{2}/2$, where $m_{e}$
and $m_{h}$ are the effective mass of the electron and heavy hole,
respectively. The electric field is applied perpendicular to the CQDs plane.
The Hamiltonian of the system is
$H=H_{e}+H_{h}+H_{s-d}+H_{p-d}+H_{e-h}+V_{Coul}$, where $H_{e}$ ($H_{h}$) is
the electron (hole) Hamiltonian, $H_{s-d}$ ($H_{p-d}$) is the s-d (p-d)
exchange interaction between the electron spin $\mathbf{s}$ (hole spin
$\mathbf{j}$) located at $\mathbf{r}_{e}$ ($\mathbf{r}_{h}$) and the Mn2+ spin
$\mathbf{S}$ located at $\mathbf{r}_{Mn}$, and $H_{e-h}$ is the short-range
exchange interaction between the electron and hole.
$V_{Coul}=-e^{2}/4\pi\varepsilon_{0}\varepsilon|\mathbf{r}_{e}-\mathbf{r}_{h}|$
is the Coulomb interaction between the electron and hole, where
$\varepsilon$($\varepsilon_{0}$) is the dielectric constant of the material
(vacuum), and $e$ is the charge of the electron. The hole Hamiltonian is __
$H_{h}=H_{LK}-eEz$_,_ where $H_{LK}$ is the four-band Luttinger-Kohn
Hamiltonian including the heavy hole and light hole bands.Kai The relevant
material parameters can be found in Ref. [6]. The eigenstate of the exciton
$\Psi^{eh}(\mathbf{r}_{e},\mathbf{r}_{h})$ is expanded in the basis set
constructed by the direct product of the eigenstates of the electron, the
hole, and the magnetic ion.LiXJ
Fig. 2 (a) displays the exciton energy spectrum as a function of electric
field in a CdTe CQDs with strong interdot coupling ($d=2nm$). We magnify the
energy spectrum at weak electric fields (see the inset in Fig. 2 (a)) and find
a strong asymmetric spin splitting with respect to the directions of the
applied electric fields. The electron and hole distribute equally in the upper
and lower QDs in the absence of the electric field. An external electric field
pushes the electron and hole in opposite directions and consequently leads to
the localization of electron and hole in different QDs. Compared to a single
QD tuned by the external field, the wavefunction of carriers in such CQDs is
much more easily manipulated electrically due to the weakening of the quantum
confinement along the z axis. Since the strength of the $p-d$ exchange
interaction is about four times larger than that of the $s-d$ interaction,
when the hole is pushed into the upper QD that contains a single magnetic ion
(see Fig. 1), the spin splitting becomes larger. The spin splitting becomes
very small when the electron localizes in the upper QD. The twelve highest
exciton energy states in the spectrum consist of antibonding hole-states (the
first-excited states of the spin-down hole $|3/2,-3/2>$) and the electron
ground state $|1/2,\pm 1/2>$. Meanwhile, the hole states of the twelve lowest
exciton energy levels are composed of the bonding spin-down hole states
$|3/2,-3/2>$ and the electron ground state $|1/2,\pm 1/2>$. The energy
difference between the bonding and antibonding exciton states can be seen in
Fig. 2 (b). The electron and hole states in the twelve lowest exciton states
are both bonding states, but we can only see six bright lines for the
$\sigma^{+}$ excitation (the other six exciton levels ($J=\pm 2$) are dark
states). However, the hole states of the twelve highest exciton energy levels
are the antibonding states, therefore they are dark states at the small
electric field in the electro-PL spectrum. As the electric field increases, we
find the dark antibonding exciton states become bright, arising from the
mixing of the bonding-antibonding hole states. There is an energy gap between
the bonding and antibonding exciton states because of the interdot tunneling
coupling between the two QDs. The bright $\sigma^{\pm}$
$(\pm\frac{1}{2},\mp\frac{3}{2},S_{z})$ and dark $\pm 2$
$(\pm\frac{1}{2},\pm\frac{3}{2},S_{z})$ exciton states also split because of
$s-d$ interaction. Spin splitting of the bonding exciton states
increases/decreases oppositely to that of the antibonding exciton states as
the electric field varies. In such CQDs, we can realize a switching behavior
for the spin splitting utilizing weak electric fields.
For comparision with the CQDs with the strong interdot coupling, we calculate
the CQDs for weak interdot coupling case($d=4nm$). The exciton energy spectrum
in Fig. 3(a) shows that the energy gap between the bonding and antibonding
exciton states decreases because of the weakening of the interdot tunneling
coupling. The energy spectrum resembles that of the strong coupling case,
while the electro-PL spectrum is very different (see Fig. 3(b)). This is
because the twelve lowest exciton states are no longer the bright states,
since the hole component of the exciton states shows an antibonding feature.
In contrast, the highest twelve exciton states become bright, i.e., the
bonding hole states in the exciton states. We plot the hole energy as a
function of the spatial separation $d$ between the QDs in Fig. 4(b). A
crossover between the bonding and antibonding hole states takes place around
$d=2.2nm$ (see the arrow in Fig. 4 (b)). The crossover can also be seen in
Fig. 4(c), which plots the overlap factor between the electron and hole states
as a function of the distance $d$ (see the black lines in 4(c)). There is no
crossover between the ground and first-excited hole states, i.e., the bonding
and antibonding hole states, without coupling of heavy hole (hh) and light
hole (lh) mixing (see the dotted lines in Fig.4(b)). This behavior can be
understood from a four-level model that is schematically shown in Fig. 4(a).
In the Luttinger-Kohn Hamiltonian, the off-diagonal element $R\propto
k_{\|}k_{z}$ induces the coupling between the HH($L=0$) and LH($L=1$) states
(see Fig. 4(a)). The lowest two levels
$\lambda_{i}=E_{01}^{i}/2\pm\sqrt{(E_{01}^{i})^{2}+4\Delta_{i}^{2}}/2$
($i=a,b)$, where
$E_{01}^{a}=E_{0}^{a}+E_{1}^{b}(E_{01}^{b}=E_{0}^{b}+E_{1}^{a})$ is the sum of
the energies of the two original coupled levels and $\Delta_{i}$ is the
coupling term. The competition between $E_{01}^{i}$ and $\Delta_{i}$ could
lead to the bonding and antibonding transition of the ground state. Increasing
the distance $d$ results in the change of the coupling between the HH
(bonding) and LH (antibonding) states $\Delta_{i}$. As a result, the energy of
antibonding exciton states could be lower than bonding exciton states.
Therefore, the the twelve lowest exciton states become dark while the twelve
highest states are bright in the electro-PL spectrum. This feature can also be
understood from the overlap factor of the bonding and antibonding exciton
states as a function of electric field (see the red lines in Fig. 4 (c)). We
find that the overlap factor of the antibonding (bonding) exciton states
increase as the electric field increases (decreases), resulting in the dark-
to-bright transition of the ground exciton states. Because the exciton
energies of bonding and antibonding states are very close to each other, it is
hard to distinguish them from the PL spectrum. The electro-PL spectrum could
help us to distinguish them from the intensity of the PL peaks due to the
different energy dependences of the bonding and antibonding exciton states on
electric fields. (see Figs. 2 and 3)
Finally, we plot the spin splitting as function of the electric field and the
distance $d$ between the CQDs in Fig. 5. The spin splitting is symmetric with
respect to the directions of electric fields when the CQDs are strongly
coupled. The weak electric fields only result in a negligiable small spin
splitting since the strong confinement of carriers prohibits the spatial
separation of the electron and hole. When the distance $d$ increases, there is
different behavior of the spin splitting at weak electric fields. The spin
splitting becomes strongly asymmetric with respect to the directions of the
electric fields and shows a switching feature for the opposite directions of
the electric fields. We should point out that the position of the magnetic ion
in the QD affects heavily the exciton spin splitting, and determines the
electric field corresponding to the largest spin splitting, but it will not
change the switching behavior in CQDs containing a single magnetic ion.
In summary, we investigated theoretically the energy spectrum and electro-PL
spectrum of the CQDs containing a single magnetic ion. For the CQDs with
strong interdot coupling, the spin splitting is asymmetric with respect to the
directions of the electric fields and can be switched on/off using weak
electric fields. For the weak coupling case, we find that the hole mixing
effect leads to the crossover between the bonding and antibonding hole states,
consequently resulting in the bright-to-dark transition of the ground exciton
states. Our theoretical results could be useful for the designing fresh types
of all-electrical spintronic devices.
###### Acknowledgements.
This work was supported by the NSFC Grant No. 60525405.
## References
* (1) D. P. DiVincenzo, D. Bacon, J. Kempe, G. Burkard. K. B. Whaley, Nature (London) 408, 339 (2000).
* (2) C. S. Kim, M. Kim, S. Lee, J. Kossut, J. K. Furdyna, and M. Dobrowlska, J. Cryst. Growth 214, 395 (2000).
* (3) J. Kossut, I. Yamakawa., A. Nakamura and S. Takeyama, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 1789 (2001).
* (4) Kai Chang, J. B. Xia, F. M. Peeters, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 2661 (2003); Kai Chang, S. S. Li, J. B. Xia, and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B 69, 235203 (2004).
* (5) Y. Léger, L. Besombes, J. Fernández-Rossier, L. Maingault, and H. Mariette, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 107401 (2006); L. Besombes, Y. Leger, L. Maingault, and H. Mariette, J. Appl. Phys. 101, 081713 (2007).
* (6) A. A. Maksimov, G. Bacher, A. MacDonald, V. D. Kulakovskii, A. Forchel, C. R. Becker, G. Landwehr, and L. Molenkamp, Phys. Rev. B 62, R7767 (2000).
* (7) S. H. Xin, P. D. Wang, A. Yin, C. Kim, M. Dobrowolska, J. L. Merz, and J. K. Furdyna, Appl. Phys. Lett. 69, 2884 (1996).
* (8) X. J. Li, and Kai Chang, Appl. Phys. Lett. 92, 071116(2008).
* (9) G. Ortner, M. Bayer, Y. Lyanda-Geller, T. L. Reinecke, A. Kress, J. P. Reithmaier, and A. Forchel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 157401 (2005).
* (10) B. Szafran and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. B 76, 195442 (2007).
* (11) H. J. Krenner, M, Sabathil, E. C. Clark, A. Kress, D. Schuh, M. Bichler, G. Abstreiter, and J. J. Finley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 057402 (2005).
* (12) M. Scheibner, M. F. Doty, I. V. Ponomarev, A. S. Bracker, E. A. Stinaff, V. L. Korenev, T. L. Reinecke, and D. Gammon, Phys. Rev. B 75, 245318 (2007).
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of a CQD containing a single magnetic ion. Figure
2: The exciton energy spectrum as a function of electric field (the upper
panel) and the electro-PL spectrum (the lower panel) in CQD.
$d_{1}=d_{2}=2.4nm$, the radius $l_{e}=l_{h}=5nm$, the distance between the
two QDs $d=2nm$. Figure 3: The same as Fig. 2, but for the CQD with larger
spatial separation between the two QDs, $d=4nm$. Figure 4: (Color online)(a)
the schematic diagram of the four-level model. (b) The hole energy as a
function of distance $d$ between the two QDs. The solid lines denote the hole
energies in CQDs with the HH-LH coupling; the dotted lines denote that without
the HH-LH coupling. (c) the overlap factor between the electron ground state
and the hole ground states (the solid lines) and first-excited hole states
(the dotted lines) as function of the distance $d$ between the two QDs(the
black lines) and the electric fields (the red lines) for $d=4nm$. Figure 5:
The contour plot of the spin splitting of exciton in a CQD as function of the
distances $d$ and external electric fields.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-12T03:26:59 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.210420 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Xiaojing Li and Kai Chang",
"submitter": "Kai Chang",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1994"
} |
0806.1997 | # Chiral Properties of Baryon Fields with Flavor $SU(3)$ Symmetry
Hua-Xing Chen1,2 hxchen@rcnp.osaka-u.ac.jp V. Dmitrašinović3
dmitrasin@yahoo.com Atsushi Hosaka1 hosaka@rcnp.osaka-u.ac.jp Keitaro Nagata4
nagata@phys.cycu.edu.tw Shi-Lin Zhu2 zhusl@phy.pku.edu.cn 1Research Center for
Nuclear Physics, Osaka University, Ibaraki 567–0047, Japan
2Department of Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
3 Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences, lab 010, P.O.Box 522, 11001 Beograd,
Serbia
4 Department of Physics, Chung-Yuan Christian University, Chung-Li 320, Taiwan
###### Abstract
We investigate chiral properties of local (non-derivative) fields of baryons
consisting of three quarks with flavor $SU(3)$ symmetry. We construct
explicitly independent local three-quark fields belonging to definite Lorentz
and flavor representations. Chiral symmetry is spontaneously broken and
therefore the baryon fields can have different chiral representations. It
turns out that the allowed chiral representations are strongly correlated with
the Lorentz group representations due to the color and spatial structure of
the local three-quark fields. We discuss some implications of the allowed
chiral symmetry representations on phenomenological Lagrangians with chiral
$U(3)_{\rm L}\otimes U(3)_{\rm R}$ symmetry.
baryon, chiral symmetry, interpolating field
###### pacs:
14.20.-c, 11.30.Rd, 11.40.Dw
## I Introduction
As the chiral symmetry of QCD is spontaneously broken, $SU(N_{f})_{L}\otimes
SU(N_{f})_{R}\rightarrow SU(N_{f})_{V}$ ($N_{f}$ being the number of flavors),
the observed hadrons are classified by the residual symmetry group
representations of $SU(N_{f})_{V}$. The full chiral symmetry may then
conveniently be represented by its non-linear realization and this broken
symmetry plays a dynamical role in the presence of the Nambu-Goldstone bosons
and their interactions.
Yet, as pointed out by Weinberg Weinberg:1969hw , there are situations when it
makes sense to consider algebraic aspects of chiral symmetry, i.e. the chiral
multiplets of hadrons. Such hadrons may be classified in linear
representations of the chiral symmetry group with some representations mixing.
One such situation becomes realistic in the symmetry restored phase which is
expected at high temperatures and/or densities Hatsuda:1994pi . If hadrons
belong to certain representations of the chiral symmetry group, certain
physical properties such as the axial coupling constants are determined by
this symmetry. Therefore, the question as to what chiral representations,
possibly with mixing, the hadrons belong to is of fundamental interest lee72 ;
lee81 ; Jido:2001nt .
Another point of relevance is that the chiral representation can be used as a
measure of the internal structure of hadrons. For instance, for a $\bar{q}q$
spin-one mesons, the possible chiral representations are
$(\mathbf{8},\mathbf{1})$ and $(\mathbf{3},\mathbf{\bar{3}})$ and their left-
right conjugates for flavor octet mesons. As a matter of fact, for the
multiquark hadrons, the allowed chiral representations can be more
complicated/higher dimensional with increasing number of quarks and
antiquarks. Hence the study of chiral representations may provide some hints
to the structure of hadrons, extending possibly beyond the minimal constituent
picture Jido:1997yk ; Jido:1999hd ; Beane:2002td ; Benmerrouche:1989uc ;
Haberzettl:1998rw ; DeTar:1988kn .
Motivated by this argument, we have recently performed a complete
classification of baryon fields constructed from three quarks in the local
form with two light flavors (the so-called $SU(2)$ sector) Nagata:2007di .
Such baryon fields are used as interpolators for the study of two-point
correlation functions in the QCD sum rule approach and in the lattice QCD
Ioffe:1981kw ; Chung:1981cc ; Espriu:1983hu ; Lee:2002jb ; Leinweber:2004it ;
Zanotti:2003fx . Strictly speaking, however, the chiral structure of an
interpolator does not directly reflect that of the physical state when chiral
symmetry is spontaneously broken. But the minimal configuration of three
quarks provides at least a guide to the simplest expectations for baryons. Any
deviation from such a simple structure may be an indication of higher Fock-
space components, such as the multi-quark ones Cohen:1996sb .
Another reason for such a study of chiral classifications is related to the
number of independent fields. In principle, the correlation functions should
contain all information about physical states when computed exactly.
Practically, however, one must rely on some approximation, and it has been
observed in previous studies, that the results may depend significantly on the
choice of the interpolators, which are generally taken as linear combinations
of the independent ones Espriu:1983hu ; Jido:2001nt ; Chen:2006hy .
In this paper, we perform a complete classification of baryon fields written
as local products (without derivatives) of three quarks according to chiral
symmetry group $SU(3)_{L}\otimes SU(3)_{R}$. This is an extension of our
previous work for the case of flavor $SU(2)$ Nagata:2007di . Technically, the
$SU(3)$ algebra introduces more complications, which makes insight less at
work. Hence, here we attempt to explore a rather technical aspect which
enables one to perform systematic classification. We derive general
transformation rules for baryon fields for the classification, while maximally
utilizing the Fierz transformations in order to implement the Pauli principle
among the quarks. The objective of $SU(3)$ baryon fields provides a simple but
suitable exercise how the method works. It can be extended to systems with
more complex hadron fields containing more quarks Chen:2006hy .
As in the previous paper Nagata:2007di , we first establish the classification
under the flavor $SU(3)$ symmetry, and then investigate the properties under
chiral symmetry group. The method is based essentially on the tensor method
for $SU(3)$, while the Fierz method for the Pauli principle associated with
the structure in the color, flavor, Lorentz (spin) and orbital spaces is
utilized when establishing the independent fields. It turns out that for local
three-quark fields, the Pauli principle puts a constraint on the structure of
the Lorentz and chiral representations. This leads essentially to the same
permutation symmetry structure as in the case of flavor $SU(2)$.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we establish the
independent local baryon interpolating fields, and investigate their flavor
$SU(3)$ symmetry properties. In Section III, we investigate the properties of
the baryon fields under chiral symmetry transformations $SU(3)_{L}\otimes
SU(3)_{R}$. We find that both flavor and chiral symmetry properties are
related to the structure of the Lorentz group. Eventually, in Section IV, we
find that this can be explained by the Pauli principle for the left and right
handed quarks, which puts a constraint on permutation symmetry properties of
three-quarks. Some complicated formulae are shown in appendices.
## II Flavor Symmetries of Three-Quark Baryon Fields
Local fields for baryons consisting of three quarks can be generally written
as
$\displaystyle
B(x)\sim\epsilon_{abc}\left(q^{aT}_{A}(x)C\Gamma_{1}q^{b}_{B}(x)\right)\Gamma_{2}q^{c}_{C}(x)\,,$
(1)
where $a,b,c$ denote the colour and $A,B,C$ the flavour indices,
$C=i\gamma_{2}\gamma_{0}$ is the charge-conjugation operator,
$q_{A}(x)=(u(x),\;d(x),\;s(x))$ is the flavour triplet quark field at location
$x$, and the superscript $T$ represents the transpose of the Dirac indices
only (the flavour and colour $SU(3)$ indices are not transposed). The
antisymmetric tensor in color space $\epsilon_{abc}$, ensures the baryons’
being color singlets. The space-time coordinate $x$ does nothing with our
studies, and we shall omit it. The matrices $\Gamma_{1,2}$ are Dirac matrices
which describe the Lorentz structure. With a suitable choice of $\Gamma_{1,2}$
and taking a combination of indices of $A,B$ and $C$, the baryon operators are
defined so that they form an irreducible representation of the Lorentz and
flavour groups, as we shall show in this section.
We employ the tensor formalism for flavour $SU(3)$ a la Okubo Okubo:1961jc ;
OSN83 ; MMOkubo65 ; Hara65 ; SchU65 for the quark field $q$, although the
explicit expressions in terms of $up$, $down$ and $strange$ quarks are usually
employed in lattice QCD and QCD sum rule studies. We shall see that the tensor
formulation simplifies the classification of baryons into flavour multiplets
and leads to a straightforward (but generally complicated) derivation of Fierz
identities and chiral transformations of baryon operators. This is in contrast
with the $N_{f}=2$ case where we explicitly included isospin into the
$\Gamma_{1,2}$ matrices and thus produced isospin invariant/covariant objects
Nagata:2007di . The reason for this switch is that in the $N_{f}=3$ case the
baryons form octets and decuplets, rather than doublets and quartets, but the
octet and decuplet projection operators cannot be easily introduced into this
formalism.
### II.1 Flavour $SU(3)_{f}$ decomposition for baryons
For the sake of notational completeness, we start with some definitions. The
quarks of flavor $SU(3)$ form either the contra-variant ($\mathbf{3}$) or the
covariant ($\mathbf{\bar{3}}$) fundamental representations. They are
distinguished by either upper or lower index as
$\displaystyle q^{A}\in q$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\left(\begin{array}[]{c}u\\\ d\\\ s\end{array}\right)\,,$ (5)
$\displaystyle q_{A}\in q^{\dagger}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(u^{*},\;d^{*},\;s^{*})\,.$
The two conjugate fundamental representations transform under flavor $SU(3)$
transformations as
$\displaystyle q$ $\displaystyle\to$ $\displaystyle\exp(i{\vec{\lambda}\over
2}\vec{a}){q}\,,$ (6) $\displaystyle q^{\dagger}$ $\displaystyle\to$
$\displaystyle{q^{\dagger}}\exp(-i{\vec{\lambda}\over 2}\vec{a})\,,$
where $a_{N}$ ($N=1,\cdots,8$) are the octet of $SU(3)_{F}$ group parameters
and $\lambda^{N}$ are the eight Gell-Mann matrices. Since the latter are
Hermitian, we may replace the transposed matrices with the complex conjugate
ones. The set of eight
${\bar{\lambda}}^{N}=-(\lambda^{N})^{T}=-(\lambda^{N})^{*}$ matrices form the
generators of the irreducible $\mathbf{\bar{3}}$ representation.
Now for three quarks, we show flavor $SU(3)$ irreducible decomposition
$\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3}=\mathbf{1}\oplus\mathbf{8}\oplus\mathbf{8}\oplus\mathbf{10}$
explicitly in terms of three quarks. It can be done by making suitable
permutation symmetry representations of three-quark products
$q_{A}q_{B}q_{C}$.
1. 1.
The totally antisymmetric combination which forms the singlet,
$\displaystyle\Psi_{[ABC]}={\cal
N}\left(q_{A}q_{B}q_{C}+q_{B}q_{C}q_{A}+q_{C}q_{A}q_{B}-q_{B}q_{A}q_{C}-q_{A}q_{C}q_{B}-q_{C}q_{B}q_{A}\right)\,.$
(7)
The normalization constant here is ${\cal N}=1/\sqrt{6}$. In the quark model
this corresponds to $\Lambda(1405)$. In order to represent this totally
antisymmetric combination, we can use the totally antisymmetric tensor
$\epsilon^{ABC}$. Then the flavor singlet baryon field $\Lambda$ can be
written as:
$\Lambda\equiv\epsilon^{ABC}\epsilon_{abc}\left(q^{aT}_{A}C\Gamma_{1}q^{b}_{B}\right)\Gamma_{2}q^{c}_{C}\,.$
(8)
2. 2.
The totally symmetric combination which forms the decuplet,
$\displaystyle\Psi_{\\{ABC\\}}={\cal
N}\left(q_{A}q_{B}q_{C}+q_{B}q_{C}q_{A}+q_{C}q_{A}q_{B}+q_{B}q_{A}q_{C}+q_{A}q_{C}q_{B}+q_{C}q_{B}q_{A}\right)\,.$
(9)
The normalization constant depends on the set of quarks for baryons: for
$q_{A},q_{B},q_{C}=u,d,s,{\cal N}=1/\sqrt{6}$, while it is 1/6 for
$q_{A},q_{B},q_{C}=uuu$. In order to represent this totally symmetric flavor
structure, we introduce the totally symmetric tensor $S_{P}^{ABC}$
($P=1,\cdots,10$). Then the flavor decuplet baryon field $\Delta$ can be
written as:
$\Delta^{P}\equiv
S_{P}^{ABC}\epsilon_{abc}\left(q^{aT}_{A}C\Gamma_{1}q^{b}_{B}\right)\Gamma_{2}q^{c}_{C}\,.$
(10)
The non-zero components of $S_{P}^{ABC}$ ($=1$) are summarized in Table 1. The
rest of components are just zero, for instance, $S_{1}^{112}=0$.
Table 1: Non-zero components of $S_{P}^{ABC}($=1$)$ $P$ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---
$ABC$ | 111 | 112 | 113 | 122 | 123 | 133 | 222 | 223 | 233 | 333
Baryons | $\Delta^{++}$ | $\Delta^{+}$ | $\Sigma^{*+}$ | $\Delta^{0}$ | $\Sigma^{*0}$ | $\Xi^{*0}$ | $\Delta^{-}$ | $\Sigma^{*-}$ | $\Xi^{*-}$ | $\Omega^{-}$
3. 3.
The two mixed symmetry tensors of the $\rho$ and $\lambda$ types are defined
by
$\displaystyle\Psi_{[A\\{B]C\\}}^{\rho}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle{\cal
N}\left(2q_{A}q_{B}q_{C}-q_{B}q_{C}q_{A}-q_{C}q_{A}q_{B}-2q_{B}q_{A}q_{C}+q_{A}q_{C}q_{B}+q_{C}q_{B}q_{A}\right)\,,$
(11) $\displaystyle\Psi_{\\{A[B\\}C]}^{\lambda}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{\cal
N}\left(2q_{A}q_{B}q_{C}-q_{B}q_{C}q_{A}-q_{C}q_{A}q_{B}+2q_{B}q_{A}q_{C}-q_{A}q_{C}q_{B}-q_{C}q_{B}q_{A}\right)\,.$
Here the two symbols in $\\{~{}\\}$ are first symmetrized and then the symbols
in $[~{}]$ are anti-symmetrized. The normalization constant depends again on
the number of different kinds of terms. The correspondence of the octet fields
of (11) and the physical ones can be made first by taking the following
combinations
$\displaystyle N_{8\rho}^{N}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABD}(\bm{\lambda}^{N})_{DC}\Psi^{\rho}_{[A\\{B]C\\}}\,,$
(12) $\displaystyle N_{8\lambda}^{N}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{BCD}(\bm{\lambda}^{N})_{DA}\Psi^{\lambda}_{\\{A[B\\}C]}\,.$
This kind of “double index” ($DC$ for $N^{N}_{8\rho}$ and $DA$ for
$N^{N}_{8\lambda}$) notation for the baryon flavour has been used by Christos
Christos:1986us . In our discussions, we shall use the following form for the
flavor octet baryon field
$\displaystyle N^{N}$ $\displaystyle\equiv$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABD}(\bm{\lambda}^{N})_{DC}\epsilon_{abc}\left(q^{aT}_{A}C\Gamma_{1}q^{b}_{B}\right)\Gamma_{2}q^{c}_{C}\,.$
(13)
It is of the $\rho$ type. But after using Fierz transformations to interchange
the second and the third quarks, the transformed one contains $\lambda$ type
also, as we shall show in the following. The octet of physical baryon fields
are then determined by
$\displaystyle N^{1}\pm
iN^{2}\sim\Sigma^{\mp}\,,\;\;\;N^{3}\sim\Sigma^{0}\,,\;\;\;N^{8}\sim\Lambda\,,$
(14) $\displaystyle N^{4}\pm iN^{5}\sim\Xi^{-},p\,,\;\;\;N^{6}\pm
iN^{7}\sim\Xi^{0},n\,,$
or put into the $3\times 3$ baryon matrix
$\displaystyle\mathfrak{B}=\left(\begin{array}[]{c c
c}{\Sigma^{0}\over\sqrt{2}}+{\Lambda^{8}\over\sqrt{6}}&\Sigma^{+}&p\\\
\Sigma^{-}&-{\Sigma^{0}\over\sqrt{2}}+{\Lambda^{8}\over\sqrt{6}}&n\\\
\Xi^{-}&\Xi^{0}&-{2\over\sqrt{6}}\Lambda^{8}\end{array}\right)\,.$ (18)
### II.2 Counting the (in)dependent fields
In this section we investigate independent baryon fields for each Lorentz
group representation which is formed by three quarks. The irreducible
decomposition of the Lorentz group is done as
$\displaystyle\left((\frac{1}{2},0)\oplus(0,\frac{1}{2})\right)^{3}\sim\left((\frac{1}{2},0)\oplus(0,\frac{1}{2})\right)\oplus\left((1,\frac{1}{2})\oplus(\frac{1}{2},1)\right)\oplus\left((\frac{3}{2},0)\oplus(0,\frac{3}{2})\right)\,,$
(19)
where we have ignored the multiplicity on the right hand side. The three
representations are described by the Dirac spinor field, the Rarita-
Schwinger’s vector spinor field and the antisymmetric tensor spinor field,
respectively. In order to establish independent fields when combined with
color, flavor, and Lorentz (spin) degrees of freedom, we employ the method of
Fierz transformations which are essentially equivalent to the use of the Pauli
principle for three quarks. Here we demonstrate the essential idea for the
simplest case for the Dirac spinor, $(\frac{1}{2},0)\oplus(0,\frac{1}{2})$.
Other cases are briefly explained in Appendices A and B.
#### II.2.1 Flavor singlet baryon
Let us start with writing down five baryon fields which contain a diquark
formed by five sets of Dirac matrices,
$1,\gamma_{5},\gamma_{\mu},\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}$ and $\sigma_{\mu\nu}$,
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Lambda_{1}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{2}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{3}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{4}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}q_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{5}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(25)
Among these five fields, we can show that the fourth and fifth ones vanish,
$\Lambda_{4,5}=0$. This is due to the Pauli principle between the first two
quarks, and can be verified, for instance, by taking the transpose of the
diquark component and compare the resulting three-quark field with the
original expressions Christos:1986us . The Pauli principle can also be used
between the first and the third quarks, so we construct the primed fields
where the second and the third quarks are interchanged, for instance,
$\displaystyle\Lambda^{\prime}_{1}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{C}^{c})\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b}\,.$
Now expressing $\Lambda_{i}$ in terms of the Fierz transformed fields
$\Lambda^{\prime}_{i}$, we find the following relations (see Appendix C),
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Lambda_{1}=-{1\over
4}\Lambda^{\prime}_{1}-{1\over 4}\Lambda^{\prime}_{2}-{1\over
4}\Lambda^{\prime}_{3}\,,\\\ \Lambda_{2}=-{1\over
4}\Lambda^{\prime}_{1}-{1\over 4}\Lambda^{\prime}_{2}+{1\over
4}\Lambda^{\prime}_{3}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{3}=-\Lambda^{\prime}_{1}+\Lambda^{\prime}_{2}+{1\over
2}\Lambda_{3}^{\prime}\,.\end{array}$ (29)
On the other hand, by changing the indices $B,C$ and $b,c$, for instance,
$\displaystyle\Lambda^{\prime}_{1}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon_{acb}\epsilon^{ACB}(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,$
we see that the primed fields are just the corresponding unprimed ones,
$\Lambda^{\prime}_{i}=\Lambda_{i}$. Consequently, we obtain three homogeneous
linear equations whose rank is just one, and we find the following solution
$\Lambda_{3}=4\Lambda_{2}=-4\Lambda_{1}\,,\Lambda_{4}=\Lambda_{5}=0\,.$
We see that there is only one non-vanishing independent field, which in the
quark model corresponds to the odd-parity $\Lambda(1405)$.
#### II.2.2 The flavour decuplet baryons
Among the five decuplet baryon fields formed by the five different
$\gamma$-matrices, only two are non-zero:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Delta^{P}_{4}=\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}q_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Delta^{P}_{5}=\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(32)
Performing the Fierz transformation and with the relation
$\Delta^{P\prime}_{i}=-\Delta^{P}_{i}$
($\epsilon_{acb}S_{P}^{ACB}=-\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}$), we find that there
is only a trivial (null) solution to the homogeneous linear equations.
Therefore, the Dirac baryon fields (fundamental representation of the Lorentz
group) formed by three quarks can not survive the flavor decuplet.
#### II.2.3 The flavor octet baryon fields
Let us start once again with five fields, which have three potentially non-
zero ones
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}N_{1}^{N}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N_{2}^{N}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N_{3}^{N}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N_{4}^{N}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}q_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}=0\,,\\\
N_{5}^{N}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}=0\,.\\\
\end{array}$ (38)
These octet baryon fields have been studied in Refs Ioffe:1981kw ;
Espriu:1983hu ; Chung:1981cc , where the independent ones are clarified. As
before, we perform the Fierz rearrangement to obtain five equations with the
primed fields, while $N_{4}^{N\prime}$ and $N_{5}^{N\prime}$ are not zero. For
the first three equations, $N_{1,2,3}$ on the left hand side should be
expressed by the primed fields. To this end, we can use the Jacobi identity
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}+\epsilon^{BCD}\lambda_{DA}^{N}+\epsilon^{CAD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}=0\,,$
(39)
which can be used to relate the original fields $N^{N}_{i}$ and primed ones
$N^{N\prime}_{i}$, for instance,
$\displaystyle\left(\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}+\epsilon^{BCD}\lambda_{DA}^{N}+\epsilon^{CAD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}\right)(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}=0\,,$
from which we find
$\displaystyle N_{1}^{N\prime}=-{1\over 2}N_{1}^{N}\,,$
and the same relations for $N_{2,3}^{N}$. There are no relations between
$N_{4,5}^{N}$ and $N_{4,5}^{N\prime}$. Altogether, we have five equations. The
equations related to $N_{4}^{N}$ and $N_{5}^{N}$ are also necessary because
the corresponding primed ones are not zero. They can be solved to obtain the
following solutions:
${2\over
3}N_{4}^{N\prime}=N^{N}_{3}=N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2}\,,N_{5}^{N\prime}=-3(N^{N}_{1}+N^{N}_{2})\,,$
which indicates that there are two independent octet fields, for instance,
$N^{N}_{1}$ and $N^{N}_{2}$. Thus we have shown the same result just as in the
two-flavour case Nagata:2007di . In the following sections we shall show that
the difference between the two fields $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$ lies in their chiral
properties: $N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2}$ together with $\Lambda$ belong to
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{3})\oplus(\mathbf{3},~{}\mathbf{\bar{3}})$, and
the other $N^{N}_{1}+N^{N}_{2}$ belongs to
$(\mathbf{8},~{}\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{1},~{}\mathbf{8})$.
There are two ways to construct the octet baryon fields. One is done already
as shown in Eqs. (38), whose flavor structure is the same as the $\rho$ type
baryon field $N^{N}_{8\rho}$ in Eqs. (12):
$\displaystyle\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3}\longrightarrow(\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3})\otimes\mathbf{3}\longrightarrow\mathbf{\bar{3}}\otimes\mathbf{3}\longrightarrow\mathbf{8}_{\rho}\,.$
(40)
The other $\lambda$ type baryon field $N^{N}_{8\lambda}$ is complicated when
used straightforwardly:
$\displaystyle\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3}\longrightarrow(\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3})\otimes\mathbf{3}\longrightarrow\mathbf{6}\otimes\mathbf{3}\longrightarrow\mathbf{8}_{\lambda}\,.$
(41)
Therefore, we use another way based on
$\displaystyle\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3}\longrightarrow\mathbf{3}\otimes(\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3})\longrightarrow\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{3}}\longrightarrow\mathbf{8}^{\prime}_{\rho}\,.$
(42)
This contains partly $\mathbf{8}_{\lambda}$, and it is easily to verify that
(40) and (42) compose a full description of octet baryon which is also fully
described by using (40) and (41). The way $\mathbf{8}_{\rho}$ leads to octet
fields $N^{N}_{i}$, and the other way $\mathbf{8}^{\prime}_{\rho}$ leads to
other five ones
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\widetilde{N}_{1}^{N}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\widetilde{N}_{2}^{N}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\widetilde{N}_{3}^{N}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\widetilde{N}_{4}^{N}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}q_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\widetilde{N}_{5}^{N}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(48)
However, these fields can be related to the previous ones by changing the
flavor and color indices $B,C$ and $b,c$:
$\widetilde{N}_{i}^{N}=-N_{i}^{N\prime}\,.$
In nearly all the cases, the octet baryon fields from the second way can be
related to the ones from the first way. Therefore, we shall omit the
discussion of the second octet. One exception which concerns the chiral
representation
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{3})\otimes(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{3})$ is
discussed in Appendix D.
### II.3 A short summary of independent baryon fields
Properties of baryons fields expressed by the Rarita-Schwinger fields with one
Lorentz index and those of the antisymmetric tensor-spinor fields with two
Lorentz indices are discussed in Appendices A and B, respectively. Here let us
make a short summary for independent baryon fields for all cases constructed
by three quarks. For simplicity, here we suppress the antisymmetric tensor in
color space $\epsilon_{abc}$, since it appears in all baryon fields in the
same manner. Furthermore, it is convenient to introduce a “tilde-transposed”
quark field $\widetilde{q}$ as follows
$\displaystyle\widetilde{q}=q^{T}C\gamma_{5}\,.$ (49)
As we have shown already, for Dirac fields without Lorentz index, there are
one singlet field $\Lambda$ and two octet fields $N^{N}_{1}$ and $N^{N}_{2}$:
$\displaystyle\Lambda_{1}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABC}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{5}q_{B})\gamma_{5}q_{C}\,,$
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{1}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{5}q_{B})\gamma_{5}q_{C}\,,$
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{2}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(\widetilde{q}_{A}q_{B})q_{C}\,.$
For the Rarita-Schwinger fields with one Lorentz index, we would consider one
singlet, three octet and one decuplet fields:
$\displaystyle\Lambda_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABC}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{5}q_{B})\gamma_{\mu}q_{C}\,,$
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{5}q_{B})\gamma_{\mu}q_{C}\,,$
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(\widetilde{q}_{A}q_{B})\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}\,,$
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{3\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{\mu}q_{B})\gamma_{5}q_{C}\,,$
$\displaystyle\Delta^{P}_{5\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-
S_{P}^{ABC}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{B})q_{C}\,.$
However, we find that $\Lambda_{1\mu}=\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\Lambda$,
$N^{N}_{1\mu}=\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}N^{N}_{1}$ and
$N^{N}_{2\mu}=\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}N^{N}_{2}$. So, there are two non-
vanishing independent fields: one octet field $N^{N}_{\mu}$ and one decuplet
field $\Delta_{\mu}$. By using the projection operator:
$\displaystyle P^{3/2}_{\mu\nu}=(g_{\mu\nu}-{1\over
4}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu})\,,$ (50)
they can be written as
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{\mu}=P^{3/2}_{\mu\nu}N^{N}_{3\nu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-(g_{\mu\nu}-{1\over
4}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu})\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{\mu}q_{B})\gamma_{5}q_{C}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle N^{N}_{3\mu}+{1\over
4}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}(N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2})\,,$
$\displaystyle\Delta^{P}_{\mu}=P^{3/2}_{\mu\nu}\Delta^{P}_{5\nu}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-(g_{\mu\nu}-{1\over
4}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu})S_{P}^{ABC}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{B})q_{C}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Delta^{P}_{5\mu}\,.$
For tensor fields with two antisymmetric Lorentz indices, we would have one
singlet, three octet and two decuplet fields:
$\displaystyle\Lambda_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABC}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{5}q_{B})\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}\,,$
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{3\mu\nu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{\mu}q_{B})\gamma_{\nu}q_{C}+(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)\,,$
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{10\mu\nu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{5}q_{B})\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}\,,$
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{11\mu\nu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(\widetilde{q}_{A}q_{B})\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{C}\,,$
$\displaystyle\Delta^{P}_{2\mu\nu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-
S_{P}^{ABC}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{B})\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}+(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)\,,$
$\displaystyle\Delta^{P}_{7\mu\nu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
S_{P}^{ABC}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{B})\gamma_{5}q_{C}\,.$
But in this case, we can show that there is only one non-vanishing field
$\Delta_{\mu\nu}$:
$\displaystyle\Delta^{P}_{\mu\nu}=\Gamma^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Delta^{P}_{7\mu\nu}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Gamma^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}S_{P}^{ABC}(\widetilde{q}_{A}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{B})\gamma_{5}q_{C}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Delta^{P}_{7\mu\nu}-{i\over
2}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\Delta^{P}_{5\nu}+{i\over
2}\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{5}\Delta^{P}_{5\mu}\,,$
where
$\displaystyle\Gamma^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}=(g^{\mu\alpha}g^{\nu\beta}-{1\over
2}g^{\nu\beta}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\alpha}+{1\over
2}g^{\mu\beta}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\alpha}+{1\over
6}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\alpha\beta})\,.$ (51)
## III Chiral Transformations
In this section, we establish the chiral transformation properties of the
baryon fields which we have obtained in the previous section. Technically,
this requires somewhat complicated algebra. However, the final result will be
understood by making the left and right handed decomposition, as we will
perform in the next section.
Let us start with the chiral transformation properties of quarks which are
given by the following equations:
$\displaystyle\bf{U(1)_{V}}$ $\displaystyle:$ $\displaystyle
q\to\exp(i{\lambda^{0}\over 2}a_{0})q=q+\delta q\,,$
$\displaystyle\bf{SU(3)_{V}}$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle{q}\to\exp(i{\vec{\lambda}\over
2}\vec{a}){q}=q+\delta^{\vec{a}}q\,,$ (52) $\displaystyle\bf{U(1)_{A}}$
$\displaystyle:$ $\displaystyle q\to\exp(i\gamma_{5}{\lambda^{0}\over
2}b_{0})q=q+\delta_{5}q\,,$ $\displaystyle\bf{SU(3)_{A}}$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle{q}\to\exp(i\gamma_{5}{\vec{\lambda}\over
2}\vec{b}){q}=q+\delta_{5}^{\vec{b}}q\,,$
where $\lambda^{0}=\sqrt{2/3}\mathbf{1}$, $a^{0}$ is an infinitesimal
parameter for the $U(1)_{V}$ transformation, $\vec{a}$ the octet of
$SU(3)_{V}$ group parameters, $b^{0}$ an infinitesimal parameter for the
$U(1)_{A}$ transformation, and $\vec{b}$ the octet of the chiral
transformations.
The $U(1)_{V}$ chiral transformation is trivial which picks up a phase factor
proportional to the baryon number. The $U(1)_{A}$ chiral transformation is
slightly less trivial, and the baryon fields are transformed as
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}\Lambda$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-i\gamma_{5}\sqrt{1\over 6}b^{0}\Lambda\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}(N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-i\gamma_{5}\sqrt{1\over 6}b^{0}(N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2})\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}(N^{N}_{1}+N^{N}_{2})$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
i\gamma_{5}\sqrt{3\over 2}b^{0}(N^{N}_{1}+N^{N}_{2})\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}N^{N}_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
i\gamma_{5}\sqrt{1\over 6}b^{0}N^{N}_{\mu}\,,$ (53)
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}\Delta^{P}_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
i\gamma_{5}\sqrt{1\over 6}b^{0}\Delta^{P}_{\mu}\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}\Delta^{P}_{\mu\nu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
i\gamma_{5}\sqrt{3\over 2}b^{0}\Delta^{P}_{\mu\nu}\,.$
We note that the combinations of $N_{1}^{N}\pm N_{2}^{N}$ form different
representations.
Under the vector chiral transformation, the baryon fields are transformed as
$\displaystyle\delta^{\vec{a}}\Lambda$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 0\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta^{\vec{a}}N^{N}_{1}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-a^{M}f^{NMO}N^{O}_{1}\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta^{\vec{a}}N^{N}_{2}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-a^{M}f^{NMO}N^{O}_{2}\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta^{\vec{a}}N^{N}_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-a^{M}f^{NMO}N^{N}_{\mu}\,,$ (54)
$\displaystyle\delta^{\vec{a}}\Delta^{P}_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{3i\over 2}a^{M}g_{7}^{PMQ}\Delta^{Q}_{\mu}\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta^{\vec{a}}\Delta^{P}_{\mu\nu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{3i\over 2}a^{M}g_{7}^{PMQ}\Delta^{Q}_{\mu\nu}\,,$
where $f^{ABC}$ is the standard antisymmetric structure constant of $SU(3)$,
and $g^{ABC}_{7}$ is defined in Table 2. Eqs. (III) show nothing but the
flavor charge of the baryons. For example, we can show explicitly:
$\displaystyle\delta^{a3}p=+{i\over 2}a_{3}p\,,\delta^{a3}n=-{i\over
2}a_{3}n\,,\delta^{a3}\Delta^{++}={3i\over 2}a_{3}\Delta^{++}\,\cdots$
The transformation rule under the axial-vector chiral transformations are
rather complicated as they are no longer conserved and reflect the internal
structure of baryons. To start with, we have the axial transformation of the
three-quark baryon fields such as
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}^{\vec{b}}\Lambda$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}\Big{(}(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}(\delta_{5}^{\vec{b}}q_{C}^{c})+(q_{A}^{aT}C(\delta_{5}^{\vec{b}}q_{B}^{b}))\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}+((\delta_{5}^{\vec{b}}q_{A}^{aT})Cq_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\Big{)}\,.$
The calculation is complicated, but rather straightforward. Here, we show
therefore the final result of the axial transformation:
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}^{\vec{b}}\Lambda$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{i\over 2}\gamma_{5}b^{N}(N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2})\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}^{\vec{b}}(N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{4i\over
3}\gamma_{5}b^{N}\Lambda+i\gamma_{5}b^{M}d^{NMO}(N^{O}_{1}-N^{O}_{2})\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}^{\vec{b}}(N^{N}_{1}+N^{N}_{2})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\gamma_{5}b^{M}f^{NMO}(N^{O}_{1}+N^{O}_{2})\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}^{\vec{b}}N^{N}_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
i\gamma_{5}b^{M}(d^{MNO}-{2i\over
3}f^{MNO})N^{O}_{\mu}+i\gamma_{5}b^{M}g_{3}^{MNP}\Delta^{P}_{\mu}\,,$ (55)
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}^{\vec{b}}\Delta^{P}_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-2i\gamma_{5}b^{M}g_{5}^{PMO}N^{O}_{\mu}+{i\over
2}\gamma_{5}b^{M}g_{7}^{PMQ}\Delta^{Q}_{\mu}\,,$
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}^{\vec{b}}\Delta^{P}_{\mu\nu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{3i\over 2}\gamma_{5}b^{M}g_{7}^{PMQ}\Delta^{Q}_{\mu\nu}\,.$
The coefficients $d^{ABC}$ are the standard symmetric structure constants of
$SU(3)$. For completeness, we show the following equation which define the $d$
and $f$ coefficients
$\displaystyle\lambda^{N}_{AB}\lambda^{M}_{BC}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\lambda^{N}\lambda^{M})_{AC}={1\over
2}\\{\lambda^{N},\lambda^{M}\\}_{AC}+{1\over 2}[\lambda^{N},\lambda^{M}]_{AC}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle{2\over
3}\delta^{NM}\delta_{AC}+(d^{NMO}+if^{NMO})\lambda^{O}_{AC}\,.$
Furthermore, the following formulae define the coefficients $g_{3}$, $g_{5}$
and $g_{7}$, which are proved by using $Mathematica$, a software good at
matrix calculation:
$\displaystyle\epsilon^{ADE}\lambda^{N}_{DB}\lambda^{M}_{EC}=g_{1}^{NMO}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda^{O}_{DC}+g_{2}^{NMO}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda^{O}_{DB}+g_{3}^{NMP}S_{P}^{ABC}+g_{4}^{NM}\epsilon^{ABC}\,,$
(57) $\displaystyle
S_{Q}^{ABD}\lambda^{M}_{DC}=g_{5}^{QMO}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda^{O}_{DC}+g_{6}^{QMO}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda^{O}_{DB}+g_{7}^{QMP}S_{P}^{ABC}+g_{8}^{QM}\epsilon^{ABC}\,,$
where indices $A\sim E$ take values 1, 2 and 3, $N$, $M$ and $O$ $1,\cdots,8$,
and $P$ and $Q$ $1,\cdots,10$. The coefficients $g_{3}$, $g_{5}$ and $g_{7}$
are listed in Table 2, where we use “0” instead of “10”. Other coefficients
can be related to $d$, $f$, $g_{3}$, $g_{5}$ and $g_{7}$:
$\displaystyle g_{1}^{MNO}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-d^{MNO}-{i\over
3}f^{MNO}\,,$ $\displaystyle g_{2}^{MNO}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
d^{MNO}-{i\over 3}f^{MNO}\,,$ $\displaystyle g_{4}^{MN}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-{1\over 3}\delta^{MN}\,,$ (58) $\displaystyle g_{6}^{QMO}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-2g_{5}^{QMO}\,,$ $\displaystyle g_{8}^{MN}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 0\,.$
Let us explain Eqs. (57) a bit more. The quantities on the left hand side have
three indices $A$, $B$ and $C$, and therefore, they are regarded as direct
products of three fundamental representations of $SU(3)$:
$\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3}\otimes\mathbf{3}$. They can be decomposed into
irreducible components by applying the four kinds of operators:
$\epsilon_{ABC}$, $\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda^{O}_{DC}$,
$\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda^{O}_{DB}$ and $S_{P}^{ABC}$, which correspond to
$\mathbf{1}$, $\mathbf{8}$, $\mathbf{8}$ and $\mathbf{10}$ of $SU(3)$,
respectively.
Eqs. (III) and (III) imply that $\Lambda$ and $N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2}$ are
together combined into one chiral multiplet, and $N^{N}_{\mu}$ and
$\Delta^{P}_{\mu}$ are together combined into another chiral multiplet. While
$N^{N}_{1}+N^{N}_{2}$ and $\Delta^{P}_{\mu\nu}$ are transformed into
themselves under chiral transformation. In our following discussion, we will
find that $\Lambda$ and $N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2}$ belong to the chiral
representation
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}},\mathbf{3})\oplus(\mathbf{3},\mathbf{\bar{3}})$,
$N^{N}_{1}+N^{N}_{2}$ belongs to the chiral representation
$(\mathbf{8},\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{8})$, $N^{N}_{\mu}$ and
$\Delta^{P}_{\mu}$ belong to the chiral representation
$(\mathbf{6},\mathbf{3})\oplus(\mathbf{3},\mathbf{6})$, and
$\Delta^{P}_{\mu\nu}$ belongs to the chiral representation
$(\mathbf{10},\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{10})$. We show several
examples of the axial-vector chiral transformation:
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}^{b3}p_{-}={i\over
2}\gamma_{5}b_{3}p_{-}\,,\delta_{5}^{b3}p_{+}={i\over
2}\gamma_{5}b_{3}p_{+}\,,\delta_{5}^{b3}p_{\mu}={5i\over
6}\gamma_{5}b_{3}p_{\mu}-{4i\over 3}\gamma_{5}b_{3}\Delta^{+}_{\mu}\,,$
where $p_{-}$ belongs to the octet baryon fields $N_{1}^{N}-N_{2}^{N}$,
$p_{+}$ belongs to $N^{N}_{1}+N^{N}_{2}$, and $p_{\mu}$ belongs to
$N^{N}_{\mu}$ (see Eqs. (14)).
Table 2: $g$-coefficients defined by Eqs. (57) $g_{3}$ | 133, 138, 144, 146, 254, 256, 272, 279, 439, 463, 468, 573, 578, 612, 619, 636 | $-1/3$
---|---|---
| 162, 169, 313, 318, 349, 366, 414, 416, 524, 526, 643, 648, 722, 729, 753, 758 | $1/3$
| 154, 179, 215, 233, 246, 269, 328, 359, 376, 424, 455, 478, 516, 563, 622, 658, 712, 743, 765 | $-i/3$
| 125, 156, 172, 238, 244, 262, 323, 426, 473, 514, 539, 545, 568, 629, 653, 675, 719, 736, 748 | $i/3$
| 183, 686, 818, 835, 849 | $-1/\sqrt{3}$ | 167, 251, 277, 411, 570, 640 | $-1$ | 342, 364 | $-2/3$
| 188, 385, 489, 813, 866 | $1/\sqrt{3}$ | 141, 460, 521, 617, 727, 750 | $1$ | 432, 634 | $2/3$
| 283, 288, 589, 876 | $-i/\sqrt{3}$ | 177, 421, 470, 511, 560, 627 | $-i$ | 352, 374 | $-2i/3$
| 786, 823, 828, 859 | $i/\sqrt{3}$ | 151, 241, 267, 650, 717, 740 | $i$ | 532, 734 | $2i/3$
$g_{5}$ | 125, 141, 227, 261, 313, 346, 357, 414, 425, 614, 625 | $1/6$ | 318, 668, 881, 984 | $1/2\sqrt{3}$
| 663, 716, 727, 813, 846, 857, 927, 943, 961, 057, 064 | | 381, 686, 818, 948 | $-1/2\sqrt{3}$
| 114, 152, 216, 272, 331, 364, 375, 441, 452, 636, 641 | $-1/6$ | 382, 678, 882, 985 | $i/2\sqrt{3}$
| 652, 761, 772, 831, 864, 875, 916, 934, 972, 046, 075 | | 328, 687, 828, 958 | $-i/2\sqrt{3}$
| 115, 124, 217, 226, 332, 347, 365, 424, 451, 615, 642 | $i/6$ | 234, 436 | $1/3$
| 673, 726, 771, 823, 856, 874, 953, 962, 971, 065, 074 | | 243, 463 | $-1/3$
| 142, 151, 262, 271, 323, 356, 374, 415, 442, 624, 637 | $-i/6$ | 253, 473, 512, 554, 567 | $i/3$
| 651, 717, 762, 832, 847, 865, 917, 926, 935, 047, 056 | | 235, 437, 521, 545, 576 | $-i/3$
| 583 | $1/\sqrt{3}$ | 538 | $-1/\sqrt{3}$
$g_{7}$ | 112, 143, 232, 245, 263, 315, 362, 448, 465, 619 | $1/3$ | 214, 333, 346, 412, 513, 518 | $2/3$
| 636, 665, 714, 768, 815, 844, 916, 945, 046, 069 | | 542, 549, 564, 566, 643, 869, 968 |
| 434, 939 | $-1/3$ | 838 | $-2/3$
| 372, 675, 724, 825, 854, 926, 955, 056, 079 | $i/3$ | 422, 523, 552, 574, 653, 978 | $2i/3$
| 122, 153, 255, 273, 325, 458, 475, 629, 778 | $-i/3$ | 224, 356, 528, 559, 576, 879 | $-2i/3$
| 131, 211, 341, 417, 640, 867, 960 | $1$ | 181, 282, 484, 787 | $1/\sqrt{3}$
| 737 | $-1$ | 686, 989 | $-1/\sqrt{3}$
| 221, 351, 877 | $i$ | 080 | $-2/\sqrt{3}$
| 427, 650, 970 | $-i$ | |
## IV Chiral multiplets/representations
So far, we have performed classifications without explicitly taking into
account the left- and right-handed components of the quark fields. However, it
does not require great imagination to see that the chiral properties are also
conveniently studied in that language, since chiral symmetry is defined as the
symmetries upon each chiral field. Hence, we define the left- and right-handed
(chiral or Weyl representation) quark fields as
$\displaystyle L\equiv q_{L}={1-\gamma_{5}\over
2}q\mbox{,~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}and}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}R\equiv q_{R}={1+\gamma_{5}\over
2}q\,.$ (59)
They form the fundamental representations of both the Lorentz group and the
chiral group,
$\displaystyle L:$ $\displaystyle{\rm
Lorentz:}~{}~{}(\frac{1}{2},0)\,,~{}~{}~{}~{}{\rm Chiral:}~{}~{}(3,1)\,,$
$\displaystyle R:$ $\displaystyle{\rm
Lorentz:}~{}~{}(0,\frac{1}{2})\,,~{}~{}~{}~{}{\rm Chiral:}~{}~{}(1,3)\,.$
It is convenient first to note that $\gamma$-matrices are classified into two
categories; chiral-even and chiral-odd classes. The chiral-even
$\gamma$-matrices survive forming diquarks with identical chiralities, while
the chiral-odd ones form diquarks from quarks with opposite chiralities. The
chiral-even and -odd $\gamma$-matrices are
chiral-even: $\displaystyle 1,\gamma_{5},\sigma_{\mu\nu}\,,$ chiral-odd:
$\displaystyle\gamma_{\mu},\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\,.$
Therefore, we have six non-vanishing diquarks in the chiral representations,
$\displaystyle\left.\begin{array}[]{l}L^{T}CL=-L^{T}C\gamma_{5}L\\\
R^{T}CR=+R^{T}C\gamma_{5}R\end{array}\right\\}$
$\displaystyle(0,0)\oplus(0,0)\,,~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}(\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{1},~{}\mathbf{\bar{3}})\,,$
(62)
$\displaystyle\left.\begin{array}[]{l}L^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}R=+L^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}R\\\
R^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}L=-R^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}L\end{array}\right\\}$
$\displaystyle(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\oplus(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\,,~{}~{}~{}~{}(\mathbf{3},~{}\mathbf{3})\oplus(\mathbf{3},~{}\mathbf{3})\,,$
(65) $\displaystyle\left.\begin{array}[]{l}L^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}L\\\
R^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}R\end{array}\right\\}$
$\displaystyle(1,0)\oplus(0,1)\,,~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{1},~{}\mathbf{6})\,,$
(68)
where we have indicated the Lorentz and chiral representations of the
diquarks.
For three quarks, we have
$\displaystyle(L+R)^{3}\to\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}LLL~{}~{}~{}~{}(\frac{1}{2},0)\oplus(\frac{3}{2},0)\,,~{}~{}~{}~{}(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{8},\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{8},\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{10},\mathbf{1})\\\
LLR~{}~{}~{}~{}(0,\frac{1}{2})\oplus(1,\frac{1}{2})\,,~{}~{}~{}~{}(\mathbf{\bar{3}},\mathbf{3})\oplus(\mathbf{6},\mathbf{3})\end{array}\right.$
(71)
and together with the terms where $L$ and $R$ are exchanged. Now we discuss
the independent fields in terms of the chiral representations. Once again, for
illustration we will discuss here the case of the simplest Lorentz
representation $(\frac{1}{2},0)\oplus(0,\frac{1}{2})$ for the Dirac fields.
### IV.1 Independent $(LL)L$ fields
The $(LL)L$ must belong to one of the following chiral representations:
$(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{8},\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{8},\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{10},\mathbf{1})$.
For each chiral representation, there is one flavor representation available.
For $(\mathbf{1},~{}\mathbf{1})\to\mathbf{1_{f}}$, there are apparently two
non-zero fields
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Lambda_{L1}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{L2}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})L_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{L3}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}L_{C}^{c}=0\,,\end{array}$
(75)
where $\Lambda^{L}_{3}$ vanishes because $\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}$ is chiral-
odd
$L^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}L=0\,.$
After performing the Fierz transformation to relate $\Lambda_{Li}$ and
$\Lambda^{\prime}_{Li}$ as we have done before, and solving the coupled
equations, we find the solution that all such fields vanish.
For $(\mathbf{10},~{}\mathbf{1})\to\mathbf{10_{f}}$, we would have again two
non-zero components:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Delta^{P}_{L4}=\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Delta^{P}_{L5}=\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}L_{B}^{b})\sigma^{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(78)
Performing the Fierz transformation to relate $\Delta^{P}_{Li}$ and
$\Delta^{P\prime}_{Li}$, we obtain the solution that all such $(LL)L$ fields
vanish.
Finally for $(\mathbf{8},~{}\mathbf{1})\to\mathbf{8_{f}}$, we may consider
once again two non-zero fields to start with
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}N^{N}_{L1}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{L2}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})L_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(81)
Applying the Fierz transformation to relate $N^{N}_{Li}$ and
$N^{N\prime}_{Li}$, we obtain the solution
$N^{N}_{L2}=N^{N}_{L1}\,.$
Therefore, there is only one independent $(LL)L$ $\mathbf{8_{f}}$ field.
### IV.2 Independent $(LL)R$ fields
The chiral representations of $(LL)R$ are
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{3})\oplus(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{3})$. We will
study them separately in the following.
For $(\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{3})\to\mathbf{1_{f}}$, there appears to
exist two non-zero components among the five fields,
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Lambda_{M1}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{M2}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})R_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{M3}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}R_{C}^{c}=0\,,\\\
\Lambda_{M4}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}=0\,,\\\
\Lambda_{M5}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}L_{B}^{b})\sigma^{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}=0\,,\end{array}$
(87)
where $M$ (mixed) indicates that the fields contain both left and right handed
quarks. Performing the Fierz transformation to relate $\Lambda_{Mi}$ and
$\Lambda^{\prime}_{Mi}$, we obtain the following relations
$\Lambda^{\prime}_{M4}=-\Lambda^{\prime}_{M3}=-2\Lambda_{M2}=2\Lambda_{M1}\,.$
We may consider other ten combinations formed by $(LR)$ and $(RL)$ diquarks,
$(LR)L$ and $(RL)L$. However, they can be related to the above ones of $(LL)R$
by a rearrangement of indices as well as the Fierz transformation, for
instance,
$\displaystyle\Lambda_{M6}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}CR_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}=\Lambda_{M1}^{\prime}\,.$
(88)
Therefore, we have only one independent field.
For the chiral representation
$(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{3})\rightarrow\mathbf{10_{f}}$, we can write five
fields containing diquarks formed by five Dirac matrices. However, we can show
that after performing the Fierz transformation all fields vanish. Therefore,
this representation can not support three-quark fields.
The baryon fields of chiral representations
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{3})\rightarrow\mathbf{8_{f}}$ can be formed
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}N^{N}_{M1}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{M2}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})R_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{M3}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}R_{C}^{c}=0\,,\\\
N^{N}_{M4}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}=0\,,\\\
N^{N}_{M5}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}L_{B}^{b})\sigma^{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}=0\,,\end{array}$
(94)
where we see that there are two non-zero fields. Applying the Fierz
transformation, we can verify that there is only one independent field with
the following relations
$N^{N\prime}_{M4}=-N^{N\prime}_{M3}=-2N^{N}_{M2}=2N^{N}_{M1}\,.$
Another chiral representation
$(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{3})\rightarrow\mathbf{8_{f}}$ can be constructed by
the combinations similar to (94), for instance,
$\displaystyle
N^{N}_{(6,3)1}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}\\{(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}+(L_{B}^{aT}CL_{A}^{b})\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}\\}\,.$
(95)
After similar algebra we can verify that all these fields vanish.
### IV.3 A short summary of chiral representations
To summarize this section, we find that possible chiral representations for
Dirac spinor baryon fields without Lorentz index are:
$\displaystyle\Lambda$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}+\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(R_{A}^{aT}CR_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Lambda_{M1}+(L\leftrightarrow R)\,,$
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
2\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}+2\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(R_{A}^{aT}CR_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 2N^{N}_{M1}+(L\leftrightarrow R)\,,$
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{1}+N^{N}_{2}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
2\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}+2\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(R_{A}^{aT}CR_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 2N^{N}_{L1}+(L\leftrightarrow R)\,.$
So we can see that the fields $\Lambda$ and $N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2}$ has a type
of $LLR\oplus RRL$, and belong to the chiral representation
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}},\mathbf{3})\oplus(\mathbf{3},\mathbf{\bar{3}})$; while the
field $N^{N}_{1}+N^{N}_{2}$ has a type of $LLL\oplus RRR$, and belongs to the
chiral representation $(\mathbf{8},\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{8})$.
The chiral properties of Rarita-Schwinger fields $\Big{(}{\rm
Lorentz~{}rep.}(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{1\over 2})\oplus(\mathbf{1\over
2},\mathbf{1})\Big{)}$ are listed in Appendix D. We summarize the results
here:
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
2\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}R_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}+2\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(R_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle{1\over
2}\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}R_{C}^{c}+{1\over
2}\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(R_{A}^{aT}CR_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}L_{C}^{c}\,,$
$\displaystyle\Delta^{P}_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
2\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}R_{B}^{b})L_{C}^{c}+2\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(R_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}L_{B}^{b})R_{C}^{c}\,.$
(100)
So we see that $N^{N}_{\mu}$ and $\Delta^{P}_{\mu}$ are of the type $LLR\oplus
RRL$, and belong to the chiral representation
$(\mathbf{6},\mathbf{3})\oplus(\mathbf{3},\mathbf{6})$. The (similar) results
for $\Delta^{P}_{\mu\nu}$, which is of the type $LLL\oplus RRR$, and belongs
to the chiral representation
$(\mathbf{10},\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{1},\mathbf{10})$, are omitted here.
## V Axial coupling constants
As a simple application of the present mathematical formalism, we can extract
the (diagonal) axial coupling constants $g_{A}$ of baryons. All information is
contained in Eqs. (III) and (III), from which we can calculate the Abelian
$U(1)_{A}$ axial coupling constant $g^{0}_{A}$ and the non-Abelian
$SU(3)_{V}\times SU(3)_{A}$ diagonal axial coupling constants, $g^{3}_{A}$ and
$g^{8}_{A}$, which can be extracted from the chiral transformations
$\delta_{5}$, $\delta_{5}^{b3}$ and $\delta_{5}^{b8}$, respectively. The
Abelian $g^{0}_{A}$ basically counts the difference between the numbers of
left- and right- handed quarks in a baryon. In general, diagonal elements of
the $SU(3)$ $g_{A}$’s can be decomposed into $F$ and $D$ components, which are
defined by the axial vector current $A_{\mu}^{a}$ ($a=0,1,...8$)
$\displaystyle A^{a}_{\mu}=g_{A}^{F}{\rm
tr}\bar{\mathfrak{B}}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}[\frac{\lambda_{a}}{2},{\mathfrak{B}}]+g_{A}^{D}{\rm
tr}\bar{\mathfrak{B}}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\\{\frac{\lambda_{a}}{2},{\mathfrak{B}}\\}\,,$
(101)
where $\mathfrak{B}$ is the $3\times 3$ baryon matrix, Eq. (18). Therefore, we
have
$\displaystyle A^{3}_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(g_{A}^{F}+g_{A}^{D})\Big{(}p^{+}p-n^{+}n\Big{)}$
$\displaystyle+$ $\displaystyle
2g_{A}^{F}\Big{(}(\Sigma^{+})^{+}\Sigma^{+}-(\Sigma^{-})^{+}\Sigma^{-}\Big{)}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle(g_{A}^{F}-g_{A}^{D})\Big{(}(\Xi^{0})^{+}\Xi^{0}-(\Xi^{-})^{+}\Xi^{-}\Big{)}\,,$
$\displaystyle A^{8}_{\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\sqrt{3}g_{A}^{F}-{g_{A}^{D}\over\sqrt{3}})\Big{(}p^{+}p+n^{+}n\Big{)}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle{2g_{A}^{D}\over\sqrt{3}}\Big{(}(\Sigma^{+})^{+}\Sigma^{+}+(\Sigma^{-})^{+}\Sigma^{-}\Big{)}$
$\displaystyle+$
$\displaystyle(-\sqrt{3}g_{A}^{F}-{g_{A}^{D}\over\sqrt{3}})\Big{(}(\Xi^{0})^{+}\Xi^{0}+(\Xi^{-})^{+}\Xi^{-}\Big{)}-{2g_{A}^{D}\over\sqrt{3}}(\Lambda^{8})^{+}\Lambda^{8}\,,$
where we omit the Lorentz part. In other words,
$\displaystyle g_{A}^{3}(N)$ $\displaystyle\sim$
$\displaystyle(g_{A}^{F}+g_{A}^{D}){\bf
I_{z}}\,,\;\;\;g_{A}^{3}(\Sigma)\sim{2g_{A}^{D}}{\bf
I_{z}}\,,\;\;\;g_{A}^{3}(\Xi)\sim(g_{A}^{F}-g_{A}^{D}){\bf I_{z}}\,,$ (104)
$\displaystyle g_{A}^{8}(N)$ $\displaystyle\sim$
$\displaystyle\sqrt{3}g_{A}^{F}-{g_{A}^{D}\over\sqrt{3}}\,,\;\;\;g_{A}^{8}(\Sigma)\sim{2g_{A}^{D}\over\sqrt{3}}\,,\;\;\;g_{A}^{8}(\Xi)\sim-\sqrt{3}g_{A}^{F}-{g_{A}^{D}\over\sqrt{3}}\,,\;\;\;g_{A}^{8}(\Lambda)\sim-{2g_{A}^{D}\over\sqrt{3}}\,,$
for the octet parts. The operator $\bf I_{z}$ is the third component of
isospin. While the singlet part $g_{A}^{0}$ contains only the $D$ term and is
trivial.
For the decuplet baryons, the $SU(3)$ coupling constants contain only one
$SU(3)$ irreducible term because the $SU(3)$ Clebsch-Gordan series for
$\mathbf{\bar{10}}\otimes\mathbf{10}\otimes\mathbf{8}$ contains only one
singlet. In order to extract the coupling constants, we first rewrite Eqs.
(III) and (III) in the following form, for all the singlet, octet and decuplet
baryon fields:
1. 1.
Because $\lambda^{0}_{11}=\lambda^{0}_{22}=\lambda^{0}_{33}$ for $g^{0}_{A}$,
the chiral transformations $\delta_{5}$ are identical for all baryon fields
within the same chiral representation, so we may define $g_{A}^{0}$ by
$\displaystyle\delta_{5}B=i\gamma_{5}{{\lambda^{0}}_{11}b_{0}\over
2}g_{A}^{0}B={i\gamma_{5}b_{0}\over\sqrt{6}}g_{A}^{0}B\,,$ (105)
where $B$ represents the baryon field, such as $\Lambda$ and
$N_{1}^{N}-N^{N}_{2}$ etc.
2. 2.
For $g^{3}_{A}$, because $\lambda^{3}_{11}=-\lambda^{3}_{22}$, the chiral
transformation $\delta_{5}^{b3}$ is proportional to the isospin value of $\bf
I_{z}$, which is related to $\lambda^{3}/2$. We factor it out from the
definition of $g_{A}^{3}$:
$\displaystyle\delta^{b3}_{5}B=i\gamma_{5}b_{3}g_{A}^{3}{\bf
I_{z}}B+\cdots\,,$ (106)
where dots $\cdots$ on the right hand side contain off-diagonal terms.
3. 3.
For $g^{8}_{A}$, because $\lambda^{8}_{11}=\lambda^{8}_{22}$, the chiral
transformations $\delta_{5}^{b8}$ is the same for the baryon fields belonging
to one isospin multiplet. We define it to be
$\displaystyle\delta^{b8}_{5}B=i\gamma_{5}{\bm{\lambda^{8}}_{11}b_{8}\over
2}g_{A}^{8}B+\cdots={i\gamma_{5}b_{8}\over 2\sqrt{3}}g_{A}^{8}B+\cdots\,.$
(107)
Table 3: Axial coupling constants $g^{0}_{A}$, $g^{3}_{A}$ and $g^{8}_{A}$. In the last column $\alpha={g_{A}^{D}/(g_{A}^{F}+g_{A}^{D})}$. $SU(3)_{L}\otimes SU(3)_{R}$ | $SU(3)_{F}$ | $\begin{array}[]{c}{}\hfil\\\ {}\hfil\end{array}$ | $g_{A}^{0}$ | $g_{A}^{3}$ | $g_{A}^{8}$ | $\alpha$
---|---|---|---|---|---|---
| $\mathbf{1}$ | $\Lambda$ | -1 | – | 0 | –
| | $N_{-}$ | -1 | 1 | -1 |
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{3})\oplus(\mathbf{3},~{}\mathbf{\bar{3}})$ | | $\Sigma_{-}$ | -1 | 0 | 2 |
| $\mathbf{8}$ | $\Xi_{-}$ | -1 | -1 | -1 | 1
| | $\Lambda_{-}$ | -1 | – | -2 |
| | $N_{+}$ | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| | $\Sigma_{+}$ | 3 | 1 | 0 |
$(\mathbf{8},~{}\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{1},~{}\mathbf{8})$ | $\mathbf{8}$ | $\Xi_{+}$ | 3 | 1 | -3 | 0
| | $\Lambda_{+}$ | 3 | – | 0 |
| | $N_{\mu}$ | 1 | 5/3 | 1 |
| | $\Sigma_{\mu}$ | 1 | 2/3 | 2 |
| $\mathbf{8}$ | $\Xi_{\mu}$ | 1 | -1/3 | -3 | 3/5
| | $\Lambda_{\mu}$ | 1 | – | -2 |
$(\mathbf{3},~{}\mathbf{6})\oplus(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{3})$ | | $\Delta_{\mu}$ | 1 | 1/3 | 1 |
| | $\Sigma^{*}_{\mu}$ | 1 | 1/3 | 0 |
| $\mathbf{10}$ | $\Xi^{*}_{\mu}$ | 1 | 1/3 | -1 | –
| | $\Omega_{\mu}$ | 1 | – | -2 |
| | $\Delta_{\mu\nu}$ | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| | $\Sigma^{*}_{\mu\nu}$ | 3 | 1 | 0 |
$(\mathbf{10},~{}\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{1},~{}\mathbf{10})$ | $\mathbf{10}$ | $\Xi^{*}_{\mu\nu}$ | 3 | 1 | -3 | –
| | $\Omega_{\mu\nu}$ | 3 | – | -6 |
The resulting axial coupling constants $g^{0}_{A}$, $g^{3}_{A}$ and
$g^{8}_{A}$ are shown in Table 3, where $\Lambda$ is the (only) singlet field
$\Lambda$; then $N_{-}$, $\Sigma_{-}$, $\Xi_{-}$ and $\Lambda_{-}$ are the
octet fields of the type $N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2}$; the $N_{+}$, $\Sigma_{+}$,
$\Xi_{+}$ and $\Lambda_{+}$ are the octet fields of the type
$N^{N}_{1}+N^{N}_{2}$; the $N_{\mu}$, $\Sigma_{\mu}$, $\Xi_{\mu}$ and
$\Lambda_{\mu}$ are the octet fields $N^{N}_{\mu}$; the $\Delta_{\mu}$,
$\Sigma^{*}_{\mu}$, $\Xi^{*}_{\mu}$ and $\Omega_{\mu}$ are the decuplet fields
$\Delta^{P}_{\mu}$; $\Delta_{\mu\nu}$, $\Sigma^{*}_{\mu\nu}$,
$\Xi^{*}_{\mu\nu}$ and $\Omega_{\mu\nu}$ are the decuplet fields
$\Delta^{P}_{\mu\nu}$.
From the values in Table 3, one can compute the $F$ and $D$ couplings easily.
The resulting $F/D$ ratio,
$\displaystyle\alpha={g_{A}^{D}\over g_{A}^{F}+g_{A}^{D}}\,,$ (108)
is also tabulated in the last column of Table 3. Empirically, $\alpha\sim
0.6$, which is fairly close to the $SU(6)$ quark model value. In the present
formalism we see that only the
$(\mathbf{3},~{}\mathbf{6})\oplus(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{3})$ chiral
multiplet/representation reproduces this value. Previous works have shown that
this value is physically related to the coupling of the nucleon to the
$\Delta(1232)$, as demonstrated in the Adler-Weisberger sum rule adler ;
weissberger . This was also shown algebraically by Weinberg Weinberg:1969hw .
In both cases, saturation of the pion (axial-vector) induced transition from
the nucleon to the $\Delta(1232)$ is essential Donoghue:1977yh . In the
present study, this is realized by the chiral representation which includes
both the nucleon (isospin 1/2) and delta (isospin 3/2) states.
It is also interesting that Table 3 shows that
$g_{A}^{3}(N)=5/3,g_{A}^{0}(N)=1$ for
$(\mathbf{3},~{}\mathbf{6})\oplus(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{3})$, while
$g_{A}^{3}(N)=1,g_{A}^{0}(N)=-1$ for
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{3})\oplus(\mathbf{3},~{}\mathbf{\bar{3}})$.
$g_{A}^{0}$ corresponds to the so-called nucleon spin value, as measured in
polarized deep inelastic scattering. A suitable superposition of the two
chiral representations may improve the nucleon axial coupling in either the
isovector and/or isosinglet sectors. The importance of such mixing for the
isovector axial coupling constant has been emphasized by Weinberg since the
late 1960-s, Ref. Weinberg:1969hw . Here we have found the same result for the
isovector, as well as extended it to the isosinglet part in a purely algebraic
manner.
## VI Summary
In this paper we have performed a complete classification of flavor vector and
chiral symmetries, and established several types of independent relativistic
$SU(3)$ baryon interpolating fields. The three-quark fields may belong to one
of several different Lorentz group representations which fact imposes certain
constraints on possible chiral symmetry representations. This is due to the
Pauli principle and has been explicitly verified by the method of Fierz
transformations. As the present results reflect essentially the Pauli
principle, they can be conveniently summarized as shown in Table 4 by using
the permutation symmetry group properties/representations. This table
“explains” also the previous results for the case of isospin $SU(2)_{L}\times
SU(2)_{R}$ Nagata:2007di . From this table we have explicated the effective
role of the Pauli principle in separate sectors of the left- and right-handed
fermions.
Table 4: Structure of allowed three-quark baryon fields. Lorentz | J=Spin | $\begin{array}[]{c}\mbox{Young table}\\\ \mbox{for Chiral rep.}\end{array}$ | Chiral $SU(2)$ | Chiral $SU(3)$ | Flavor $SU(3)$
---|---|---|---|---|---
$(\frac{1}{2},0)\oplus(0,\frac{1}{2})$ | $1/2$ | $\begin{array}[]{c}([21],-)\oplus(-,[21])\\\ ([1],[11])\oplus([11],[1])\end{array}$ | $(\frac{1}{2},0)\oplus(0,\frac{1}{2})$ | $\begin{array}[]{c}(8,1)\oplus(1,8)\\\ (3,\bar{3})\oplus(\bar{3},3)\end{array}$ | $\begin{array}[]{c}8\\\ 1,8\end{array}$
$(1,\frac{1}{2})\oplus(\frac{1}{2},1)$ | $3/2$ | $([2],[1])\oplus([1],[2])$ | $(1,\frac{1}{2})\oplus(\frac{1}{2},1)$ | $(6,3)\oplus(3,6)$ | $8$, $10$
$(\frac{3}{2},0)\oplus(0,\frac{3}{2})$ | $3/2$ | $([3],-)\oplus(-,[3])$ | $(\frac{3}{2},0)\oplus(0,\frac{3}{2})$ | $(10,1)\oplus(1,10)$ | $10$
In the real world, with spontaneous breaking of chiral symmetry, physical
states of pure chiral (axial) symmetry representation do not occur, but in
general they can mix in a state having a definite flavor symmetry. The present
results show that the three-quark structures accommodate only a few (sometimes
just one) chiral representations, for instance, for the total spin 1/2 field
of Dirac spinor, the allowed chiral representations are two having the
structure of Young tableaux $([21],-)$ and ([1],[11]), where $-$ indicates
singlet. The $([21],-)$ representation corresponds respectively to
$(\frac{1}{2},0)$ and $(8,1)$ of $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$, whereas the $([1],[11])$
corresponds to $(\frac{1}{2},0)$ and $(3,\bar{3})$ of $SU(2)$ and $SU(3)$,
respectively. Note that the chiral representations have the same structure as
those of the Lorentz group. In this way, the Lorentz (spin) and flavor
structures are combined into a structure of total permutation symmetry. As
shown in the computation of $g_{A}$, in general, various couplings depend on
the chiral representations with possible mixing. Such comparison may be useful
for further understanding of the internal structure of hadrons in relation to
chiral symmetry.
## Acknowledgments
H.X.C. is grateful to Monkasho for their support of his stay at the Research
Center for Nuclear Physics where this work was done. V.D and K.N thank Prof H.
Toki for his hospitality during their stay at RCNP. A.H. is supported in part
by the Grant for Scientific Research ((C) No.19540297) from the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Science and Technology, Japan. K.N is supported by the
National Science Council (NSC) of Republic of China under grant No.
NSC96-2119-M-002-001. S.L.Z. was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China under Grants 10625521 and 10721063 and Ministry of
Education of China.
## Appendix A Rarita-Schwinger fields
In this appendix, we study the properties of Rarita-Schwinger fields, in the
form of
$B_{\mu}(x)\sim\epsilon_{abc}(q^{aT}_{A}(x)C\Gamma_{1}q^{b}_{B}(x))\Gamma_{2}q^{c}_{C}(x)\,,$
(109)
where there are eight possible pairs of $\Gamma_{1}$ and $\Gamma_{2}$,
$\displaystyle(\Gamma_{1},~{}\Gamma_{2})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\mathbf{1},~{}\gamma_{\mu}),~{}(\gamma_{5},~{}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}),~{}(\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5},~{}\gamma_{5}),~{}(\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5},~{}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}),~{}$
$\displaystyle(\gamma_{\mu},~{}\mathbf{1}),~{}(\gamma^{\nu},~{}\sigma_{\mu\nu}),~{}(\sigma_{\mu\nu},~{}\gamma^{\nu}),~{}(\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5},~{}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}).$
The fields formed by these $(\Gamma_{1},\Gamma_{2})$ pairs are labeled by the
subscript $i=(1,\cdots,8)$ with the ordering of Eq. (A). The discussion is
separated into singlet, decuplet and octet cases.
#### A.0.1 Flavor singlet baryon
For flavor singlet fields, there are four apparently non-zero fields
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Lambda_{1\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{2\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{3\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{4\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(115)
As before, the Fierz transformed fields (primed fields) are just the
corresponding unprimed ones, $\Lambda^{\prime}_{i\mu}=\Lambda_{i\mu}$. On the
other hand, by applying the Fierz rearrangement (see Appendix. C), we obtain
four equations
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Lambda_{1\mu}=-{1\over
4}\Lambda_{1\mu}^{\prime}-{1\over 4}\Lambda_{2\mu}^{\prime}+{1\over
4}\Lambda_{3\mu}^{\prime}-{i\over 4}\Lambda_{4\mu}^{\prime}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{2\mu}=-{1\over 4}\Lambda_{1\mu}^{\prime}-{1\over
4}\Lambda_{2\mu}^{\prime}-{1\over 4}\Lambda_{3\mu}^{\prime}+{i\over
4}\Lambda_{4\mu}^{\prime}\,,\\\ \Lambda_{3\mu}={1\over
4}\Lambda_{1\mu}^{\prime}-{1\over 4}\Lambda_{2\mu}^{\prime}-{1\over
4}\Lambda_{3\mu}^{\prime}-{i\over 4}\Lambda_{4\mu}^{\prime}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{4\mu}={3i\over 4}\Lambda_{1\mu}^{\prime}-{3i\over
4}\Lambda_{2\mu}^{\prime}+{3i\over 4}\Lambda_{3\mu}^{\prime}+{1\over
4}\Lambda_{4\mu}^{\prime}\,.\end{array}$ (120)
Thus we find the following solution
$\Lambda_{1\mu}=-\Lambda_{2\mu}=\Lambda_{3\mu}=-{i\over
3}\Lambda_{4\mu}=\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\Lambda_{1}\,,~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\Lambda_{6\mu}=\Lambda_{7\mu}=\Lambda_{8\mu}=0.$
We see that there is only one non-vanishing independent field. However, it has
a structure of $\gamma_{\mu}\Lambda_{i}$ . Therefore, they are all Dirac
fields, and there is no flavor singlet fields of the Rarita-Schwinger type.
#### A.0.2 Flavor decuplet baryon
For flavour decuplet fields, we have four potentially non-zero interpolators
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Delta^{P}_{5\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}q_{B}^{b})q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Delta^{P}_{6\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma^{\nu}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Delta^{P}_{7\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\nu}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Delta^{P}_{8\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(125)
As before, the Fierz transformed fields can be related to the corresponding
unprimed ones, $\Delta^{P\prime}_{i\mu}=-\Delta^{P}_{i\mu}$. On the other
hand, by applying the Fierz rearrangement to relate $\Delta_{i\mu}^{N}$ and
$\Delta_{i\mu}^{N\prime}$, we obtain the solution
$\Delta^{P}_{5\mu}=i\Delta^{P}_{6\mu}=-i\Delta^{P}_{7\mu}=i\Delta^{P}_{8\mu}\,.$
There are no Dirac decuplet fields. Therefore, we obtain one extra non-
vanishing field.
#### A.0.3 Flavor octet baryon
To study the octet baryon fields, we start with eight baryon fields:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}N^{N}_{1\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{2\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{3\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{4\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{5\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}q_{B}^{b})q_{C}^{c}=0\,,\\\
N^{N}_{6\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma^{\nu}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{C}^{c}=0\,,\\\
N^{N}_{7\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\nu}q_{C}^{c}=0\,,\\\
N^{N}_{8\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}=0\,.\end{array}$
(134)
There are four zero fields, but the corresponding Fierz transformed ones are
non-zero. By using the Jacobi identity in Eq. (39), we obtain
$\displaystyle N_{1\mu}^{N\prime}=-{1\over
2}N_{1\mu}^{N}\,,N_{2\mu}^{N\prime}=-{1\over
2}N_{2\mu}^{N}\,,N_{3\mu}^{N\prime}=-{1\over
2}N_{3\mu}^{N}\,,N_{4\mu}^{N\prime}=-{1\over 2}N_{4\mu}^{N}\,.$
Similarly, performing the Fierz transformation to relate $N_{i\mu}^{N}$ and
$N_{i\mu}^{N\prime}$, we obtain the solution
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}N_{4\mu}^{N}=-iN_{1\mu}^{N}+iN_{2\mu}^{N}-iN_{3\mu}^{N}\,,\\\
N_{5\mu}^{N\prime}=-{1\over 2}N_{1\mu}^{N}+{1\over 2}N_{2\mu}^{N}-{1\over
2}N_{3\mu}^{N}\,,\\\ N_{6\mu}^{N\prime}=-iN_{1\mu}^{N}+iN_{2\mu}^{N}+{i\over
2}N_{3\mu}^{N}\,,\\\ N_{7\mu}^{N\prime}=iN_{1\mu}^{N}+{i\over
2}N_{2\mu}^{N}+iN_{3\mu}^{N}\,,\\\ N_{8\mu}^{N\prime}={i\over
2}N_{1\mu}^{N}+iN_{2\mu}^{N}-iN_{3\mu}^{N}\,.\end{array}$ (140)
Thus we have shown that there are three different kinds of octets. However,
$N_{1\mu}^{N}$ and $N_{2\mu}^{N}$ are nothing but
$\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}N_{1}^{N}$ and $\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}N_{2}^{N}$ (see
Eqs. (38)). Therefore, we only obtain one extra octet baryon field. It is
formed by using the projection operator:
$\displaystyle P^{3/2}_{\mu\nu}=(g_{\mu\nu}-{1\over
4}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu})\,,$
as
$\displaystyle N^{N}_{\mu}=P^{3/2}_{\mu\nu}N^{N}_{3\nu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(g_{\mu\nu}-{1\over
4}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{\nu})\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle N^{N}_{3\mu}+{1\over
4}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}(N^{N}_{1}-N^{N}_{2})\,.$
## Appendix B Tensor Fields
In this appendix, we study the antisymmetric tensor baryons fields
$J_{\mu\nu}$ with $J_{\mu\nu}=-J_{\nu\mu}$. For the tensor fields, we can form
nine three-quark fields where the possible pairs of $\Gamma_{1}$ and
$\Gamma_{2}$ are
$\displaystyle(\Gamma_{1},~{}\Gamma_{2})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\gamma_{\mu},~{}\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{5})-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu),~{}(\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5},~{}\gamma_{\nu})-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu),~{}$
$\displaystyle\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\gamma^{\rho},~{}\gamma^{\sigma}),~{}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\gamma^{\rho}\gamma_{5},~{}\gamma^{\sigma}\gamma_{5}),~{}(\mathbf{1},~{}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}),~{}(\gamma_{5},~{}\sigma_{\mu\nu}),~{}$
$\displaystyle(\sigma_{\mu\nu},~{}\gamma_{5}),~{}(\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5},~{}\mathbf{1}),~{}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\sigma_{\rho
l},\sigma_{\sigma l})\,.$
The fields formed by these $(\Gamma_{1},\Gamma_{2})$ pairs are labeled by the
subscript $i=(1,\cdots,9)$ with the ordering of Eq. (B). The discussion is
separated into singlet, decuplet and octet cases.
#### B.0.1 Flavor singlet baryon
The flavour singlet baryon fields have four potentially non-zero interpolators
among nine fields:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Lambda_{2\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\nu}q_{C}^{c}-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)\,,\\\
\Lambda_{4\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\rho}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\sigma}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{5\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{6\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(146)
As before, the Fierz transformed fields are just the corresponding unprimed
ones, $\Lambda^{\prime}_{i\mu\nu}=\Lambda_{i\mu\nu}$. On the other hand, by
applying the Fierz rearrangement to relate $\Lambda_{i\mu\nu}$ and
$\Lambda_{\i\mu\nu}^{\prime}$, we obtain the solution:
$\displaystyle
i\Lambda_{2\mu\nu}=\Lambda_{4\mu\nu}=2\Lambda_{5\mu\nu}=-2\Lambda_{6\mu\nu}\,.$
Therefore, there is only one independent field. However, it has a structure of
$\sigma_{\mu\nu}\Lambda_{i}$ . Therefore, there are no extra fields.
#### B.0.2 Flavor decuplet baryon
The flavour decuplet baryon fields have five potentially non-zero
interpolators:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Delta^{P}_{1\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}S^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)\,,\\\
\Delta^{P}_{3\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}S^{ABC}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\rho}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\sigma}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Delta^{P}_{7\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}S^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Delta^{P}_{8\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}S^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Delta^{P}_{9\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}S^{ABC}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\rho
l}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\sigma l}q_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$ (152)
As before, the Fierz transformed fields can be related to the corresponding
unprimed ones, $\Delta^{P\prime}_{i\mu\mu}=-\Delta^{P}_{i\mu\mu}$. On the
other hand, by applying the Fierz rearrangement to relate
$\Delta^{P}_{i\mu\nu}$ and $\Delta_{i\mu\nu}^{P\prime}$, we obtain two
independent fields: $\Delta^{P}_{1\mu\nu}$ and $\Delta^{P}_{7\mu\nu}$:
$\displaystyle\Delta^{P}_{3\mu\nu}=-i\Delta^{P}_{1\mu\nu}\,,\Delta^{P}_{8\mu\nu}=i\Delta^{P}_{1\mu\nu}+\Delta^{P}_{7\mu\nu}\,,\Delta^{P}_{9\mu\nu}=-i\Delta^{P}_{1\mu\nu}-2\Delta^{P}_{7\mu\nu}\,.$
The first one $\Delta^{P}_{1\mu\nu}$ can be related to the Rarita-Schwinger
baryon fields, but the second one $\Delta^{P}_{7\mu\nu}$ can not. Therefore,
we obtain one extra decuplet fields. It is formed by using the projection
operator:
$\displaystyle\Gamma^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}=(g^{\mu\alpha}g^{\nu\beta}-{1\over
2}g^{\nu\beta}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma^{\alpha}+{1\over
2}g^{\mu\beta}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma^{\alpha}+{1\over
6}\sigma^{\mu\nu}\sigma^{\alpha\beta})\,,$
as
$\displaystyle\Delta^{P}_{\mu\nu}=\Gamma^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\Delta^{P}_{7\mu\nu}$
$\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\Gamma^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\epsilon_{abc}S^{ABC}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\Delta^{P}_{7\mu\nu}-{i\over
2}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\Delta^{P}_{5\nu}+{i\over
2}\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{5}\Delta^{P}_{5\mu}\,.$
#### B.0.3 Flavor octet baryon
To study the octet baryon fields, we start with nine octet baryon fields
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}N^{N}_{1\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)=0\,,\\\
N^{N}_{2\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\nu}q_{C}^{c}-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)\,,\\\
N^{N}_{3\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\rho}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\sigma}q_{C}^{c}=0\,,\\\
N^{N}_{4\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{\rho}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\sigma}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{5\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}Cq_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{6\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{7\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{B}^{b})\gamma_{5}q_{C}^{c}=0\,,\\\
N^{N}_{8\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{B}^{b})q_{C}^{c}=0\,,\\\
N^{N}_{9\mu\nu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(q_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\rho
l}q_{B}^{b})\sigma_{\sigma l}q_{C}^{c}=0\,.\end{array}$ (162)
There are five zero fields, but the Fierz transformed ones are non-zero. By
using the Jacobi identity in Eq. (39), we obtain
$\displaystyle N^{N\prime}_{2\mu\nu}=-{1\over
2}N^{N}_{2\mu\nu}\,,N^{N\prime}_{4\mu\nu}=-{1\over
2}N^{N}_{4\mu\nu}\,,N^{N\prime}_{5\mu\nu}=-{1\over
2}N^{N}_{5\mu\nu}\,,N^{N\prime}_{6\mu\nu}=-{1\over 2}N^{N}_{6\mu\nu}\,.$
Similarly, performing the Fierz transformation to relate $N^{N}_{i\mu\nu}$ and
$N_{i\mu\nu}^{N\prime}$, we find that there are three independent fields
$N_{2\mu\nu}^{N}$, $N_{5\mu\nu}^{N}$ and $N_{6\mu\nu}^{N}$. Here are the
relations:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}N^{N}_{4\mu\nu}=-iN^{N}_{2\mu\nu}-N^{N}_{5\mu\nu}+N^{N}_{6\mu\nu}\,,\\\
N^{N\prime}_{1\mu\nu}=-{1\over
2}N^{N}_{2\mu\nu}+iN^{N}_{5\mu\nu}-iN^{N}_{6\mu\nu}\,,\\\
N^{N\prime}_{3\mu\nu}={i\over 2}N^{N}_{2\mu\nu}-{1\over
2}N^{N}_{5\mu\nu}+{1\over 2}N^{N}_{6\mu\nu}\,,\\\
N^{N\prime}_{7\mu\nu}=-{i\over 2}N^{N}_{2\mu\nu}-{1\over
2}N^{N}_{5\mu\nu}\,,\\\ N^{N\prime}_{8\mu\nu}={i\over
2}N^{N}_{2\mu\nu}-{1\over 2}N^{N}_{6\mu\nu}\,,\\\
N^{N\prime}_{9\mu\nu}=-N^{N}_{5\mu\nu}-N^{N}_{6\mu\nu}\,.\end{array}$ (169)
All these three fields can be related to the Dirac spinor and Rarita-Schwinger
fields. Therefore, there are no extra octet fields.
## Appendix C Fierz Transformation
In this appendix, we list the Fierz transformations used in our calculation,
which are proved by using $Mathematica$ Maruhn:2000af . Here we would like to
show only the change in the structure of Lorentz indices of direct products of
two Dirac matrices under the Fierz rearrangement. Therefore, in the following
equations, we do not include the minus sign which arises from the exchange of
quark fields. The formulae go for the three cases corresponding to the Dirac,
Rarita-Schwinger and tensor fields when applied to three-quark fields.
1. 1.
Products of two Dirac matrices without Lorentz indices:
$\displaystyle\left(\begin{array}[]{l}\mathbf{1}\otimes\gamma_{5}\\\
\gamma_{\mu}\otimes\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}\\\
\sigma_{\mu\nu}\otimes\sigma^{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}\\\
\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma^{\mu}\\\
\gamma_{5}\otimes\mathbf{1}\end{array}\right)_{ab,cd}=\left(\begin{array}[]{lllll}{1\over
4}&-{1\over 4}&{1\over 8}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}\\\ -1&-{1\over 2}&0&-{1\over
2}&1\\\ 3&0&-{1\over 2}&0&3\\\ 1&-{1\over 2}&0&-{1\over 2}&-1\\\ {1\over
4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 8}&-{1\over 4}&{1\over
4}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{l}\mathbf{1}\otimes\gamma_{5}\\\
\gamma_{\mu}\otimes\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}\\\
\sigma_{\mu\nu}\otimes\sigma^{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}\\\
\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma^{\mu}\\\
\gamma_{5}\otimes\mathbf{1}\end{array}\right)_{ad,bc}$ (185)
2. 2.
Products of two Dirac matrices with one Lorentz index:
$\displaystyle\left(\begin{array}[]{l}\mathbf{1}\otimes\gamma^{\mu}\\\
\gamma^{\mu}\otimes\mathbf{1}\\\ \gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\\\
\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma_{5}\\\
\gamma^{\nu}\otimes\sigma_{\mu\nu}\\\ \sigma_{\mu\nu}\otimes\gamma^{\nu}\\\
\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}\\\
\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}\end{array}\right)_{ab,cd}=\left(\begin{array}[]{llllllll}{1\over
4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&-{1\over 4}&-{i\over 4}&{i\over 4}&{i\over 4}&{i\over
4}\\\ {1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&-{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&{i\over 4}&-{i\over
4}&{i\over 4}&{i\over 4}\\\ {1\over 4}&-{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over
4}&{i\over 4}&{i\over 4}&-{i\over 4}&{i\over 4}\\\ -{1\over 4}&{1\over
4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&{i\over 4}&{i\over 4}&{i\over 4}&-{i\over 4}\\\
{3i\over 4}&-{3i\over 4}&-{3i\over 4}&-{3i\over 4}&-{1\over 4}&-{1\over
4}&-{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}\\\ -{3i\over 4}&{3i\over 4}&-{3i\over 4}&-{3i\over
4}&-{1\over 4}&-{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&-{1\over 4}\\\ -{3i\over 4}&-{3i\over
4}&{3i\over 4}&-{3i\over 4}&-{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&-{1\over 4}&-{1\over 4}\\\
-{3i\over 4}&-{3i\over 4}&-{3i\over 4}&{3i\over 4}&{1\over 4}&-{1\over
4}&-{1\over 4}&-{1\over
4}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{l}\mathbf{1}\otimes\gamma^{\mu}\\\
\gamma^{\mu}\otimes\mathbf{1}\\\ \gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\\\
\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma_{5}\\\
\gamma^{\nu}\otimes\sigma_{\mu\nu}\\\ \sigma_{\mu\nu}\otimes\gamma^{\nu}\\\
\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}\\\
\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}\end{array}\right)_{ad,bc}$
(210)
3. 3.
Products of two Dirac matrices with two anti-symmetric Lorentz indices:
$\displaystyle\left(\begin{array}[]{l}\mathbf{1}\otimes\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}\\\
\gamma_{5}\otimes\sigma_{\mu\nu}\\\ \sigma_{\mu\nu}\otimes\gamma_{5}\\\
\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\mathbf{1}\\\
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\sigma_{\rho l}\otimes\sigma_{\sigma l}\\\
\gamma_{\mu}\otimes\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{5}-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)\\\
\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma_{\nu}-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)\\\
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\gamma_{\rho}\otimes\gamma_{\sigma}\\\
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\gamma_{\rho}\gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma_{\sigma}\gamma_{5}\end{array}\right)_{ab,cd}=\left(\begin{array}[]{lllllllll}{1\over
4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&{i\over 4}&-{i\over 4}&{1\over
4}&-{1\over 4}\\\ {1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over
4}&-{i\over 4}&{i\over 4}&-{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}\\\ {1\over 4}&{1\over
4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&-{1\over 4}&-{i\over 4}&{i\over 4}&{1\over
4}&-{1\over 4}\\\ {1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}&-{1\over
4}&{i\over 4}&-{i\over 4}&-{1\over 4}&{1\over 4}\\\ 1&1&-1&-1&0&0&0&0&0\\\
-{i\over 2}&{i\over 2}&{i\over 2}&-{i\over 2}&0&0&0&{i\over 2}&{i\over 2}\\\
{i\over 2}&-{i\over 2}&-{i\over 2}&{i\over 2}&0&0&0&{i\over 2}&{i\over 2}\\\
{1\over 2}&-{1\over 2}&{1\over 2}&-{1\over 2}&0&-{i\over 2}&-{i\over 2}&0&0\\\
-{1\over 2}&{1\over 2}&-{1\over 2}&{1\over 2}&0&-{i\over 2}&-{i\over
2}&0&0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}[]{l}\mathbf{1}\otimes\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}\\\
\gamma_{5}\otimes\sigma_{\mu\nu}\\\ \sigma_{\mu\nu}\otimes\gamma_{5}\\\
\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\mathbf{1}\\\
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\sigma_{\rho l}\otimes\sigma_{\sigma l}\\\
\gamma_{\mu}\otimes\gamma_{\nu}\gamma_{5}-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)\\\
\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma_{\nu}-(\mu\leftrightarrow\nu)\\\
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\gamma_{\rho}\otimes\gamma_{\sigma}\\\
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\gamma_{\rho}\gamma_{5}\otimes\gamma_{\sigma}\gamma_{5}\end{array}\right)_{ad,bc}$
(238)
## Appendix D Chiral properties of Rarita-Schwinger fields
In this appendix, we study the chiral properties of Rarita-Schwinger fields.
As previously described in Section IV, we only need to study the properties of
$(LL)L$, $(LL)R$, $(LR)L$ and $(RL)L$.
### D.1 Chiral properties of $(LL)L$
The chiral representations of $(LL)L$ are
$(\mathbf{1},~{}\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{8},~{}\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{8},~{}\mathbf{1})\oplus(\mathbf{10},~{}\mathbf{1})$.
We will study them separately in the following.
(1) In principle, there are eight possibilities of making the Rarita-Schwinger
fields as shown in Eq. (A). However, the chiral representation
$(\mathbf{1},~{}\mathbf{1})$ has just two non-zero fields:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Lambda_{L1\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}L_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{L2\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(241)
Similarly performing the Fierz transformation to relate $\Lambda_{Li\mu}$ and
$\Lambda^{\prime}_{Li\mu}$, we obtain the solution that all such kind of
fields vanish.
(2) The chiral representation $(\mathbf{10},~{}\mathbf{1})$ has two non-zero
fields:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Delta^{P}_{L7\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\nu}L_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Delta^{P}_{L8\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}S_{P}^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(244)
Similarly performing the Fierz transformation to relate $\Delta^{P}_{Li\mu}$
and $\Delta^{P\prime}_{Li\mu}$, we obtain the solution that all such kind of
fields vanish.
(3) The chiral representation $(\mathbf{8},~{}\mathbf{1})$ has two non-zero
fields:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}N^{N}_{L1\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}L_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{L2\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}L_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(247)
Similarly performing the Fierz transformation to relate $N^{N}_{Li\mu}$ and
$N^{N\prime}_{Li\mu}$, we obtain the solution
$N^{N}_{L2\mu}=N^{N}_{L1\mu}\,.$
Others are just zero. There is only one non-vanishing octet baryon field.
### D.2 Chiral properties of $(LL)R$, $(LR)L$ and $(RL)L$
The chiral representations of $(LL)R$, $(LR)L$ and $(RL)L$ are
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{3})\oplus(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{3})$. We will
study them separately in the following.
(1) The chiral representation
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{3})\rightarrow\mathbf{1_{f}}$ has two non-zero
components:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\Lambda_{M1\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}R_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Lambda_{M2\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(250)
Similarly performing the Fierz transformation to relate $\Lambda_{Mi\mu}$ and
$\Lambda^{\prime}_{Mi\mu}$, we obtain the solution
$\Lambda_{M1\mu}=-\Lambda_{M2\mu}\,.$
Others are just zero. There is only one non-vanishing field. Others $(LR)L$
and $(RL)L$ can be related to this one.
(2) The chiral representation
$(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{3})\rightarrow\mathbf{10_{f}}$ has two non-zero
components:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\\\
\Delta^{P}_{M7\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}S^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\nu}R_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\Delta^{P}_{M8\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}S^{ABC}(L_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(254)
Others are just zero. Similarly performing the Fierz transformation to relate
$\Delta^{P}_{Mi\mu}$ and $\Delta^{P\prime}_{Mi\mu}$, we obtain the solution
$\Delta^{P}_{M7\mu}=-\Delta^{P}_{M8\mu}\,.$
There is only one non-vanishing field. Others $(LR)L$ and $(RL)L$ can be
related to this one.
(3) The chiral representations
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{3})\rightarrow\mathbf{8_{f}}$ has only two non-
zero interpolators:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}N^{N}_{M1\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}R_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
N^{N}_{M2\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ABD}\lambda_{DC}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(257)
Similarly performing the Fierz transformation to relate $N^{N}_{Mi\mu}$ and
$N^{N\prime}_{Mi\mu}$, we obtain the solution
$N^{N}_{M1\mu}=-N^{N}_{M2\mu}\,.$
In order to study the chiral representations
$(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{3})\rightarrow\mathbf{8_{f}}$, we need to consider the
second way (see the discussion in Section II.2.3) which leads to four non-zero
fields:
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M1\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}CL_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}R_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M2\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}C\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M7\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\nu}R_{C}^{c}\,,\\\
\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M8\mu}=\epsilon_{abc}\epsilon^{ACD}\lambda_{DB}^{N}(L_{A}^{aT}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}L_{B}^{b})\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}R_{C}^{c}\,.\end{array}$
(262)
By using the Jacobi identity in Eq. (39), we obtain:
$\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M1\mu}={1\over
2}N^{N}_{M1\mu}\,,~{}\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M2\mu}={1\over 2}N^{N}_{M2\mu}\,.$
Similarly performing the Fierz transformation to relate
$\widetilde{N}^{N}_{Mi\mu}$ and $\widetilde{N}^{N\prime}_{Mi\mu}$, we obtain
the solution
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{l}\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M2\mu}=-\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M1\mu}=-{1\over
2}N^{N}_{M1\mu}\,,\\\
\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M8\mu}=-\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M7\mu}\,.\end{array}$ (265)
All together there are two non-vanishing independent fields:
$\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M1\mu}$ and $\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M7\mu}$.
$\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M1\mu}$ is related to $N^{N}_{M1\mu}$, and so belongs to
the chiral representation $((\mathbf{\bar{3}},~{}\mathbf{3}))$. However, the
other $\widetilde{N}^{N}_{M7\mu}$ can not be related to $N^{N}_{Mi\mu}$, and
so contains some $(\mathbf{6},~{}\mathbf{3})$ component. other Others $(LR)L$
and $(RL)L$ can be related to $(LL)R$. Chiral properties of the tensor fields
can be also explored in completely the same procedure explained here.
Therefore, we do not show this case any more.
## References
* (1) S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. 177, 2604 (1969); Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1177 (1990).
* (2) T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rept. 247, 221 (1994).
* (3) B. W. Lee, Chiral Dynamics, (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1972).
* (4) T. D. Lee, Particle Physics and Introduction to Field Theory, (Harwood, Chur, Switzerland, 1981).
* (5) D. Jido, M. Oka and A. Hosaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. 106, 873 (2001).
* (6) D. Jido, M. Oka and A. Hosaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 448 (1998).
* (7) D. Jido, T. Hatsuda and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3252 (2000).
* (8) S. R. Beane and M. J. Savage, Phys. Lett. B 556, 142 (2003).
* (9) M. Benmerrouche, R. M. Davidson and N. C. Mukhopadhyay, Phys. Rev. C 39, 2339 (1989).
* (10) H. Haberzettl, arXiv:nucl-th/9812043.
* (11) C. DeTar and T. Kunihiro, Phys. Rev. D 39, 2805 (1989).
* (12) K. Nagata, A. Hosaka and V. Dmitrasinovic, arXiv:0705.1896 [hep-ph].
* (13) B. L. Ioffe, Nucl. Phys. B 188, 317 (1981) [Erratum-ibid. B 191, 591 (1981)]; B. L. Ioffe, Z. Phys. C 18, 67 (1983).
* (14) Y. Chung, H. G. Dosch, M. Kremer and D. Schall, Nucl. Phys. B 197 (1982) 55.
* (15) D. Espriu, P. Pascual and R. Tarrach, Nucl. Phys. B 214 (1983) 285.
* (16) F. X. Lee and X. Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 66, 014014 (2002).
* (17) D. B. Leinweber, W. Melnitchouk, D. G. Richards, A. G. Williams and J. M. Zanotti, Lect. Notes Phys. 663, 71 (2005).
* (18) J. M. Zanotti, D. B. Leinweber, A. G. Williams, J. B. Zhang, W. Melnitchouk and S. Choe [CSSM Lattice collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 68, 054506 (2003).
* (19) T. D. Cohen and X. D. Ji, Phys. Rev. D 55, 6870 (1997).
* (20) H. X. Chen, A. Hosaka and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 74, 054001 (2006).
* (21) S. Okubo, Prog. Theor. Phys. 27, 949 (1962).
* (22) S. Ogawa, S. Sawada, and M. Nakagawa, Composite Models of Elementary Particles, (in russian, Mir, Moscow, USSR, 1983).
* (23) R. E. Marshak, N. Mukunda and S. Okubo, Phys. Rev. 137, B698 (1965).
* (24) Y. Hara, Phys. Rev. 139, B134 (1965).
* (25) J. Schechter and Y. Ueda, Phys. Rev. 144, 1338 (1966).
* (26) G. A. Christos, Phys. Rev. D 35, 330 (1987).
* (27) J. A. Maruhn, T. Buervenich and D. G. Madland, arXiv:nucl-th/0007010.
* (28) S.L. Adler, Phys. Rev. 140. B736 (1965).
* (29) W.I. Weissberger, Phys. Rev. 143, 1302 (1966).
* (30) J. F. Donoghue and D. Wyler, Phys. Rev. D 17, 280 (1978).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-12T15:02:46 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.215133 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Hua-Xing Chen, V. Dmitrasinovic, Atsushi Hosaka, Keitaro Nagata, and\n Shi-Lin Zhu",
"submitter": "Hua-Xing Chen",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1997"
} |
0806.1998 | # The $I^{G}J^{PC}=1^{-}1^{-+}$ Tetraquark States
Hua-Xing Chen1,2 hxchen@rcnp.osaka-u.ac.jp Atsushi Hosaka2
hosaka@rcnp.osaka-u.ac.jp Shi-Lin Zhu1 zhusl@phy.pku.edu.cn 1Department of
Physics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
2Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University, Ibaraki 567–0047,
Japan
###### Abstract
We study the tetraquark states with $I^{G}J^{PC}=1^{-}1^{-+}$ in the QCD sum
rule. After exhausting all possible flavor structures, we analyses both the
SVZ and finite energy sum rules. Both approaches lead to a mass around 1.6 GeV
for the state with the quark contents $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$, and around 2.0 GeV
for the state with the quark contents $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$. The flavor structure
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}})\oplus(\mathbf{6}\otimes\mathbf{3})$
is preferred. Our analysis strongly indicates that both $\pi_{1}(1600)$ and
$\pi_{1}(2015)$ are also compatible with the exotic tetraquark interpretation,
which are sometimes labeled as candidates of the $1^{-+}$ hybrid mesons.
Moreover one of their dominant decay modes is a pair of axial-vector and
pseudoscalar mesons such as $b_{1}(1235)\pi$, which is sometimes considered as
the characteristic decay mode of the hybrid mesons.
exotic mesons, tetraquark, QCD sum rule
###### pacs:
12.39.Mk, 11.40.-q, 12.38.Lg
## I Introduction
Hadrons beyond the conventional quark model have been studied for more than
thirties years. For example, Jaffe suggested the low-lying scalar mesons as
good candidates of tetraquark states composed of strongly correlated diquarks
in 1976 Jaffe:1976ig . Especially there may exist some low-lying exotic mesons
with quantum numbers such as $(J^{PC})=(1^{-+})$ which $\bar{q}q$ mesons can
not access Klempt:2007cp ; Anikin:2005ur . However the hybrid mesons with
explicit glue can carry such quantum numbers. The experimental establishment
of these states is a direct proof of the glue degree of freedom in the low
energy sector of QCD and of fundamental importance.
The mass of the non-strange exotic hybrid meson from lattice QCD simulations
includes: 2GeV McNeile:1998cp , 1.74 GeV Hedditch:2005zf , and 1.8 GeV
Bernard:2003jd . The mass of its strange partner is 1.92 GeV Hedditch:2005zf
and 2 GeV Bernard:2003jd . The hybrid meson mass from the constituent glue
model is 2 GeV Iddir:2007dq while the value from the flux tube model is
around 1.9 GeV Isgur:1984bm ; Page:1998gz . The prediction from the QCD sum
rule approach is around 1.6 GeV Jin:2002rw ; Chetyrkin:2000tj . However, Yang
obtained a surprisingly low mass around 1.26 GeV for the $1^{-+}$ hybrid meson
using QCD sum rule Yang:2007cc .
Up to now, there are several candidates of the exotic mesons with
$I^{G}(J^{PC})=1^{-}(1^{-+})$ experimentally. They are $\pi_{1}(1400)$,
$\pi_{1}(1600)$ and $\pi_{1}(2015)$. Their masses and widths are ($1376\pm
17$, $300\pm 40$) MeV, ($1653^{\Large+18}_{\Large-15}$,
$225^{\Large+45}_{\Large-28}$) MeV, ($2014\pm 20\pm 16$, $230\pm 21\pm 73$)
MeV, respectively Yao:2006px . $\pi_{1}(1400)$ was observed in the reactions
$\pi^{-}p\rightarrow\eta\pi^{0}n$ Adams:2006sa ;
$\bar{p}p\rightarrow\pi^{0}\pi^{0}\eta$ and
$\bar{p}n\rightarrow\pi^{-}\pi^{0}\eta$ Abele:1999tf ;
$\pi^{-}p\rightarrow\eta\pi^{-}p$ Thompson:1997bs . $\pi_{1}(1600)$ was
observed in the reaction $\pi^{-}p\rightarrow\eta^{\prime}\pi^{-}p$
($\eta^{\prime}$ decays to $\eta\pi^{+}\pi^{-}$ with a fraction 44.5%)
Ivanov:2001rv . Both $\pi_{1}(1600)$ and $\pi_{1}(2015)$ were observed in the
reactions $\pi^{-}p\rightarrow\omega\pi^{-}\pi^{0}p$ Lu:2004yn and
$\pi^{-}p\rightarrow\eta\pi^{+}\pi^{-}\pi^{-}p$ Kuhn:2004en . However, a more
recent analysis of a higher statistics sample from E852 $3\pi$ data found no
evidence of $\pi_{1}(1600)$ Dzierba:2005jg . All the above observations were
from hadron-production experiments.
Recently, the CLAS Collaboration performed a photo-production experiment to
search for the $1^{-+}$ hybrid meson in the speculated $3\pi$ final state in
the charge exchange reaction $\gamma p\rightarrow\pi^{+}\pi^{+}\pi^{-}(n)$
Nozar:2008be . If $\pi_{1}(1600)$ was an hybrid state, it was expected to be
produced with a strength near or much larger than 10% of the $a_{2}(1320)$
meson from the theoretical models theory . However $\pi_{1}(1600)$ was not
observed with the expected strength. In fact its production rate is less than
2% of the $a_{2}(1320)$ meson. If the $\pi_{1}(1600)$ signal from the hadron-
production experiments is not an artifact, the negative result of the photo-
production experiment suggests (1) either theoretical production rates are
overestimated significantly or (2) $\pi_{1}(1600)$ is a meson with a different
inner structure instead of a hybrid state.
In fact, the tetraquark states can also carry the exotic quantum numbers
$I^{G}(J^{PC})=1^{-}(1^{-+})$. It is important to note that the gluon inside
the hybrid meson can easily split into a pair of $q\bar{q}$. Therefore
tetraquarks can always have the same quantum numbers as the hybrid mesons,
including the exotic ones. Discovery of hadron candidates with $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$
does not ensure that it is an exotic hybrid meson. One has to exclude the
other possibilities including tetraquarks based on its mass, decay width and
decay patterns etc. This argument holds for all these claimed candidates of
the hybrid meson.
Tetraquark states in general have a richer internal structure than ordinary
$q\bar{q}$ states. For instance, a pair of quarks can be in channels which can
not be allowed in the ordinary hadrons. The richness of the structure
introduces complication in theoretical studies. Therefore, one usually assumed
one or a few particular configurations which are motivated by some intuitions.
Recently, we have developed a systematic method for the study of multiquark
states in the QCD sum rule, and particular applications have been made for
several tetraquark states Chen:2006hy ; Chen:2007xr ; Chen:2008ej . Our method
is essentially based on complete classification of independent currents. By
making suitable linear combinations of the independent currents we can perform
advanced analysis as compared with the analysis of using only one type of
current which limits the potential of the OPE, and sometimes leads to
unphysical results.
In this paper, we first classify the flavor structure of four-quark system
with quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$. We find that there are five iso-vector
states. Then we construct tetraquark interpolating currents by using both
diquark-antidiquark construction ($(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$) and quark-antiquark
pairs ($(q\bar{q})(q\bar{q})$). We verify that they are just different bases
and can be related to each other. Therefore they lead to the same results. By
using diquark-antidiquark currents, we perform the QCD sum rule analysis, and
calculate their masses. Our results suggest that $\pi_{1}(1400)$ may not be
explained by just using tetraquark structure, and $\pi_{1}(1600)$ and
$\pi_{1}(2015)$ could be explained by the tetraquark mesons with quark
contents $(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$ and $(qs)(\bar{q}\bar{s})$ respectively. The
diquark and antidiquark inside have a mixed flavor structure
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}})\oplus(\mathbf{6}\otimes\mathbf{3})$.
This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we construct the tetraquark
currents using both diquark ($qq$) and antidiquark ($\bar{q}\bar{q}$)
currents. The tetraquark currents constructed by using quark-antiquark
($\bar{q}q$) pairs are shown in Appendix A. In Sec. III, we perform a QCD sum
rule analysis by using these currents, and calculate their OPEs. In Sec. IV,
the numerical result is obtained for their masses. In Sec. V, we use finite
energy sum rule to calculate their masses again. We discuss the decay patterns
of these $1^{-+}$ tetraquark states in Sec. VI. Sec. VII is a summary.
## II Tetraquark Currents
In order to construct proper tetraquark currents, let us start with the
consideration of the charge-conjugation symmetry. The charge-conjugation
transformation changes diquarks into antidiquarks, while it maintains their
flavor structures. If a tetraquark state has a definite charge-conjugation
parity, either positive or negative, the internal diquark ($qq$) and
antidiquark ($\bar{q}\bar{q}$) must have the same flavor symmetry, which is
either symmetric flavor structure $\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}$
($\mathbf{S}$) or antisymmetric flavor structure
$\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}$ ($\mathbf{A}$), and can not have
mixed flavor symmetry neither
$\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}$ nor
$\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}$ ($\mathbf{M}$). However, combinations of
$\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}$ and
$\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}$ can have a definite charge-conjugation
parity. Therefore, in order to study the tetraquark state of
$I^{G}J^{PC}=1^{-}1^{-+}$, we need to consider the following structures of
currents
$\displaystyle qq\bar{q}\bar{q}(\mathbf{S})\,,qs\bar{q}\bar{s}(\mathbf{S})$
$\displaystyle\sim$
$\displaystyle\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}~{}~{}~{}(\mathbf{S})\,,$
$\displaystyle qs\bar{q}\bar{s}(\mathbf{A})$ $\displaystyle\sim$
$\displaystyle\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}~{}~{}~{}(\mathbf{A})\,,$
$\displaystyle qq\bar{q}\bar{q}(\mathbf{M})\,,qs\bar{q}\bar{s}(\mathbf{M})$
$\displaystyle\sim$
$\displaystyle(\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}})\oplus(\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}})~{}~{}~{}(\mathbf{M})\,,$
where $q$ represents an $up$ or $down$ quark, and $s$ represents a $strange$
quark. The flavor structures are shown in Fig. 1 in terms of $SU(3)$ weight
diagrams. The quark contents indicated at vertices follow the ideal mixing
scheme for inner vertices where the mixing is allowed. In the $SU(3)$ limit,
the quark contents are suitable combinations of the ones shown in this
figures. However, the $strange$ quark has a significantly larger mass than
$up$ and $down$ quarks (current quark mass), and so, the ideal mixing is
expected to work well for hadrons except for pseudoscalar mesons. The flavor
structure in the ideal mixing is also simpler than that in the $SU(3)$ limit.
Therefore, we will use the ideal mixing in our QCD sum rule studies.
Figure 1: Weight diagrams for
$\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}(\mathbf{S})$ (top panel),
$\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}(\mathbf{A})$ (middle panel), and
$\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}(\mathbf{M})$ (bottom panel).
The weight diagram for $\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}(\mathbf{M})$ is
the charge-conjugation transformation of the bottom one.
In the following subsections, we first construct currents by using diquark
($qq$) and antidiquark ($\bar{q}\bar{q}$) currents, and then we show the
currents with explicit quark contents. The currents constructed by using
quark-antiquark ($\bar{q}q$) pairs can be related to these diquark currents,
and are shown in the Appendix. A. The tensor currents $\eta_{\mu\nu}$
($\eta_{\mu\nu}=-\eta_{\nu\mu}$) can also have $I^{G}J^{PC}=1^{-}1^{-+}$. By
using tensor currents, we obtain the similar results, which will be shown in
our future work.
### II.1 $(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$ Currents
We attempt to construct the tetraquark currents using diquark ($qq$) and
antidiquark ($\bar{q}\bar{q}$) currents. For each state having the symmetric
flavor structure $\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}$ ($\mathbf{S}$),
there are two $(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$ currents of $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$, which are
independent
$\displaystyle\psi^{S}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}C\gamma_{5}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}+\bar{q}_{3b}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})+q_{1a}^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}+\bar{q}_{3b}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,,$
(1) $\displaystyle\psi^{S}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}C\gamma^{\nu}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}-\bar{q}_{3b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})+q_{1a}^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}-\bar{q}_{3b}\gamma^{\nu}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,,$
where the sum over repeated indices ($\mu$, $\nu,\cdots$ for Dirac spinor
indices, and $a,b,\cdots$ for color indices) is taken. $C$ is the charge-
conjugation matrix, $q_{1}$ and $q_{2}$ represent quarks, and $q_{3}$ and
$q_{4}$ represent antiquarks. For the antisymmetry flavor structure
$\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}$ ($\mathbf{A}$), we also find that
there are two independent $(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$ currents,
$\displaystyle\psi^{A}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}C\gamma_{5}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}-\bar{q}_{3b}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})+q_{1a}^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}-\bar{q}_{3b}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,,$
(2) $\displaystyle\psi^{A}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}C\gamma^{\nu}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}+\bar{q}_{3b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})+q_{1a}^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}+\bar{q}_{3b}\gamma^{\nu}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,,$
For each state containing diquark and antidiquark having either the flavor
structure $\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}$ or
$\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}$, there are no currents of quantum
numbers $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$. However, their combinations
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}})\oplus(\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}})$
can have the quantum numbers $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$. We first define the currents
$\psi^{ML}_{i\mu}$ which belong to the flavor representation
$\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}$, and the currents
$\psi^{MR}_{i\mu}$ which belong to the flavor representation
$\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}$ separately. We find the following four
independent currents:
$\displaystyle\psi^{ML}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}+\bar{q}_{3b}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{ML}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}+\bar{q}_{3b}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{ML}_{3\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}Cq_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}-\bar{q}_{3b}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{ML}_{4\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}C\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}-\bar{q}_{3b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{MR}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}Cq_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}+\bar{q}_{3b}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{MR}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}C\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}+\bar{q}_{3b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{MR}_{3\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}-\bar{q}_{3b}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{MR}_{4\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
q_{1a}^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b}(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4b}^{T}-\bar{q}_{3b}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{q}_{4a}^{T})\,.$
They all have quantum numbers $J^{P}=1^{-}$ but no good charge-conjugation
parity. However, their mixing can have a definite charge-conjugation parity,
$\displaystyle\psi^{M}_{i\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\psi^{ML}_{i\mu}\pm\psi^{MR}_{i\mu}\,,$ (3)
where the $+$ and $-$ combinations correspond to the charge-conjugation parity
positive and negative, respectively. In the present work, we only consider the
positive one.
### II.2 Iso-Vector Currents
For the study of the present exotic tetraquark state, we need to construct
iso-vector ($I=1$) currents. There are two isospin triplets belonging to the
flavor representation $\mathbf{6}_{f}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}}_{f}$, one isospin
triplet belonging to the flavor representation
$\mathbf{\bar{3}}_{f}\otimes\mathbf{3}_{f}$, and two isospin triplets
belonging to the flavor representation
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}}_{f}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}}_{f})\oplus(\mathbf{6}_{f}\otimes\mathbf{3}_{f})$
(Fig. 1). For each state, there are several independent currents. We list them
in the following.
1. 1.
For the two isospin triplets belonging to
$\mathbf{6}_{f}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}}_{f}$ ($\mathbf{S}$):
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\eta^{S}_{1\mu}\equiv\psi_{1\mu}^{S}(qq\bar{q}\bar{q})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\gamma_{5}d_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}d_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})\,,\\\
\eta^{S}_{2\mu}\equiv\psi_{2\mu}^{S}(qq\bar{q}\bar{q})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\gamma^{\nu}d_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}d_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma^{\nu}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\gamma^{\nu}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})\,,\end{array}\right.$
(6)
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\eta^{S}_{3\mu}\equiv\psi_{1\mu}^{S}(qs\bar{q}\bar{s})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\gamma_{5}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})\,,\\\
\eta^{S}_{4\mu}\equiv\psi_{2\mu}^{S}(qs\bar{q}\bar{s})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\gamma^{\nu}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma^{\nu}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\gamma^{\nu}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})\,.\end{array}\right.$
(9)
where $\eta^{S}_{1\mu}$ and $\eta^{S}_{2\mu}$ are the two independent currents
containing only light flavors, and $\eta^{S}_{3\mu}$ and $\eta^{S}_{4\mu}$ are
the two independent ones containing one $s\bar{s}$ quark pair.
2. 2.
For the isospin triplet belonging to
$\mathbf{\bar{3}}_{f}\otimes\mathbf{3}_{f}$ ($\mathbf{A}$):
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\eta^{A}_{1\mu}\equiv\psi_{1\mu}^{A}(qs\bar{q}\bar{s})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\gamma_{5}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})\,,\\\
\eta^{A}_{2\mu}\equiv\psi_{2\mu}^{A}(qs\bar{q}\bar{s})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\gamma^{\nu}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma^{\nu}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\gamma^{\nu}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})\,,\end{array}\right.$
(12)
where $\eta^{A}_{1\mu}$ and $\eta^{A}_{2\mu}$ are the two independent
currents.
3. 3.
For the two isospin triplets belonging to
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}}_{f}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}}_{f})\oplus(\mathbf{6}_{f}\otimes\mathbf{3}_{f})$
($\mathbf{M}$):
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\eta^{M}_{1\mu}\equiv\psi^{M}_{1\mu}(qq\bar{q}\bar{q})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}d_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}Cd_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})\,,\\\
\eta^{M}_{2\mu}\equiv\psi^{M}_{2\mu}(qq\bar{q}\bar{q})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}d_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}d_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})\,,\\\
\eta^{M}_{3\mu}\equiv\psi^{M}_{3\mu}(qq\bar{q}\bar{q})\sim
u_{a}^{T}Cd_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}d_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})\,,\\\
\eta^{M}_{4\mu}\equiv\psi^{M}_{4\mu}(qq\bar{q}\bar{q})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}d_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}d_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{d}_{a}^{T})\,,\end{array}\right.$
(17)
$\displaystyle\left\\{\begin{array}[]{l}\eta^{M}_{5\mu}\equiv\psi^{M}_{1\mu}(qs\bar{q}\bar{s})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}Cs_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})\,,\\\
\eta^{M}_{6\mu}\equiv\psi^{M}_{2\mu}(qs\bar{q}\bar{s})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}+\bar{u}_{b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})\,,\\\
\eta^{M}_{7\mu}\equiv\psi^{M}_{3\mu}(qs\bar{q}\bar{s})\sim
u_{a}^{T}Cs_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\gamma_{\mu}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\gamma_{\mu}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})\,,\\\
\eta^{M}_{8\mu}\equiv\psi^{M}_{4\mu}(qs\bar{q}\bar{s})\sim
u_{a}^{T}C\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})+u_{a}^{T}C\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}s_{b}(\bar{u}_{a}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{b}^{T}-\bar{u}_{b}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}C\bar{s}_{a}^{T})\,,\end{array}\right.$
(22)
where $\eta^{M}_{1,2,3,4}$ are the four independent currents containing only
light flavors, and $\eta^{M}_{1,2,3,4}$ are the four independent ones
containing one $s\bar{s}$ quark pair.
We use $\sim$ to make clear that the quark contents here are not exactly
correct. For instance, in the current $\eta^{A}_{1\mu}$, the state
$us\bar{u}\bar{s}$ does not have isospin one. The correct quark contents
should be $(us\bar{u}\bar{s}-ds\bar{d}\bar{s})$. However, in the following QCD
sum rule analysis, we shall not include the mass of $up$ and $down$ quarks and
choose the same value for $\langle\bar{u}u\rangle$ and
$\langle\bar{d}d\rangle$. Therefore, the QCD sum rule results for
$\eta^{A}_{1}$ with quark contents $us\bar{u}\bar{s}$ and
$(us\bar{u}\bar{s}-ds\bar{d}\bar{s})$ are the same.
## III SVZ sum rule
For the past decades QCD sum rule has proven to be a very powerful and
successful non-perturbative method Shifman:1978bx ; Reinders:1984sr . In sum
rule analyses, we consider two-point correlation functions:
$\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q^{2})\,\equiv\,i\int d^{4}xe^{iqx}\langle
0|T\eta_{\mu}(x){\eta_{\nu}^{\dagger}}(0)|0\rangle\,,$ (23)
where $\eta_{\mu}$ is an interpolating current for the tetraquark. The Lorentz
structure can be simplified to be:
$\Pi_{\mu\nu}(q^{2})=({q_{\mu}q_{\nu}\over
q^{2}}-g_{\mu\nu})\Pi^{(1)}(q^{2})+{q_{\mu}q_{\nu}\over
q^{2}}\Pi^{(0)}(q^{2})\,.$ (24)
We compute $\Pi(q^{2})$ in the operator product expansion (OPE) of QCD up to
certain order in the expansion, which is then matched with a hadronic
parametrization to extract information of hadron properties. At the hadron
level, we express the correlation function in the form of the dispersion
relation with a spectral function:
$\Pi^{(1)}(q^{2})=\int^{\infty}_{s_{<}}\frac{\rho(s)}{s-q^{2}-i\varepsilon}ds\,,$
(25)
where the integration starts from the mass square of all current quarks. The
the spectral density $\rho(s)$ is defined to be
$\displaystyle\rho(s)$ $\displaystyle\equiv$
$\displaystyle\sum_{n}\delta(s-M^{2}_{n})\langle 0|\eta|n\rangle\langle
n|{\eta^{\dagger}}|0\rangle\ $ (26) $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
f^{2}_{Y}\delta(s-M^{2}_{Y})+\rm{higher\,\,states}\,.$
For the second equation, as usual, we adopt a parametrization of one pole
dominance for the ground state $Y$ and a continuum contribution. The sum rule
analysis is then performed after the Borel transformation of the two
expressions of the correlation function, (23) and (25)
$\Pi^{(all)}(M_{B}^{2})\equiv\mathcal{B}_{M_{B}^{2}}\Pi^{(1)}(p^{2})=\int^{\infty}_{s_{<}}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}\rho(s)ds\,.$
(27)
Assuming the contribution from the continuum states can be approximated well
by the spectral density of OPE above a threshold value $s_{0}$ (duality), we
arrive at the sum rule equation
$\Pi(M_{B}^{2})\equiv
f^{2}_{Y}e^{-M_{Y}^{2}/M_{B}^{2}}=\int^{s_{0}}_{s_{<}}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}\rho(s)ds\,.$
(28)
Differentiating Eq. (28) with respect to $1/M_{B}^{2}$ and dividing it by Eq.
(28), finally we obtain
$M^{2}_{Y}=\frac{\frac{\partial}{\partial(-1/M_{B}^{2})}\Pi(M_{B}^{2})}{\Pi(M_{B}^{2})}=\frac{\int^{s_{0}}_{s_{<}}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}s\rho(s)ds}{\int^{s_{0}}_{s_{<}}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}\rho(s)ds}\,.$
(29)
In the following, we study both Eqs. (28) and (29) as functions of the
parameters such as the Borel mass $M_{B}$ and the threshold value $s_{0}$ for
various combinations of the tetraquark currents.
We have performed the OPE calculation up to dimension twelve. Here we only
show the results for currents $\eta^{M}_{1}$ and $\eta^{M}_{5}$, which have
quark contents $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ and $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$, respectively. Others
are shown in the Appendix. B.
$\displaystyle\Pi^{M}_{1}(M_{B}^{2})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int^{s_{0}}_{0}\Bigg{[}{1\over 18432\pi^{6}}s^{4}-{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over 18432\pi^{6}}s^{2}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
18\pi^{2}}s+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
12\pi^{2}}\Bigg{]}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}ds$ $\displaystyle+\Big{(}{\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle^{2}\over 48\pi^{2}}-{5\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over 864\pi^{2}}\Big{)}+{1\over
M_{B}^{2}}\Big{(}-{32g_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{4}\over 81}+{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 576\pi^{2}}\Big{)}\,.$ $\displaystyle\Pi^{M}_{5}(M_{B}^{2})$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\int^{s_{0}}_{4m_{s}^{2}}\Bigg{[}{1\over
18432\pi^{6}}s^{4}-{17m_{s}^{2}\over 7680\pi^{6}}s^{3}+\Big{(}-{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over 18432\pi^{6}}-{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\over
96\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
48\pi^{4}}\Big{)}s^{2}+\Big{(}-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
36\pi^{2}}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over 9\pi^{2}}$
$\displaystyle-{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over 36\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 48\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 96\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over
4608\pi^{6}}\Big{)}s-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 24\pi^{2}}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 12\pi^{2}}$ $\displaystyle+{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 12\pi^{2}}-{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 24\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\over
256\pi^{4}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
6\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
2\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
24\pi^{2}}\Bigg{]}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}ds$ $\displaystyle+\Big{(}-{\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle^{2}\over 96\pi^{2}}+{\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 24\pi^{2}}-{\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle^{2}\over 96\pi^{2}}-{5\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
864\pi^{2}}+{2m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
3}+{4m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over 9}$
$\displaystyle+{5m_{s}\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 4608\pi^{4}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
4\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 6\pi^{2}}\Big{)}+{1\over
M_{B}^{2}}\Big{(}-{32g_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
81}$ $\displaystyle+{\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 1152\pi^{2}}+{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 1152\pi^{2}}-{2m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over
9}-{5m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 9}$
$\displaystyle+{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 9}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 9}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle^{2}\over 24\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 24\pi^{2}}\Big{)}\,.$
In the above equations, $\langle\bar{s}s\rangle$ is the dimension $D=3$
strange quark condensate; $\langle g^{2}GG\rangle$ is a $D=4$ gluon
condensate; $\langle g\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle$ is $D=5$ mixed condensate.
There are many terms which give minor contributions, such as $\langle
g^{3}G^{3}\rangle$, and we omit them. As usual, we assume the vacuum
saturation for higher dimensional condensates such as $\langle
0|\bar{q}q\bar{q}q|0\rangle\sim\langle 0|\bar{q}q|0\rangle\langle
0|\bar{q}q|0\rangle$. To obtain these results, we keep the terms of order
$O(m_{q}^{2})$ in the propagators of a massive quark in the presence of quark
and gluon condensates:
$\displaystyle iS^{ab}$ $\displaystyle\equiv$ $\displaystyle\langle
0|T[q^{a}(x)q^{b}(0)]|0\rangle$ (32) $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{i\delta^{ab}\over 2\pi^{2}x^{4}}\hat{x}+{i\over
32\pi^{2}}{\lambda^{n}_{ab}\over 2}g_{c}G^{n}_{\mu\nu}{1\over
x^{2}}(\sigma^{\mu\nu}\hat{x}+\hat{x}\sigma^{\mu\nu})-{\delta^{ab}\over
12}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle$ $\displaystyle+{\delta^{ab}x^{2}\over 192}\langle
g_{c}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle-{m_{q}\delta^{ab}\over
4\pi^{2}x^{2}}+{i\delta^{ab}m_{q}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\over
48}\hat{x}+{i\delta^{ab}m_{q}^{2}\over 8\pi^{2}x^{2}}\hat{x}\,.$
## IV Numerical Analysis
In our numerical analysis, we use the following values for various condensates
and $m_{s}$ at 1 GeV and $\alpha_{s}$ at 1.7 GeV Yang:1993bp ; Narison:2002pw
; Gimenez:2005nt ; Jamin:2002ev ; Ioffe:2002be ; Ovchinnikov:1988gk ;
Yao:2006px :
$\displaystyle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle=-(0.240\mbox{ GeV})^{3}\,,$
$\displaystyle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle=-(0.8\pm 0.1)\times(0.240\mbox{
GeV})^{3}\,,$ $\displaystyle\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle=(0.48\pm 0.14)\mbox{
GeV}^{4}\,,$ $\displaystyle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle=-M_{0}^{2}\times\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\,,$ (33) $\displaystyle
M_{0}^{2}=(0.8\pm 0.2)\mbox{ GeV}^{2}\,,$ $\displaystyle m_{s}(1\mbox{
GeV})=125\pm 20\mbox{ MeV}\,,$
$\displaystyle\alpha_{s}(1.7\mbox{GeV})=0.328\pm 0.03\pm 0.025\,.$
There is a minus sign in the definition of the mixed condensate $\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle$, which is different from that used in some other
QCD sum rule studies. This difference just comes from the definition of
coupling constant $g_{s}$ Yang:1993bp ; Hwang:1994vp .
For the currents which belong to the flavor representation
$\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}$ ($\mathbf{S}$) and
$\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}$ ($\mathbf{A}$), the spectral
densities turn out to be negative in the energy region $1$ GeV $\sim$ $2$ GeV
as shown in Fig. 2. The spectral densities of these currents become positive
in the region $s>4$ GeV2. They may couple to the state $\pi_{1}(2015)$.
However, after performing the sum rule calculation, we find that the mass
obtained from the currents $\eta^{A}_{i\mu}$ and $\eta^{S}_{i\mu}$ is larger
than 2.5 GeV, for instance, we show the mass calculated from the current
$\eta^{A}_{1\mu}$ in Fig. 4. The curves are obtained by setting $M_{B}^{2}=2$
GeV2 (solid line), 3 GeV2 (short-dashed line) and 4 GeV2 (long-dashed line).
The left curves (disconnected from the right part) are obtained from a
negative Borel transformed correlation function, and have no physical meaning.
Therefore, our QCD sum rule analysis does not support $\pi_{1}(1400)$,
$\pi_{1}(1600)$ and $\pi_{1}(2015)$ as tetraquark states with a flavor
structure either $\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}$ or
$\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}$.
Figure 2: Spectral densities for the current $\eta^{A}_{1\mu}$,
$\eta^{A}_{2\mu}$ (solid lines), $\eta^{S}_{1\mu}$, $\eta^{S}_{2\mu}$ (short-
dashed lines), $\eta^{S}_{3\mu}$ and $\eta^{S}_{4\mu}$ (long-dashed lines).
The labels besides the lines indicate the flavor symmetry ($S$ or $A$) and
suffix i of the current $\eta^{S,A}_{i\mu}$ ($i=1,2,3,4$).
Figure 3: Spectral densities for the current $\eta^{M}_{i\mu}$. The spectral
densities for the currents with the quark contents $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ are
shown in the left hand side, and those with the quark contents
$qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$ are shown in the right hand side. The labels besides the
lines indicate the suffix i of the current $\eta^{M}_{i\mu}$ ($i=1,\cdots,8$).
Figure 4: The mass calculated by using the current $\eta^{A}_{1\mu}$, as
functions of $s_{0}$ in units of GeV. The curves are obtained by setting
$M_{B}^{2}=2$ GeV2 (solid line), 3 GeV2 (short-dashed line) and 4 GeV2 (long-
dashed line). The left curves (disconnected from the right part) are obtained
from a negative correlation function, and have no physical meaning.
When using the currents $\eta^{M}_{i\mu}$, the spectral densities are positive
as shown in Fig. 3. And so we shall use these currents to perform a QCD sum
rule analysis. First we need to study the convergence of the OPE. The Borel
transformed correlation function of the current $\eta^{M}_{5\mu}$ is shown in
Fig. 5, when we take $s_{0}=4$ GeV2. Besides the first term, which is the
continuum piece, the D=6 and D=8 terms give large contributions. The D=6 terms
contain $\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}$ and the D=8 terms contain
$\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{c}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle$, which are the
important condensates. We find that the convergence is very good in the region
of $2$ GeV${}^{2}<M_{B}^{2}<$ 5GeV2. Therefore, in this region, OPEs are
reliable.
Figure 5: Various contribution to the correlation function for the current
$\eta^{M}_{5\mu}$ as functions of the Borel mass $M_{B}$ in units of
GeV${}^{1}0$ at $s_{0}$ = 4 GeV2. The labels indicate the dimension up to
which the OPE terms are included.
The mass is calculated by using Eq. (29), and results are obtained as
functions of Borel mass $M_{B}$ and threshold value $s_{0}$. In Figs. 6, 7, 8
and 9, we show the mass calculated from currents $\eta^{M}_{1\mu}$,
$\eta^{M}_{2\mu}$, $\eta^{M}_{3\mu}$ and $\eta^{M}_{4\mu}$, whose quark
contents are $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$. Although these four independent currents look
much different, we find that they give a similar result. From figures at LHS,
we find that the dependence on Borel mass is weak. From figures at RHS where
the mass is shown as functions of $s_{0}$, we find that there is a mass
minimum for all curves where the stability is the best. It is 1.7 GeV, 1.6
GeV, 1.6 GeV and 1.7 GeV for four independent currents, respectively. We find
that sometimes the threshold values become smaller than the mass obtained in
the mass minimum region. This is due to the negative part of the spectral
densities. We also met this in the study of $Y(2175)$. See Ref Chen:2008ej
for details.
Figure 6: The mass of the state $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ calculated by using the
current $\eta^{M}_{1\mu}$, as functions of $M_{B}^{2}$ (Left) and $s_{0}$
(Right) in units of GeV.
Figure 7: The mass of the state $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ calculated by using the
current $\eta^{M}_{2\mu}$, as functions of $M_{B}^{2}$ (Left) and $s_{0}$
(Right) in units of GeV.
Figure 8: The mass of the state $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ calculated by using the
current $\eta^{M}_{3\mu}$, as functions of $M_{B}^{2}$ (Left) and $s_{0}$
(Right) in units of GeV.
Figure 9: The mass of the state $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ calculated by using the
current $\eta^{M}_{4\mu}$, as functions of $M_{B}^{2}$ (Left) and $s_{0}$
(Right) in units of GeV.
In Figs. 10, 11, 12 and 13, we show the mass calculated from currents
$\eta^{M}_{5\mu}$, $\eta^{M}_{6\mu}$, $\eta^{M}_{7\mu}$ and $\eta^{M}_{8\mu}$,
whose quark contents are $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$. The results are similar as
previous four currents. But now the mass obtained is about 0.4 GeV larger than
the previous ones. The minimum occurs at 2.1 GeV, 2.0 GeV, 1.9 GeV and 2.0
GeV, respectively.
Figure 10: The mass of the state $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$ calculated by using the
current $\eta^{M}_{5\mu}$, as functions of $M_{B}^{2}$ (Left) and $s_{0}$
(Right) in units of GeV.
Figure 11: The mass of the state $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$ calculated by using the
current $\eta^{M}_{6\mu}$, as functions of $M_{B}^{2}$ (Left) and $s_{0}$
(Right) in units of GeV.
Figure 12: The mass of the state $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$ calculated by using the
current $\eta^{M}_{7\mu}$, as functions of $M_{B}^{2}$ (Left) and $s_{0}$
(Right) in units of GeV.
Figure 13: The mass of the state $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$ calculated by using the
current $\eta^{M}_{8\mu}$, as functions of $M_{B}^{2}$ (Left) and $s_{0}$
(Right) in units of GeV.
In a short summary, we have performed a QCD sum rule analysis for
$qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ and $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$. The mass obtained is around 1.6 GeV
and 2.0 GeV, respectively. There are four independent currents for each case,
which give a similar results. Their mixing would lead to a similar result,
too. Compared with the experimental data, they can be used to interpret the
states $\pi_{1}(1600)$ and $\pi_{1}(2015)$ of $I^{G}J^{PC}=1^{-}1^{-+}$. These
analyses are very similar to our previous paper Chen:2008ej , where we studied
the state $Y(2175)$ by using vector tetraquark currents which have quantum
numbers $J^{PC}=1^{--}$ and quark contents $ss\bar{s}\bar{s}$.
The pole contribution
${\int^{s_{0}}_{s_{<}}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}\rho(s)ds\over\int^{\infty}_{s_{<}}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}\rho(s)ds}$
(34)
is not large enough for all currents due to the high dimension nature of
tetraquark currents. Another reason is that these currents have a large
coupling to the continuum, which is difficult to be removed. Therefore, we
arrive at a stable mass, but with a small pole. To make our analysis more
reliable, we go on to use the finite energy sum rule.
## V Finite Energy Sum Rule
In this section, we use the method of finite energy sum rule (FESR). In order
to calculate the mass in the FESR, we first define the $n$th moment by using
the spectral function $\rho(s)$ in Eq. (26)
$W(n,s_{0})=\int^{s_{0}}_{0}\rho(s)s^{n}ds\,.$ (35)
This integral is used for the phenomenological side, while the integral along
the circular contour of radius $s_{0}$ on the $q^{2}$ complex plain should be
performed for the theoretical side.
With the assumption of quark-hadron duality, we obtain
$W(n,s_{0})\Big{|}_{Hadron}=W(n,s_{0})\Big{|}_{OPE}\,.$ (36)
The mass of the ground state can be obtained as
$M^{2}_{Y}(n,s_{0})={W(n+1,s_{0})\over W(n,s_{0})}\,.$ (37)
The spectral functions $\rho^{M}_{i}(s)$ can be drawn from the Borel
transformed correlation functions shown in section III. The d = 12 terms which
are proportional to $1/(q^{2})^{2}$ do not contribute to the function
$W(n,s_{0})$ of Eq. (35) for $n=0$, or they have a very small contribution for
$n=1$, when the theoretical side is computed by the integral over the circle
of radius $s_{0}$ on the complex $q^{2}$ plain.
The mass is shown as a function of the threshold value $s_{0}$ in Fig. 14,
where $n$ is chosen to be 1. We find that there is a mass minimum. It is
around 1.6 GeV for currents $\eta^{M}_{1}$, $\eta^{M}_{2}$, $\eta^{M}_{3}$ and
$\eta^{M}_{4}$, whose quark contents are $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$, while it is
around 2.0 GeV for currents $\eta^{M}_{5}$, $\eta^{M}_{6}$, $\eta^{M}_{7}$ and
$\eta^{M}_{8}$, whose quark contents are $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$. Here we again
find that the threshold values become smaller than the mass obtained in the
mass minimum region. See Ref Chen:2008ej for details. In a short summary, we
arrive at the same results as the previous SVZ QCD sum rule.
Figure 14: The mass calculated using the finite energy sum rule. The mass for
the currents $\eta^{M}_{1\mu}$, $\eta^{M}_{2\mu}$, $\eta^{M}_{3\mu}$ and
$\eta^{M}_{4\mu}$ is shown in the left hand side, and The mass for the
currents $\eta^{M}_{5\mu}$, $\eta^{M}_{6\mu}$, $\eta^{M}_{7\mu}$ and
$\eta^{M}_{8\mu}$ are shown in the right hand side. The labels besides the
lines indicate the suffix i of the current $\eta^{M}_{i\mu}$ ($i=1,\cdots,8$).
## VI Decay Patterns of the $1^{-+}$ Tetraquark States
In this paper, we have verified that $(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$ construction and
$(\bar{q}q)(\bar{q}q)$ construction are equivalent (see Appendix A), and from
the second one we can obtain some decay information. The four independent
$(\bar{q}q)(\bar{q}q)$ currents $\xi^{M}_{i\mu}$ lead to the same mass, and
therefore, we shall study the decay patterns from all these currents. We can
obtain the $S$-wave decay patterns straightforwardly:
1. 1.
The current $\xi^{M}_{1\mu}$ naively falls apart to one scalar meson and one
vector meson:
$\displaystyle\xi^{M}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\pi_{1}(1600)\rightarrow
0^{+}\left(\sigma(600),f_{0}(980)\cdots\right)+1^{-}\left(\rho(770),\omega(782)\cdots\right)\,,$
$\displaystyle\pi_{1}(2000)\rightarrow
0^{+}\left(\sigma(600),\kappa(800)\cdots\right)+1^{-}\left(\rho(770),K^{*}(892)\cdots\right)\,.$
2. 2.
The current $\xi^{M}_{2\mu}$ naively falls apart to one axial-vector meson and
one pseudoscalar meson:
$\displaystyle\xi^{M}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\pi_{1}(1600)\rightarrow
1^{+}\left(a_{1}(1260),b_{1}(1235)\cdots\right)+0^{-}\left(\pi(135)\cdots\right)\,,$
$\displaystyle\pi_{1}(2000)\rightarrow
1^{+}\left(a_{1}(1260),K_{1}(1270),\cdots\right)+0^{-}\left(\pi(135),K(498)\cdots\right)\,.$
3. 3.
The current $\xi^{M}_{3\mu}$ naively falls apart to one vector meson and one
axial-vector meson:
$\displaystyle\xi^{M}_{3\mu}$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\pi_{1}(1600)\rightarrow
1^{-}\left(\rho(770),\omega(782)\cdots\right)+1^{+}\left(a_{1}(1260),b_{1}(1235)\cdots\right)\,,$
$\displaystyle\pi_{1}(2000)\rightarrow
1^{-}\left(\rho(770),K^{*}(892)\cdots\right)+1^{+}\left(a_{1}(1260),K_{1}(1270)\cdots\right)\,.$
4. 4.
The current $\xi^{M}_{4\mu}$ naively falls apart to one axial-vector meson and
one vector meson:
$\displaystyle\xi^{M}_{4\mu}$ $\displaystyle:$
$\displaystyle\pi_{1}(1600)\rightarrow
1^{+}\left(a_{1}(1260),b_{1}(1235)\cdots\right)+1^{-}\left(\rho(770),\omega(782)\cdots\right)\,,$
$\displaystyle\pi_{1}(2000)\rightarrow
1^{+}\left(a_{1}(1260),K_{1}(1270)\cdots\right)+1^{-}\left(\rho(770),K^{*}(892)\cdots\right)\,.$
$\pi_{1}(2000)$ contains one $\bar{s}s$ pair, so its final states should also
contain one $\bar{s}s$ pair, and its decay patterns are more complicated than
$\pi_{1}(1600)$. We see that the decay modes (3) and (4) are kinematically
forbidden (or strongly suppressed) due to energy conservation. The decay modes
(1) are difficult to be observed in the experiments due to the large decay
width of scalar mesons ($\sigma$ and $\kappa$). Moreover, the scalar mesons
below 1 GeV are sometimes interpreted as tetraquark states, and if so, these
decay modes should be suppressed due to the extra $\bar{q}q$ pair Chen:2007xr
. Therefore, the decay modes (2) are preferred. The $\pi_{1}$ meson first
decays to one axial-vector meson and one pseudoscalar meson. Then the axial-
vector meson decays into two or more pseudoscalar mesons. However, the second
step is a $P$-wave decay. Considering the conservation of $G$ parity, the
decay mode $a_{1}(1260)\pi$ is forbidden. One possible decay pattern is that
$\pi_{1}(1600)$ first decays to $b_{1}(1235)\pi$, and then decays to
$\omega\pi\pi$.
We can also check the $P$-wave decay patterns besides $S$-wave decay patterns.
We find that the current $\xi^{M}_{2\mu}$ leads to a decay mode of two
$P$-wave pseudoscalar mesons by naively relating
$\bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q$ and $\partial_{\mu}\pi$
$\displaystyle\pi_{1}(1600)$ $\displaystyle\rightarrow$ $\displaystyle
0^{-}\left(\pi,\eta,\eta^{\prime}\cdots\right)+0^{-}\left(\pi,\eta,\eta^{\prime}\cdots\right)\,,$
(42) $\displaystyle\pi_{1}(2000)$ $\displaystyle\rightarrow$ $\displaystyle
0^{-}\left(\pi,\eta,\eta^{\prime}\cdots\right)+0^{-}\left(\pi,\eta,\eta^{\prime}\cdots\right)\,.$
Considering the conservation of $G$ parity, decay modes $\pi\pi$ and
$\eta\eta$ etc. are forbidden, and possible decay modes are $\pi\eta$ and
$\pi\eta^{\prime}$ etc. Summarizing the decay patterns, there are two possible
decay modes: $P$-wave many body decay, such as $\omega\pi\pi$, and $P$-wave
two body decay, such as $\pi\eta$ and $\pi\eta^{\prime}$. This is partly
consistent with the experiments which observe $\pi_{1}(1600)$ and
$\pi_{1}(2015)$ in the decay modes $\pi\eta^{\prime}$, $\omega\pi\pi$ and
$\eta\pi\pi\pi$. However, the experiment has not observe them in the final
state $\pi\eta$. Certainly it is desired to study these decay patterns to
obtain more information on the structure of the $\pi_{1}$s mesons.
## VII Summary
In this paper we have performed the QCD sum rule analysis of the exotic
tetraquark states with $I^{G}J^{PC}=1^{-}1^{-+}$. The tetraquark currents have
rich internal structure. There are several independent currents for a given
set of quantum numbers. We have classified the complete set of independent
currents and constructed the currents in the form of either
$(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$ or $(\bar{q}q)(\bar{q}q)$. As expected, they are shown
to be equivalent by having the complete set of independent currents.
Physically, this seems to make it difficult to draw interpretation of the
internal structure such as diquark ($qq$) dominated or meson
($\bar{q}\bar{q}$) dominated ones. Using the complete set of the currents, one
can perform an optimal analysis of the QCD sum rule.
Somewhat complicated feature arises from the flavor structure. We have tested
all possibilities for the isovector $I=1$ states. In the $SU(3)$ limit, there
are three cases of, in the diquark $(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$ construction,
$\mathbf{6}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}}$, $\mathbf{\bar{3}}\otimes\mathbf{3}$ and
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}})\oplus(\mathbf{6}\otimes\mathbf{3})$.
We find that the former two cases can not result in meaningful sum rule since
the spectral functions become negative. On the other hand, the mixed case
$(\mathbf{\bar{3}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}})\oplus(\mathbf{6}\otimes\mathbf{3})$
allows positive OPE with which we can perform the QCD sum rule analysis.
Actual currents have been constructed in the limit of the ideal mixing where
the currents are classified by the number of the strange quarks. Hence the
quark contents are either $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$ or $qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$.
We have then performed the SVZ and finite energy sum rules. The resulting
masses are around 1.6 GeV for $qq\bar{q}\bar{q}$, and around 2.0 GeV for
$qs\bar{q}\bar{s}$. The four independent currents lead to the same mass and
couple to a single state as shown above. Hence one of our main conclusions is
that the higher energy states $\pi_{1}(1600)$ and $\pi_{1}(2015)$ are well
compatible with the tetraquark picture in the present QCD sum rule analysis.
On the other hand, any combination of the independent currents does not seem
to couple sufficiently to the lower mass state $\pi_{1}(1400)$, which was,
however, described as a hybrid state by K. C. Yang in Ref. Yang:2007cc . He
obtained a low mass around 1.26 GeV by using the renormalization-improved QCD
sum rules. The $\pi_{1}(1400)$ state seems somewhat special, as the
experiments show the similarity between $\pi_{1}(1600)$ and $\pi_{1}(2015)$ as
well as the difference between $\pi_{1}(1400)$ and the above two states, which
we have discussed in the introduction.
We have also studied their decay patterns and found that these states can be
searched for in the decay mode of the axial-vector and pseudoscalar meson pair
such as $b_{1}(1235)\pi$, which is sometimes considered as the characteristic
decay mode of the hybrid mesons. The P-wave modes $\pi\eta,\pi\eta^{\prime}$
are also quite important.
It is also interesting to study the partners of $\pi_{1}$s. Especially, we can
study the one with quark contents $ud\bar{s}\bar{s}$, which is at the top of
the flavor representation $\mathbf{\bar{10}}$ (see Fig. 1). It has a mass
around 2.0 GeV, and the decay modes are $K^{+}(\bar{s}u)K^{0}(\bar{s}d)$
($P$-wave) and $KKK$ ($P$-wave) etc. BESIII will start taking data very soon.
The search/identification of exotic mesons is one of its important physical
goals. Hopefully the dedicated experimental programs on the exotic mesons at
BESIII and JLAB in the coming years will shed light on their existence, and
then their internal structure. More work on theoretical side is also needed.
We will go on to study other tetraquark candidates.
## Acknowledgments
H.X.C. is grateful for Monkasho support for his stay at the Research Center
for Nuclear Physics where this work is done. This project was supported by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grants 10625521, 10721063,
the Ministry of Education of China, and the Grant for Scientific Research ((C)
No.19540297) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Science and Technology,
Japan.
## Appendix A $(\bar{q}q)(\bar{q}q)$ Currents
In this appendix, we attempt to construct the tetraquark currents using quark-
antiquark ($\bar{q}q$) pairs. For each state containing diquark and
antidiquark having the symmetric flavor $\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{6_{f}}$,
there are four $(\bar{q}q)(\bar{q}q)$ currents:
$\displaystyle\xi^{S}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})\,,$
$\displaystyle\xi^{S}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma^{\nu}q_{2b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{1b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma^{\nu}q_{1b})\,,$
$\displaystyle\xi^{S}_{3\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{\lambda_{ab}}{\lambda_{cd}}\\{(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma_{5}q_{2d})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2d})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma_{5}q_{1d})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{1d})\\}\,,$
$\displaystyle\xi^{S}_{4\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{\lambda_{ab}}{\lambda_{cd}}\\{(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}q_{1b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2d})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{1b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma^{\nu}q_{2d})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}q_{2b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{1d})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma^{\nu}q_{1d})\\}\,.$
Among these currents, only two are independent. We can verify the following
relations
$\displaystyle\xi^{S}_{3\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\frac{5}{3}\xi^{S}_{1\mu}-i\xi^{S}_{2\mu}\,,$
$\displaystyle\xi^{S}_{4\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
3i\xi^{S}_{1\mu}+\frac{1}{3}\xi^{S}_{2\mu}\,.$
Moreover, they are equivalent to the $(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$ currents
$\displaystyle\psi^{S}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\xi^{S}_{1\mu}+\frac{i}{2}\xi^{S}_{2\mu}\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{S}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\frac{3i}{2}\xi^{S}_{1\mu}+\frac{1}{2}\xi^{S}_{2\mu}\,.$
For each state containing diquark and antidiquark having the antisymmetric
flavor $\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}$, there are also four
$(\bar{q}q)(\bar{q}q)$ currents which are non-zero:
$\displaystyle\xi^{A}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})\,,$
$\displaystyle\xi^{A}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma^{\nu}q_{2b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{1b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma^{\nu}q_{1b})\,,$
$\displaystyle\xi^{A}_{3\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{\lambda_{ab}}{\lambda_{cd}}\\{(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma_{5}q_{2d})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2d})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma_{5}q_{1d})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{1d})\\}\,,$
$\displaystyle\xi^{A}_{4\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle{\lambda_{ab}}{\lambda_{cd}}\\{(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}q_{1b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2d})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{1b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma^{\nu}q_{2d})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}q_{2b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{1d})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2b})(\bar{q}_{4c}\gamma^{\nu}q_{1d})\\}\,,$
where two are independent
$\displaystyle\xi^{A}_{3\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{3}\xi^{A}_{1\mu}+i\xi^{A}_{2\mu}\,,$
$\displaystyle\xi^{A}_{4\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-3i\xi^{A}_{1\mu}-\frac{5}{3}\xi^{A}_{2\mu}\,.$
They are equivalent to the $(qq)(\bar{q}\bar{q})$ currents
$\displaystyle\psi^{A}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2}\xi^{A}_{1\mu}+\frac{i}{2}\xi^{A}_{2\mu}\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{A}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\frac{3i}{2}\xi^{A}_{1\mu}+\frac{1}{2}\xi^{A}_{2\mu}\,.$
For the currents which have a mixed flavor symmetry, we just show the
$(\bar{q}q)(\bar{q}q)$ currents which belong to the flavor representation
$\mathbf{\bar{3}_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{\bar{6}_{f}}$.
$\displaystyle\xi^{ML}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\bar{q}_{3a}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{\mu}q_{2b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}q_{2b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{\mu}q_{1b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{\mu}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}q_{1b})\,,$
$\displaystyle\xi^{ML}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma_{5}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma^{\mu}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})\,,$
$\displaystyle\xi^{ML}_{3\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma^{\nu}q_{2b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{1b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma^{\nu}q_{1b})\,,$
$\displaystyle\xi^{ML}_{4\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{1a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{2b})-(\bar{q}_{3a}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})+(\bar{q}_{3a}\sigma_{\mu\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{2a})(\bar{q}_{4b}\gamma^{\nu}\gamma_{5}q_{1b})\,.$
There are also four currents which have a color
$\mathbf{8_{c}}\otimes\mathbf{8_{c}}$ structure, and they can be written as a
combination of these color $\mathbf{1_{c}}\otimes\mathbf{1_{c}}$ currents. The
relations between $\phi^{ML}_{i\mu}$ and $\xi^{ML}_{i\mu}$ are:
$\displaystyle\psi^{ML}_{1\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{4}\xi^{ML}_{1\mu}+\frac{1}{4}\xi^{ML}_{2\mu}+\frac{i}{4}\xi^{ML}_{3\mu}-\frac{i}{4}\xi^{ML}_{4\mu}\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{ML}_{2\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{3i}{4}\xi^{ML}_{1\mu}+\frac{3i}{4}\xi^{ML}_{2\mu}+\frac{1}{4}\xi^{ML}_{3\mu}+\frac{1}{4}\xi^{ML}_{4\mu}\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{ML}_{3\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{1}{4}\xi^{ML}_{1\mu}+\frac{1}{4}\xi^{ML}_{2\mu}+\frac{i}{4}\xi^{ML}_{3\mu}+\frac{i}{4}\xi^{ML}_{4\mu}\,,$
$\displaystyle\psi^{ML}_{4\mu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\frac{3i}{4}\xi^{ML}_{1\mu}+\frac{3i}{4}\xi^{ML}_{2\mu}+\frac{1}{4}\xi^{ML}_{3\mu}-\frac{1}{4}\xi^{ML}_{4\mu}\,.$
We can obtain similar results for $\xi^{MR}_{i\mu}$, which belong to the
flavor representation $\mathbf{6_{f}}\otimes\mathbf{3_{f}}$ can be obtained
similarly, and the currents with $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ are
$\displaystyle\xi^{M}_{i\mu}=\xi^{ML}_{i\mu}+\xi^{MR}_{i\mu}\,.$ (43)
## Appendix B Two-point Correlation Functions
In this appendix we show the results for the Borel transformed correlation
functions as defined in Eq. (27). Results for the currents $\eta^{A}_{1}$,
$\eta^{M}_{2}$, $\eta^{M}_{3}$, $\eta^{M}_{4}$, $\eta^{M}_{6}$, $\eta^{M}_{7}$
and $\eta^{M}_{8}$ are indicated by the same upper and lower indices.
$\displaystyle\Pi^{A}_{1}(M_{B}^{2})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int^{s_{0}}_{s_{<}}\Bigg{[}{1\over
36848\pi^{6}}s^{4}-{17m_{s}^{2}\over 15360\pi^{6}}s^{3}+\Big{(}{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over 18432\pi^{6}}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\over
192\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
96\pi^{4}}\Big{)}s^{2}+\Big{(}-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
72\pi^{2}}-{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over 72\pi^{2}}$
$\displaystyle-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
18\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
96\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over
192\pi^{4}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over
4608\pi^{6}}\Big{)}s-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 48\pi^{2}}-{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 48\pi^{2}}$ $\displaystyle-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 24\pi^{2}}-{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 24\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\over
256\pi^{4}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
12\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
48\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
4\pi^{2}}\Bigg{]}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}ds$ $\displaystyle+\Big{(}-{\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle^{2}\over 192\pi^{2}}-{\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle^{2}\over 192\pi^{2}}-{\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 48\pi^{2}}-{5\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
864\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over 3}$
$\displaystyle-{2m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
9}+{5m_{s}\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
4608\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 12\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 8\pi^{2}}\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+{1\over
M_{B}^{2}}\Big{(}-{16g_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
81}+{\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 1152\pi^{2}}+{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 1152\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 9}$
$\displaystyle-{m_{s}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 18}-{5m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
18}-{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 18}$ $\displaystyle+{m_{s}^{2}\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle^{2}\over 48\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over
48\pi^{2}}\Big{)}\,.$
$\displaystyle\Pi^{M}_{2}(M_{B}^{2})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int^{s_{0}}_{0}\Bigg{[}{1\over 6144\pi^{6}}s^{4}+{11\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over 18432\pi^{6}}s^{2}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
6\pi^{2}}s+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
4\pi^{2}}\Bigg{]}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}ds$ $\displaystyle+\Big{(}{\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle^{2}\over 16\pi^{2}}+{5\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over 864\pi^{2}}\Big{)}+{1\over
M_{B}^{2}}\Big{(}-{32g_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{4}\over 27}-{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 576\pi^{2}}\Big{)}\,.$ $\displaystyle\Pi^{M}_{3}(M_{B}^{2})$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\int^{s_{0}}_{0}\Bigg{[}{1\over
36864\pi^{6}}s^{4}+{\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over
18432\pi^{6}}s^{2}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
36\pi^{2}}s+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
24\pi^{2}}\Bigg{]}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}ds$ $\displaystyle+\Big{(}{\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle^{2}\over 96\pi^{2}}+{5\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over 864\pi^{2}}\Big{)}+{1\over
M_{B}^{2}}\Big{(}-{16g_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{4}\over 81}-{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 576\pi^{2}}\Big{)}\,.$ $\displaystyle\Pi^{M}_{4}(M_{B}^{2})$
$\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle\int^{s_{0}}_{0}\Bigg{[}{1\over
12288\pi^{6}}s^{4}+{\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over
18432\pi^{6}}s^{2}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
12\pi^{2}}s+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
8\pi^{2}}\Bigg{]}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}ds$ $\displaystyle+\Big{(}{\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle^{2}\over 32\pi^{2}}-{5\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over 864\pi^{2}}\Big{)}+{1\over
M_{B}^{2}}\Big{(}-{16g_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{4}\over 27}+{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 576\pi^{2}}\Big{)}\,.$
$\displaystyle\Pi^{M}_{6}(M_{B}^{2})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int^{s_{0}}_{4m_{s}^{2}}\Bigg{[}{1\over
6144\pi^{6}}s^{4}-{17m_{s}^{2}\over 2560\pi^{6}}s^{3}+\Big{(}{11\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over 18432\pi^{6}}-{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\over
32\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
16\pi^{4}}\Big{)}s^{2}+\Big{(}-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
12\pi^{2}}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over 3\pi^{2}}$
$\displaystyle-{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over 12\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 16\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 32\pi^{4}}-{109m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over
18432\pi^{6}}\Big{)}s-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 8\pi^{2}}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 4\pi^{2}}$ $\displaystyle+{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 4\pi^{2}}-{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 8\pi^{2}}-{3m_{s}\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\over 128\pi^{4}}+{5m_{s}\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
256\pi^{4}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
2\pi^{2}}-{3m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
2\pi^{2}}$ $\displaystyle+{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
8\pi^{2}}\Bigg{]}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}ds+\Big{(}-{\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle^{2}\over 32\pi^{2}}+{\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 8\pi^{2}}-{\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle^{2}\over 32\pi^{2}}-{25\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over 1728\pi^{2}}$
$\displaystyle+{5\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
144\pi^{2}}-{25\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
1728\pi^{2}}-{5m_{s}\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 768\pi^{4}}+{25m_{s}\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 4608\pi^{4}}$
$\displaystyle+2m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle+{4m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
3}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over
2\pi^{2}}-{3m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 4\pi^{2}}\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+{1\over
M_{B}^{2}}\Big{(}-{32g_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
27}+{5\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 1152\pi^{2}}-{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 192\pi^{2}}-{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 192\pi^{2}}$ $\displaystyle+{5\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 1152\pi^{2}}-{2m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over
3}-{5m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
3}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 3}$
$\displaystyle+{m_{s}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 3}-{5m_{s}^{2}\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
1152\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle^{2}\over
8\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 8\pi^{2}}\Big{)}\,.$
$\displaystyle\Pi^{M}_{7}(M_{B}^{2})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int^{s_{0}}_{4m_{s}^{2}}\Bigg{[}{1\over
36864\pi^{6}}s^{4}-{17m_{s}^{2}\over 15360\pi^{6}}s^{3}+\Big{(}{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over 18432\pi^{6}}-{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\over
192\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
96\pi^{4}}\Big{)}s^{2}+\Big{(}-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
72\pi^{2}}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over 18\pi^{2}}$
$\displaystyle-{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over 72\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 96\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 192\pi^{4}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over
4608\pi^{6}}\Big{)}s-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 48\pi^{2}}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 24\pi^{2}}$ $\displaystyle+{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 24\pi^{2}}-{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 48\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\over
256\pi^{4}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
12\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
4\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
48\pi^{2}}\Bigg{]}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}ds$ $\displaystyle+\Big{(}-{\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle^{2}\over 192\pi^{2}}+{\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 48\pi^{2}}-{\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle^{2}\over 192\pi^{2}}+{5\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
864\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over 3}$
$\displaystyle+{2m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
9}-{5m_{s}\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
4608\pi^{4}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 8\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 12\pi^{2}}\Big{)}+{1\over
M_{B}^{2}}\Big{(}-{16g_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
81}$ $\displaystyle-{\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 1152\pi^{2}}-{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 1152\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over
9}-{5m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 18}$
$\displaystyle+{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 18}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 18}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle^{2}\over 48\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 48\pi^{2}}\Big{)}\,.$
$\displaystyle\Pi^{M}_{8}(M_{B}^{2})$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\int^{s_{0}}_{4m_{s}^{2}}\Bigg{[}{1\over
12288\pi^{6}}s^{4}-{17m_{s}^{2}\over 5120\pi^{6}}s^{3}+\Big{(}{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over 18432\pi^{6}}-{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\over
64\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
32\pi^{4}}\Big{)}s^{2}+\Big{(}-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
24\pi^{2}}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over 6\pi^{2}}$
$\displaystyle-{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over 24\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 32\pi^{4}}+{m_{s}\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 64\pi^{4}}-{17m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\over
18432\pi^{6}}\Big{)}s-{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\over 16\pi^{2}}+{\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 8\pi^{2}}$ $\displaystyle+{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 8\pi^{2}}-{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 16\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
256\pi^{4}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over
4\pi^{2}}-{3m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\over
4\pi^{2}}+{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
16\pi^{2}}\Bigg{]}e^{-s/M_{B}^{2}}ds$ $\displaystyle+\Big{(}-{\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle^{2}\over 64\pi^{2}}+{\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma
Gq\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 16\pi^{2}}-{\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle^{2}\over 64\pi^{2}}-{5\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\over 1728\pi^{2}}-{5\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over 1728\pi^{2}}$
$\displaystyle+{5m_{s}\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over
4608\pi^{4}}+m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle+{2m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s^{2}\rangle\over
3}-{3m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
8\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 4\pi^{2}}\Big{)}$ $\displaystyle+{1\over
M_{B}^{2}}\Big{(}-{16g_{s}^{2}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over
27}+{\langle g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 1152\pi^{2}}+{\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma
Gs\rangle\over 1152\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle^{2}\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 3}$
$\displaystyle-{5m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over
6}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{q}q\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 6}+{m_{s}\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\langle
g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\over 6}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle
g_{s}^{2}GG\rangle\langle\bar{s}s\rangle^{2}\over 1152\pi^{2}}$
$\displaystyle+{m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle^{2}\over
16\pi^{2}}-{m_{s}^{2}\langle g_{s}\bar{q}\sigma Gq\rangle\langle
g_{s}\bar{s}\sigma Gs\rangle\over 16\pi^{2}}\Big{)}\,.$
## References
* (1) R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 15, 267 (1977); R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 15, 281 (1977).
* (2) E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Phys. Rept. 454, 1 (2007).
* (3) I. V. Anikin, B. Pire and O. V. Teryaev, Phys. Lett. B 626, 86 (2005).
* (4) C. McNeile et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 73, 264 (1999); P. Lacock and K. Schilling [TXL collaboration], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 73, 261 (1999).
* (5) J. N. Hedditch, W. Kamleh, B. G. Lasscock, D. B. Leinweber, A. G. Williams and J. M. Zanotti, Phys. Rev. D 72, 114507 (2005).
* (6) C. Bernard et al., Phys. Rev. D 68, 074505 (2003).
* (7) F. Iddir and L. Semlala, arXiv:0710.5352 [hep-ph].
* (8) N. Isgur and J. E. Paton, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2910 (1985).
* (9) P. R. Page, E. S. Swanson and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D 59, 034016 (1999).
* (10) H. Y. Jin, J. G. Korner and T. G. Steele, Phys. Rev. D 67, 014025 (2003).
* (11) K. G. Chetyrkin and S. Narison, Phys. Lett. B 485, 145 (2000).
* (12) K. C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 76, 094001 (2007).
* (13) W. M. Yao et al. [Particle Data Group], J. Phys. G 33, 1 (2006).
* (14) G. S. Adams et al. [E862 Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 657, 27 (2007).
* (15) A. Abele et al. [Crystal Barrel Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 446, 349 (1999); A. Abele et al. [Crystal Barrel Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 423, 175 (1998).
* (16) D. R. Thompson et al. [E852 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1630 (1997).
* (17) E. I. Ivanov et al. [E852 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3977 (2001).
* (18) M. Lu et al. [E852 Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 032002 (2005).
* (19) J. Kuhn et al. [E852 Collaboration], Phys. Lett. B 595, 109 (2004).
* (20) A. R. Dzierba et al., Phys. Rev. D 73, 072001 (2006).
* (21) M. Nozar et al. [CLAS Collaboration], arXiv:0805.4438 [hep-ex].
* (22) N. Isgur, R. Kokoski and J. E. Paton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 869 (1985); F. E. Close and P. R. Page, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1706 (1995); A. Afanasev and P. R. Page, Phys. Rev. D 57, 6771 (1998); A. P. Szczepaniak and M. Swat, Phys. Lett. B 516, 72 (2001).
* (23) H. X. Chen, A. Hosaka and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 74, 054001 (2006).
* (24) H. X. Chen, A. Hosaka and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 76, 094025 (2007).
* (25) H. X. Chen, X. Liu, A. Hosaka and S. L. Zhu, arXiv:0801.4603 [hep-ph].
* (26) M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B 147, 385 (1979).
* (27) L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept. 127, 1 (1985).
* (28) K. C. Yang, W. Y. P. Hwang, E. M. Henley and L. S. Kisslinger, Phys. Rev. D 47, 3001 (1993).
* (29) S. Narison, Camb. Monogr. Part. Phys. Nucl. Phys. Cosmol. 17, 1 (2002).
* (30) V. Gimenez, V. Lubicz, F. Mescia, V. Porretti and J. Reyes, Eur. Phys. J. C 41, 535 (2005).
* (31) M. Jamin, Phys. Lett. B 538, 71 (2002).
* (32) B. L. Ioffe and K. N. Zyablyuk, Eur. Phys. J. C 27, 229 (2003).
* (33) A. A. Ovchinnikov and A. A. Pivovarov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 48, 721 (1988) [Yad. Fiz. 48, 1135 (1988)].
* (34) W. Y. P. Hwang and K. C. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 49, 460 (1994).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-12T04:44:49 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.222858 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Hua-Xing Chen, Atsushi Hosaka, and Shi-Lin Zhu",
"submitter": "Hua-Xing Chen",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1998"
} |
0806.2082 | # Synchronization and Information Transmission in Spatio-Temporal Networks of
Deformable Units
F. M. Moukam Kakmeni1,2 and M. S. Baptista1,3
###### Abstract
We study the relationship between synchronization and the rate with which
information is exchanged between nodes in a spatio-temporal network that
describes the dynamics of classical particles under a substrate Remoissenet-
Peyrard potential. We also show how phase and complete synchronization can be
detected in this network. The difficulty in detecting phase synchronization in
such a network appears due to the highly non-coherent character of the
particle dynamics which unables a proper definition of the phase dynamics. The
difficulty in detecting complete synchronization appears due to the spatio
character of the potential which results in an asymptotic state highly
dependent on the initial state.
###### pacs:
05.45.-a; 05.45.Gg; 05.45.Pq; 05.45.Xt
## 1\. Introduction
The sine-Gordon potential and similar others have been used to model the
dynamics of many systems in physics, biology and engineering
[?,?,?,?,?,?,?,?]. However, in real physical systems, the shape of the
substrate potential can deviate from the standard one with a direct incidence
on the stability properties of the system. In physical situations, such as
charge-density waves, Josephson junctions, or crystals with dislocations, the
application of the standard sine-Gordon model becomes too restrictive. In
recent years, a number of potentials whose shapes can be turned at wish have
appeared in the literature of nonlinear dynamical systems [?,?,?,?,?,?,?].
These more realistic potentials certainly provide richer insights onto the
physics of reals systems than what is predicted using the conventional, rigid
models such as the sine-Gordon, double-sine-Gordon and $\phi^{4}$ potentials.
In particular, we can expect a more rich and complex synchronization phenomena
in models of nonlinear oscillators involving them.
The purpose of the present paper is to study networks formed by oscillators
under realistic shape deformable potentials. To model the network, we use the
Remoisnet-Payrar potential, which has been extensively used in the literature
to describe the disturbance of the sinusoidal shape of the substrate periodic
potential of the Sine Gordon equation [?,?,?].
We are mainly interested in the complex relationship between synchronization
and transmission of information. By synchronization, we mean complete
synchronization (CS) [?,?,?,?] and chaotic phase synchronization (PS) [?]. The
information point-of-view will be provided by the procedure described by
Baptista et al. in Refs. [?]. As we shall show synchronization and information
are directly related in such an active network. The larger the synchronization
is the larger the rate with which information is exchanged between nodes in
the network, the so called mutual information rate (MIR).
Such relationship can be experimentally explored when one needs to observe how
nodes are attached to each other in a real network. For situations where the
nodes of the network are neither completely synchronous nor phase synchronous,
the MIR provides one the level of connectivity. In addition, the MIR limits
the amount of information that can be retrieved in some point of the network
about an arbitrary external stimulus.
Due to the spatio character of the studied network, both approaches, the ones
in Refs. [?,?,?,?] and the ones in Refs. [?] might face difficulties to be
implemented and this work resolves many of them. In particular, we study
networks which have node trajectories departing from randomly initial
conditions. That creates a situation similar to the one observed in networks
constructed with nodes presenting different parameters, when the methods in
Ref. [?] should be used with precaution.
Note that a quite number of physical objects allowing a model description with
the aid of the sine-Gordon equation are known: arrays of forced damped
pendula, vortices in long Josephson junctions, charge-density waves in quasi-
one-dimensional conductors etc… [?,?]. For real physical systems, the account
of various disturbances and of a more complex character of atomic interactions
breaks the exact integrability of the initial sine-Gordon equation, leaving
the possibility for describing the system dynamics in terms of the same quasi-
particles which now interact with each other.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Sec. 2. we explore the
dynamics of the network in consideration and analyze the effect of the
deformability parameter in the substrate potential on the stability
synchronization of the network. In Sec. 3. we analyze phase synchronization in
such networks, and Sec. 4. is devoted to the study of information transmission
within the nodes of the network. Finally, we present the conclusions in Sec.
5..
## 2\. Synchronization dynamics of the networks
### 2.1 Description of the networks
We first investigate the dynamical properties of a single particle in a
deformable substrate potential. If we define the variable $x$ as the
displacement of the particle in the potential well, then the equation of
motion describing its dynamics reads
$\ddot{x}+\lambda\dot{x}+\omega^{2}\displaystyle\frac{\partial
V(x,r)}{\partial x}=\eta_{0}\cos\Psi t.$ (1)
In this work we consider the following fixed set of parameters
$\lambda=0.01,\omega=1,\eta_{0}=0.19$. The parameters $\Psi$ and $r$ will be
varied.
Recall that $x$ is the coordinate variable which characterizes the behavior of
the particle in the potential well $V(x,r)$. The new issues of our model under
consideration are the following: we apply an AC force
$\eta(t)=\eta_{0}\cos\Psi t$ to the particle and assume also the external
viscous damping with a coefficient $\lambda$. In this work, $V(x,r)$ is a
nonlinear potential with a deformable shape introduced by Remoissenet-Payrard
to study the coherent structure in a network formed by a similar system. There
are many versions of this potential, but we concentrate our analyses on the
most general case defined as [?,?,?,?,?,?,?]
$V(x,r)=(1-r)^{2}\displaystyle\frac{1-\cos x}{1+r^{2}+2r\cos x}$ (2)
Figure 1.: Form of the potential as a function of $r$ and the corresponding
periodic orbits for a free particle ($\eta_{0}$=0 and $\lambda=0$). The
pictures in the left (right) column shows $x$ vs. $V(x,r)$ ($x$ vs.
$\dot{x}$).
where the deformability parameter $r$ fulfills the condition $|r|<1$.
The advantageous feature of this potential can be summarized in the fact that
it reproduces the sine Gordon ($r=0$) while avoiding most of it shortcomings.
A shape of broad wells separated by narrow barriers can be obtained for $r>0$
and for $r<0$, a shape of deep narrow wells separated by broad gently sloping
barriers can be obtained.
Figure 1 shows the form of the potential and the corresponding phase plane as
a function of the parameter $r$, for $r>0$. One can observe that the larger
the parameter $r$ is, the flatter the bottom of the potential.
In real physical systems, such potential can be produced by the interaction of
an adatom with substrate atoms, where the parameter $r$ could account for the
temperature or pressure dependence, or for the geometry of the surface of the
metallic surface. It can be calculated from the first principles as described
in Refs. [?,?,?] (and reference therein). However it is more reliable to
determine the parameter $r$ from experimental data. Estimates for e.g., a H/W
adsystem (hydrogen atoms absorber on a tungsten surface), yield $r\approx-0.3$
[?,?,?]
Figure 2.: Parameter space plot of the frequency $\psi$ and the deformability
parameter $r$. Points represent chaotic behavior (positive KS-entropy and
continuous Fourier spectrum).
Typically, if periodic oscillators are subjected to a periodic force,
different phase-locking phenomena as well as chaos may be observed. And
chaotic oscillators when subject to a periodic force give rise to a series of
bifurcation phenomena.
Figure 2 shows the parameter space diagram of the oscillator in Eq. (1).
Points (blank space) indicate values of the frequency $\Psi$ and the
deformability parameter $r$ for which the oscillator in Eq. (1) is chaotic
(periodic).
The $(r,\Psi)$ space is characterized by the predominance of periodic
solutions. The chaotic solutions appear only for the value of the
deformability parameter approaching the limit $1$. However for high frequency,
the chaotic motion appears earlier, that is at $r\simeq 0.4$. For larger $r$
and $\Psi$ the parameter space presents a complex pattern whose chaotic
regions appear side-by-side with periodic regions. For the specific narrow
band of the frequency $\Psi$ around $0.70$ and $0.75$ a deep band of chaotic
motion can be found for $r$ between $0.1$ and $0.4$. This confirms the chaotic
behavior of deformable models systems as first suggested in references
[?,?,?].
We now consider a network of $N$ dynamical units of oscillators described by
equations (1) and (2). The governing equation for the network is given by:
$\displaystyle\dot{p_{i}}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle n_{i}$ (3)
$\displaystyle\dot{n_{i}}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle-\lambda
n_{i}-\omega^{2}\displaystyle\frac{\partial V(p_{i},r)}{\partial
p_{i}}+\eta_{0}\cos\Psi t$ (5)
$\displaystyle+g_{l}(p_{i+1}-2p_{i}+p_{i-1})\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\textrm{with}\>\>\>\>\>\>i=1,2...,N$
where $V(p_{i},r)$ is given by Eq. (2). The constant parameter $g_{l}$
determines the strength of the coupling and $N$ the number of oscillators
coupled. This equation is known as the Frenkel-Kontorova(FK) model with
harmonic interaction and non-sinusoidal substrate potential. It has been
extensively studied in the research of static characteristics of kinks
(topological solitons) such as the effective mass, shape, and amplitude of the
Peierls potential, the interaction energy of kinks, and the creation energy of
kink-antikink pairs. The applicability of the extended Frenkel-Kontorova model
for describing diffusion characteristics of a quasi-one-dimensional layer
adsorbed on a crystal surface has also been discussed in Ref. [?]. For real
physical systems, the account of various disturbances and of a more complex
character of atomic interactions break the exact integrability of the initial
Sine Gordon equation, leaving the possibility for describing the system
dynamics in terms of the same quasi-particles which interact with each other.
This interaction, which is due to the departure from complete integrability,
results in the following effects. The kolmogorov-Sinai entropy becomes nonzero
and the Fourier spectrum of excited states of the system becomes continuous.
Both characteristics of chaos.
### 2.2 Stability of the synchronization
Our analysis will be limited to networks of identical units. Since the $N$
systems are identical, it exists an exactly synchronized solution of Eq. (3),
and the synchronization manifold is defined by
$\mathcal{M}$=$\\{p_{1}=p_{2}=....=p_{N}=p_{s};n_{1}=n_{2}=....=n_{N}=n_{s}\\}$.
In the study of synchronization, a very relevant problem is to assess the
conditions for the stability of the synchronous behavior for the networks and
for the coupling configuration. The master stability function approach was
originally introduced for arrays of coupled oscillators [?], and it has been
latter extended to the case of complex networks of dynamical systems [?,?]. To
use this, let us consider $N$ coupled dynamical units, each of them giving
rise to the evolution of 2-dimensional vector fields $x_{i}$ ruled by a local
set of ordinary differential equations $\dot{x}_{i}=\textbf{F}(x_{i})$. The
equations of motion using the new variable can be written as
$\displaystyle\dot{x}_{i}=\textbf{F}(x_{i})+g_{l}\sum_{j=1}^{N}G_{ij}\textbf{H}(x_{j}),\qquad
i=1,2,...,N,$ (6)
where $\dot{x}_{i}=\textbf{F}(x_{i})$ governs the local dynamics of the $i$th
node. $x_{i}=[p_{i},n_{i}]^{T},$ and $\textbf{F}(x_{i})=\left[n_{i},-\lambda
n_{i}-\omega^{2}\frac{\partial V(p_{i},r)}{\partial p_{i}}+\eta_{0}\cos\Psi
t\right]^{T}$ with $V(p_{i},r)$ as in Eq.(2), the output function
$\textbf{H}(x_{i})$ is a vectorial function defined trough the matrix
$\mathbf{E}$=$\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}0&0\\\ 1&0\end{array}\right)$ by
$\textbf{H}(x_{i})=$ $\mathbf{E}$ $x_{i}$ , and $G(t)$ is a symmetric
Laplacian matrix ($\sum_{j}G_{ij}=0$) describing the networks connection and
given by
$\mathbf{G}=\left(\begin{array}[]{ccccc}-2&1&0&\ldots&1\\\ 1&-2&1&\ldots&0\\\
0&1&-2&\ldots&0\\\ \vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&1\\\
1&0&\ldots&1&-2\end{array}\right)$
The stability of the synchronization state can be determined from the
variational equations obtained by considering an infinitesimal perturbation
$\delta x_{i}$ from the synchronous states, $p_{i}=\delta p_{i}+p_{s}$,
$n_{i}=\delta n_{i}+n_{s}$. The equations of motion for the perturbation
$\delta x_{i}$ can be straightforwardly obtained by expanding the Eq. (6) in
Taylor series of first order around the synchronized state which gives
$\displaystyle\delta{\dot{x}}_{i}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle
D\textbf{F}(x_{s})\delta
x_{i}+g_{l}\sum_{j=1}^{N}G_{ij}D\textbf{H}(x_{s})\delta
x_{i},\>\>\>\>\>\>\>\>i=1,2,...,N,$ (7) $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{N}\left[D\textbf{F}(x_{s})\delta_{ij}+g_{l}G_{ij}D\textbf{H}(x_{s})\right]\cdot\delta
x_{i},\>\>\>\>\>\>i=1,2,...,N,$ (8)
where $D\textbf{F}$ and $D\textbf{H}$ are the Jacobians of the vector field
and the output function respectively.
Equation (5) is referred to as the variational equation and is often the
starting point for stability determination. This equation is rather
complicated since given arbitrary coupling $G$ it can be quite high
dimensional. However, we can simplify the problem by noticing that the
arbitrary state $\delta x_{i}$ can be written as $\delta
x_{i}=\sum_{i=1}^{N}\textbf{v}_{i}\bigotimes\xi_{i}(t)$ with
$\xi_{i}(t)=(\xi_{1,i},\xi_{2,i})$ where $\gamma_{i}$ and $\textbf{v}_{i}$ are
the set of real eigenvalues and the associated orthogonal eigenvector of the
matrix $G$ respectively, such that $G\textbf{v}_{i}=\gamma_{i}\textbf{v}_{i}$
and $\textbf{v}_{i}^{T}\textbf{v}_{i}=\delta_{ij}$. By applying
$\textbf{v}_{i}^{T}(t)$ (and $v_{i}$) to the left (right) side of each term in
Eq. (7) one finally obtains a set of N blocks for the coefficients
$\xi_{i}(t)$. The first term with the Kronecker delta remains the same. This
results in a variational equation in the eigenmode form
$\displaystyle\dot{\xi}_{k}=\left[D\textbf{F}(x_{s})+g_{l}\gamma_{k}D\textbf{H}(x_{s})\right]\xi_{k},k=0,1,2,...,N-1,$
(9)
We recall that $\gamma_{k}$ are the eigenvalues of $G$, and are given by
$\gamma_{k}=-4\sin^{2}(\pi k/N)$ for the diffusive coupling [?]. Note that
each equation in Eq. (9) corresponds to a set of 2 conditional Lyapunov
exponents $\lambda_{k}^{j}$ (j=1,2) along the eigenmode corresponding to the
specific eigenvalue $\gamma_{k}$. For $k=0$, we have the variational equation
for the synchronization manifold $(\gamma_{0}=0)$ and its maximum conditional
Lyapunov exponent $\lambda^{1}_{0}$ corresponds to the one of the isolated
dynamical unit. The remaining variations $\xi_{k}$, k=1,2,…,N-1 are transverse
to $\mathcal{M}$, and describe the system’s response to small deviations from
the synchronization manifold. Any deviation from the synchronization manifold
will be reflected in the growth of one or more of these variations. The
stability of the synchronized state is ensured if arbitrary small transverse
variations decay to zero. So, CS exists if $\lambda^{1}_{k}<0$, for $k\geq 1$.
We also calculate the condition for the synchronization in the network by
using the Lyapunov spectra, calculated directly from Eq. (7). Complete
synchronization in the generalized sense as defined in Refs. [?,?] exists if
the second largest Lyapunov exponent is negative.
Due to the periodic potential in Eq. (2), the active network in Eq. (6) is
highly sensitive to initial conditions. As a consequence, networks whose
elements have random initial conditions that differ only slightly completely
synchronize for a coupling strength smaller than the coupling strength needed
to completely synchronize networks that have elements whose initial conditions
differ moderately. Often, the network never complete synchronizes, and one can
only have that $|x_{k}-x_{l}|<\vartheta$, and so, the trajectory is never
perfectly along the synchronization manifold. Even thought $\vartheta$ might
be small, it is sufficiently large in order to mislead the statement that
complete synchronization appears by only checking the conditional exponents.
This discrepancy is due to the fact that, in this system, when the initial
conditions are not too close, the systems goes to different attractors and the
approximation made to obtain the conditional lyapunov exponents [Eq. (9)] is
no longer completely valid, thought it provides still approximate results. The
effect of having nodes with different initial conditions in the studied
network is similar to having networks with different parameters.
In Fig. 3, we show the parameter spaces (coupling $g_{l}$ vs. deformability
parameter $r$) of the complete synchronization regime. Points show the values
of $g_{l}$ and $r$ for which all the transversal ($k\geq 1$) conditional
exponents are negative [Figs. 3(A),(C)] or when the second largest Lyapunov
exponent becomes negative [Figs. 3(B),(D)].
When the initial conditions differ by no more than 0.01 [Figs. 3(A-B)] the two
conditions to predict complete synchronization provide the same surface in the
parameter space. However, when these initial conditions differ by no more than
0.5 [Figs. 3(C-D)], the conditional exponents predict the appearance of
complete synchronization for a coupling strength smaller than the strength for
which it really appears, as predicted by the value of the second largest
Lyapunov exponents [Figs. 3(D)].
One can also observe from these figures that as the deformability parameter
increases, the system becomes more and more unstable. When $r>9.5$, it is
almost not possible to find complete synchronization in the network for low
values of coupling strength $g_{l}$. So, when the potential $V(P_{i},r)$ has a
flat bottom, the particles are almost non-synchronizable in the network.
Figure 3.: Appearance of complete synchronization in a network of $N$=5
diffusively coupled oscillators. Points represent $g_{l}$ and $r$ values for
which the conditional exponent $\lambda^{1}_{1}$ is negative (A,C) and for
which the second largest Lyapunov exponent is negative (B,D). In (A,B), the
initial conditions differ by at most 0.01 and in (C,D) the initial conditions
differ by at most 0.5.
## 3\. Phase synchronization
Phase synchronization [?,?,?] is a phenomenon defined by
$|\phi_{k}-m\phi_{l}|\leq\epsilon,$ (10)
where $\phi_{k}$ and $\phi_{l}$ are the phases of the nodes $x_{k}$ and
$x_{l}$ in the network [Eqs.(3)] and $m=\omega_{l}/\omega_{k}$, where
$\omega_{k}$ and $\omega_{l}$ are the average frequencies of oscillation of
these nodes, and $\epsilon$ is a finite number. In this work, we have used in
Eq. (10) $m=1$, which means that we search for $\omega_{k}:\omega_{l}$=1:1
(rational) phase synchronization. If another type of
$\omega_{k}:\omega_{l}$-PS is present, the methods in Refs. [?] can detect.
The phase $\phi$ is a function constructed on a good 2D subspace, whose
trajectory projection has proper rotation, i.e, it rotates around a well
defined center of rotation. Often, a good 2D subspace is formed by the
velocity space. In the oscillator considered in this work, one can use the
results of [?], and define the phase of the oscillator $x_{i}$ in Eqs. (3) as
$\phi(t)=\int_{0}^{t}\frac{\ddot{n}_{i}\dot{p}_{i}-\ddot{p}_{i}\dot{n}_{i}}{{(\dot{p}_{i}^{2}+\dot{n}_{i}^{2})}}dt.$
(11)
However, the oscillators in Eqs. (3) for the considered parameters have not a
well defined phase, and even in a state where complete synchronization is
achieved, one cannot use Eq. (11) to verify whether PS exists.
In short, if PS exists, in a subspace, then the points obtained from
observations of the position of one node’s trajectory at the time another node
makes any physical event do not visit the neighborhood of a special curve
$\Gamma$, in this subspace. A curve $\Gamma$ is defined in the following way.
Given a point $x_{0}$ in the attractor projected onto the subspace of one
oscillator where the phase is defined, $\Gamma$ is the union of all points for
which the phase, calculated from this initial point $x_{0}$ reaches $n\langle
r\rangle$, with $n=1,2,3,\ldots,\infty$ and $\langle r\rangle$ a constant,
usually 2$\pi$. Clearly an infinite number of curves $\Gamma$ can be defined.
Figure 4.: The appearance of phase synchronization in two bidirectionally
coupled oscillators. (A) There is no phase synchronization and the conditional
observations are not localized with respect to the curve $\Gamma$ pictorially
represented in the figure. (B) There is evidence of phase synchronization and
the conditional observations are localized. Simulations are done considering
initial conditions no more than 0.01 apart.
Formally, for non-coherent dynamical systems for which phase is still not well
defined, PS implies localization of the conditional sets [?], but the contrary
is not always true. Therefore, finding localized sets should be considered a
strong evidence that PS exists.
As an example, consider Eqs. (3) with two coupled oscillators, $r$=0.9, and
$\phi=0.08$. For a small coupling $g_{l}$=0.01, in Fig. 4(A), we show a
situation that PS is not present for $g_{l}$=0.01 and in Fig. 4(B), an
evidence that PS exists, for $g_{l}$=0.05. The curve $\Gamma$, a continuous
curve transversal to the trajectory, is pictorially represented by the
straight line $\Gamma$. In 4(A), the conditional observations are not
localized and thus there is no PS in this subspace. The light gray line (green
online) represents the attractor projection on the subspace $(p_{i},n_{i})$ of
the oscillator $x_{1}$, and filled gray circles (red online) represent the
points obtained from the conditional observations of the oscillator $x_{1}$
whenever the oscillator $x_{2}$ makes an event. An event is considered to be
the crossing of the trajectory to the line $n_{2}=0$, for $p_{2}>0$.
To have a general picture of when PS might appear in the two coupled
oscillators, we show in Fig. 5(A) the quantity $\kappa$ with respect to
$g_{l}$, defined as
$\kappa=\frac{\max{(p_{1}^{i})-\min{(p_{1}^{i})}}}{\max{(p_{1}(t))-\min{(p_{1}(t))}}}$
(12)
where $p_{1}^{i}$ represents the value of $p_{1}$ at the instant the
trajectory of oscillator $x_{2}$ makes an event. Therefore, $\kappa$ is
related to how broad the conditional observations visit the attractor. In Fig.
5(B) we show a few values of $p_{1}^{i}$ with respect to $g_{l}$. For
$g_{l}\geq 0.06$, CS takes place.
Figure 5.: The appearance of phase synchronization in two bidirectionally
coupled oscillators. (A) Occupation of the conditional observations with
respect to the attractor, $\kappa$, and in (B) the position variable
$p_{1}^{i}$ when the oscillator $x_{2}$ makes the $i$th crossing with the
section $n_{2}$=0, for $p_{2}>0$.
For large networks composed of $N$ nodes, this analysis is straightforward and
PS between two nodes can be stated if the conditional observations realized in
one node, whenever the other node makes an event, produces a localized set.
## 4\. Information Transmission in the Network
In order to study the way information is transmitted in active networks, we
introduce quantities and terminologies that assist us to better present our
ideas and approaches.
The mutual information rate (MIR) is the rate with which information is being
exchanged between two oscillation modes or elements in the active network.
The channel capacity, $\mathcal{C}_{C}$, is defined as the maximal possible
amount of information that two oscillation modes or nodes within the network
with a given topology can exchange, a local measure that quantifies the point-
to-point rate with which information is being transmitted.
The Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy offers an appropriate way of obtaining the
entropy production of a dynamical system. In chaotic systems, the entropy
equals the summation of all the positive Lyapunov exponents ( [?]). Here, it
provides a global measure of how much information can be simultaneously
transmitted among all pairs of oscillation modes or nodes. Therefore, the KS-
entropy, $H_{KS}$, of an active network, calculated for a given coupling
strength, bounds the MIR between two oscillation modes, $I$, calculated for
the same coupling strength. Thus,
$I\leq H_{KS}$ (13)
An active network is said to be self-excitable (non-self-excitable) when
$\mathcal{C}_{C}$ $>H_{KS}^{(0)}$ (when $\mathcal{C}_{C}$ $\leq
H_{KS}^{(0)}$), with $H_{KS}^{(0)}$ representing the KS entropy of one of the
$N$ elements forming the active network, before they are coupled.
According to [?], the upper bound for the MIR between two oscillation modes in
an non-self-excitable active network, denoted as $I$, can be calculated by
$I^{k}\leq\lambda_{0}^{1}-\lambda_{k}^{1}$ (14)
where $\lambda_{0}^{1}$ and $\lambda_{k}^{1}$ ($k=1,\ldots,N-1$) are the
positive largest conditional exponent [?], numerically obtained from Eq. (9),
with the oscillators possessing equal initial conditions. $\lambda_{0}$
measures the exponential divergence of trajectories along the synchronization
manifold and $\lambda_{k}$ along the transversal modes. The units used for the
MIR is [bits/unit time], which can be obtained by dividing Eq. (14) by
$\log_{e}(2)$.
The networks as in Eq. (6) are predominantly of the non-self-excitable type.
Only for a very small coupling strength, and a larger number of nodes, the
network has a negligible increase of the KS-entropy, which we will disregard.
As can be seen from the $H_{KS}$ curve in Fig. 6, the two coupled oscillators
are of the non-self-excitable type, since $H_{KS}^{(0)}=H_{KS}(g_{l}=0)/2$
which is approximately equal to $\mathcal{C}_{C}$. In this figure, we also
show the MIR exchanged between the two coupled oscillators. As typically
happens for non-excitable networks, the channel capacity is reached when the
network complete synchronizes. Since the network is composed of two
bidirectionally coupled systems, the MIR between the only two existing modes
is actually the MIR between the two oscillators.
Comparing Figs. 5(A) and 6, one can see that there is a direct relationship
between synchronization and information. The larger the amount of
synchronization the larger the MIR, again another typical character of non-
excitable networks.
Figure 6.: [Color online] (green) Circles show the KS-entropy $H_{KS}$ and
(blue) squares the MIR, $I^{1}$, for two bidirectional coupled oscillators.
(red) Diamonds show $I^{1}$ for a network of $N$=5 diffusively coupled
oscillators.
For larger networks with arbitrary topologies, the MIR between oscillation
modes is just a rescaled version of the MIR between two coupled oscillators.
Given that $g^{(2)}_{l}$ is the coupling strength for which complete
synchronization takes place in two coupled oscillators, and therefore this
coupled system operates with its channel capacity, the coupling strength for
which complete synchronization takes place in a whole network composed of $N$
nodes with a certain topology is given by $g^{(N)}_{l}$
$g^{(N)}_{l}=2\displaystyle\frac{g^{(2)}_{l}}{\gamma^{1}_{1}(N)}\>\>\>\>\>$
(15)
At the parameter $g^{(N)}_{l}$, every pair of oscillators operate with the
channel capacity. Equation (15) means that having the curve for the MIR for
two coupled oscillators, the curve of the MIR for larger networks is rescaled
by the second largest conditional Lyapunov exponent of the Laplacian matrix
$\gamma^{1}_{1}(N)$.
As an illustration of Eq. (15), we show in Fig. 6, the MIR for a network
composed of 5 oscillators coupled diffusively. In this figure, we show the
quantity $\langle I\rangle$ defined as $\langle
I\rangle=1/(N-1)\sum_{1}^{N-1}I^{k}$. Note that even though $\langle I\rangle$
might change its values according to the network topology and $N$, its maximal
value is bounded by the channel capacity, which do not depends on the $N$ and
the topology, another typical characteristic of non-self-excitable networks.
## 5\. Conclusion
We study the relationship between synchronization and the rate with which
information is exchanged between nodes in a spatio-temporal network which
describes the dynamics of classical particles under a substrate Remoissenet-
Peyrard potential. In particular, we study networks formed by Frenkel-
Kontorova(FK) oscillators suffering the action of harmonic interaction and
non-sinusoidal substrate potential.
We show that such networks are predominantly of the non-self-excitable type,
i.e. as the coupling strength among the nodes increases the KS-entropy
decreases. Other additional characteristics of non-self-excitable networks
are: the mutual information rate (MIR) and the synchronization level increase
simultaneously as the KS-entropy decreases; the channel capacity, the maximal
of the MIR, is achieved for the same coupling strength for which complete
synchronization appears.
We have overcome two difficulties concerning the detection of phase and
complete synchronization in this complex spatio-temporal network. Even though
the phase dynamics of each oscillator is not well defined, we have implement a
technique which allows to evidence the presence of phase synchronization, by
detecting the presence of localized sets obtained by the conditional
observations. The more localized the sets are (which implies larger amount of
phase synchrony) the larger the MIR. Concerning complete synchronization, we
show that the master stability equation which provides the stability of the
normal transversal modes (providing conditions to state complete
synchronization) should be used with caution in such a network. The reason is
that the final state is highly dependent on the initial conditions, a
consequence of the spatio character provided by the potential. For that
reason, in case the nodes have sufficiently different initial conditions, one
should only state complete synchronization using the master stability equation
in an approximate sense. A more rigorous condition to state complete
synchronization is provided by the verification that the second largest
Lyapunov exponent is negative.
Finally, we have shown how one can calculate the MIR between oscillation modes
in larger networks with different topologies using as the only input
information the curve of the MIR with respect to the coupling strength for two
bidirectionally coupled oscillators. Having the curve for the MIR for two
coupled oscillators, the curve of the MIR for larger networks is rescaled by
the second largest conditional Lyapunov exponent of the Laplacian matrix of
the larger network, the matrix that describes the way the nodes are connected
in the network. That enables one to construct larger networks based on the
dynamical characteristics of only two coupled oscillators.
## Acknowledgments
Both authors acknowledge the wonderful time spend in the Max Planck Institute
for the Physics of Complex Systems (MPIPKS) and thank the financial support
provided by this Institute. We also thank Sara P. Garcia for a critical
reading of the manuscript.
## REFERENCES
* [1] O. M. Braun and Y. S. Kivshar, Phys. Rep. 306, 1 (1998); O. M. Braun , Bambi Hu, and A. Zeltser, Phys Rev E 41, 4235 (2000); O. M. Braun , Y. S. Kivshar, and I. I. Zelenskaya, Phys Rev B 41, 7118 (1990).
* [2] M. Remoissenet, Waves called solitons: Concepts and experiments, (Springer Verlag 1999).
* [3] M. Peyrard and M. Remoissenet, Phys Rev B 26, 2886 (1982); M. Remoissenet and M. Peyrard, Phys Rev B 29, 3153 (1984).
* [4] G. Djuidje Kenmoe, A. Kenfack Jiotsa, and T. C. Kofane, Physica D 191 , 31 (2004).
* [5] T. C. Kofané, J Phys: Condens Matter 11, 2481 (1999).
* [6] J. P. Nguenang , J. A. Kenfack, and T. C. Kofané, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 16, 373 (2004).
* [7] L. Nana , T. C. Kofané , E. Coquet, and P. Tchofo-Dinda, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 12, 73 (2001).
* [8] S. B. Yamgoué , T. C. Kofané, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 15, 119 (2003); Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 15, 155 (2003).
* [9] S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez, and D.-H. Hwang, Phys. Rep. 424, 175 (2000).
* [10] L. M. Pecora and T. L. Carrol, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 821 (1990); L. M. Pecora and T. L. Carroll, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2109 (1998).
* [11] R. Yamapi and S. Boccaletti, Phys. Lett A 371, 48 (2007).
* [12] M. Chavez, D.-H. Hwang , and S. Boccaletti, Eur. Phys. J.: Special Topics 146, 129 (2007).
* [13] A. Pikovsky, M. Rosenblum, and J. Kurths. Synchronization: A universal concept in nonlinear sciences (Cambridge University Press, London 2003).
* [14] M. S. Baptista and J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. E 72, 045202R (2005); M. S. Baptista and J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. E, 77, 026205 (2008); M. S. Baptista, S. P. Garcia, S. K. Dana, and J. Kurths, Transmission of information and synchronization in active networks: an experimental overview (to appear in Europhysics Journal); M. S. Baptista et al., Optimal network topology for information transmission in active networks arXiv:0804.2983v1.
* [15] M. S. Baptista, T. Pereira, J. C. Sartorelli, et al., Physica D 212, 216 (2005).
* [16] T. Pereira, M. S. Baptista, and J. Kurths, Phys. Rev. E, 75, 026216 (2007); T. Pereira, M. S. Baptista, and J. Kurths, Phys. Lett. A, 362, 159 (2007).
* [17] Ya. B. Pesin, Russian Math. Surveys 32, 55 (1977).
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-12T14:02:31 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.229812 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "F. M. Moukam Kakmeni and M. S. Baptista",
"submitter": "Murilo Baptista S.",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2082"
} |
0806.2184 | Modified Newton’s gravity in Finsler Space as a possible alternative to dark
matter hypothesis
Zhe Chang 111changz@mail.ihep.ac.cn and Xin Li 222lixin@mail.ihep.ac.cn
Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
P. O. Box 918(4), 100049 Beijing, China
###### Abstract
A modified Newton’s gravity is obtained as the weak field approximation of the
Einstein’s equation in Finsler space. It is found that a specified Finsler
structure makes the modified Newton’s gravity equivalent to the modified
Newtonian dynamics (MOND). In the framework of Finsler geometry, the flat
rotation curves of spiral galaxies can be deduced naturally without invoking
dark matter.
PACS numbers: 02.40.-k, 04.25.Nx, 95.35.+d
There are a great variety of observations which show that the rotational
velocity curves of all spiral galaxies tend to some constant values[1]. These
include the Oort discrepancy in the disk of the Milky Way[2], the velocity
dispersions of dwarf Spheroidal galaxies[3], and the flat rotation curves of
spiral galaxies[4]. These facts violate sharply the prediction of Newtonian
dynamics or Newton’s gravity.
The most widely adopted way to resolve these difficulties is the dark matter
hypothesis. It is assumed that all visible stars are surrounded by massive
nonluminous matters. Though it explains the flat rotation curves of spiral
galaxies, the hypothesis has its own weakness. No theory predicts these
matters, and they behave in such ad hoc way. There are a lot of possible
candidates of dark matter (such as axion, neutrino et al), but none of them
satisfactory. Up to now, all of them either undetected or excluded by
observation.
Because of these troubles induced by dark matter, some models have been built
for alternative of the dark matter hypothesis. Their main ideas are to assume
that the Newtonian gravity or Newton’s dynamics is invalid in galactic scale.
In particular, two models explain well the flat rotational curves successfully
without invoking dark matter. One is higher-order gravitational theory[5]. The
gravitational potential was supposed[6] of the Yukawa form,
$\displaystyle\varphi(r)=-\frac{GM}{r(1+\alpha)}\left(1+\alpha
e^{r/r_{0}}\right).$ (1)
Another is the famous MOND[7]. It assumed that the Newtonian dynamics does not
hold in galactic scale. The particular form of MOND is given as
$\begin{array}[]{l}m\mu\left(\displaystyle\frac{a}{a_{0}}\right)\mathbf{a}=\mathbf{F},\\\\[11.38092pt]
\displaystyle\lim_{x\gg 1}\mu(x)=1,~{}~{}~{}\lim_{x\ll 1}\mu(x)=x,\end{array}$
(2)
where $a_{0}$ is at the order of $10^{-8}$ cm/s2. At beginning, as a
phenomenological model, MOND explains well the flat rotation curves with a
simple formula and a new parameter. In particular, it deduce naturally a well-
known global scaling relation for spiral galaxies, the Tully-Fisher
relation[8]. By introducing several scalar, vector and tensor fields,
Bekenstein[9] rewrote the MOND into a covariant formulation. He showed that
the MOND satisfies all four classical tests on Einstein’s general relativity
in Solar system.
These models seem appealing in theoretical interest and fit well the empirical
data of the flat rotation curves. However, it has been pointed out that
solving dark matter problem by means of metric theories is too difficult. The
Yukawa term(1) is mediated by a spin 1 vector particle[6]. Such a
contribution[10] may be proportional to baryonic charge. The baryonic charge
varies from one body to another, this violates the weak equivalence principle.
MOND, as a very successful phenomenological model, still face problems yet.
Reproducing the MOND force law[11] requires any completely stable, metric-
based theory of gravity to become conformally invariant in the weak field
limit, and the prospects for a formulation with a very weak instability.
In this Letter, we present another possible alternative to the dark matter
hypothesis. The major property of the flat rotational curves is the velocity
of a particle in a circular orbit around a finite spiral galaxy becomes
independent of the radius of the orbit at large radii. This empirical fact
makes us consider the Finsler geometry. In Finsler geometry, the intrinsic
curve is not only the function of position but also the function of velocity.
And in the framework of Finsler geometry, the four-velocity vector is treated
as independent variable[12]. The explicit DISIM${}_{b}(2)$ invariant
Finslerian line element and the respective Lie algebra was first proposed
thirty years ago[13, 14, 15]. Finsler geometry is a natural and fundamental
generalization of Riemann geometry.
The gravity in Finsler space has been investigated for a long time[16, 17, 18,
19]. In this Letter, we begin with the field equation in Berwald space-a
special space in Finsler space. The gravitational field equation in Berwald-
Finsler space has been written down explicitly[20],
$\displaystyle\left[Ric_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}S\right]+\left\\{\frac{1}{2}B^{~{}\alpha}_{\alpha~{}\mu\nu}+B^{~{}\alpha}_{\mu~{}\nu\alpha}\right\\}=8\pi
GT_{\mu\nu}.$ (3)
We will study the weak field approximation of the field equation (3). Results
obtained should be compared with Newton’s gravity. We wish the modified
Newton’s gravity got as the weak field approximation of the field equation (3)
in Finsler space describes the odd behavior of the rotation curves of spiral
galaxies.
Before dealing with the field equation, we introduce some basic notation of
Finsler geometry[21]. Denote by $T_{x}M$ the tangent space at $x\in M$, and by
$TM$ the tangent bundle of $M$. Each element of $TM$ has the form $(x,y)$,
where $x\in M$ and $y\in T_{x}M$. The natural projection $\pi:TM\rightarrow M$
is given by $\pi(x,y)\equiv x$. A Finsler structure of $M$ is a function
$\displaystyle F:TM\rightarrow[0,\infty)$
with the following properties:
(i) Regularity: F is $C^{\infty}$ on the entire slit tangent bundle
$TM\backslash 0$.
(ii) Positive homogeneity : $F(x,\lambda y)=\lambda F(x,y)$ for all
$\lambda>0$.
(iii) Strong convexity: The $n\times n$ Hessian matrix
$\displaystyle g_{\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{\partial}{\partial
y^{\mu}}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\nu}}\left(\frac{1}{2}F^{2}\right)$
is positive-definite at every point of $TM\backslash 0$.
Finsler geometry has its genesis in integrals of the form
$\displaystyle\int^{r}_{s}F\left(x^{1},\cdots,x^{n};\frac{dx^{1}}{dt},\cdots,\frac{dx^{n}}{dt}\right)dt.$
(4)
Throughout the Letter, the lowering and raising of indices are carried out by
the fundamental tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$ defined above, and its inverse
$g^{\mu\nu}$.
In Finsler manifold, there exist a unique linear connection - the Chern
connection[22]. It is torsion freeness and metric-compatibility,
$\displaystyle\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}=\gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}-g^{\alpha\lambda}\left(A_{\lambda\mu\beta}\frac{N^{\beta}_{\nu}}{F}-A_{\mu\nu\beta}\frac{N^{\beta}_{\lambda}}{F}+A_{\nu\lambda\beta}\frac{N^{\beta}_{\mu}}{F}\right),$
(5)
where $\gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}$ is the formal Christoffel symbols of the
second kind with the same form of Riemannian connection, $N^{\mu}_{\nu}$ is
defined as
$N^{\mu}_{\nu}\equiv\gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\alpha}y^{\alpha}-A^{\mu}_{\nu\lambda}\gamma^{\lambda}_{\alpha\beta}y^{\alpha}y^{\beta}$
and $A_{\lambda\mu\nu}\equiv\frac{\partial}{\partial
y^{\lambda}}\frac{\partial}{\partial y^{\mu}}\frac{\partial}{\partial
y^{\nu}}\frac{F}{4}(F^{2})$ is the Cartan tensor (regarded as a measurement of
deviation from Riemannian Manifold). The curvature of Berwald - Finsler space
is given as
$\displaystyle R^{~{}\lambda}_{\kappa~{}\mu\nu}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle\frac{\partial\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\kappa\nu}}{\partial
x^{\mu}}-\frac{\partial\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\kappa\mu}}{\partial
x^{\nu}}+\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\alpha\mu}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\kappa\nu}-\Gamma^{\lambda}_{\alpha\nu}\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\kappa\mu}.$
(6)
The Ricci tensor on Finsler manifold was first introduced by Akbar-Zadeh[23].
In Berwald-Finsler space, it reduces to
$\displaystyle
Ric_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}(R^{~{}\alpha}_{\mu~{}\alpha\nu}+R^{~{}\alpha}_{\nu~{}\alpha\mu}).$
(7)
It is manifestly symmetric and covariant. Apparently the Ricci tensor will
reduce to the Riemann-Ricci tensor if the Cartan tensor vanish identically.
The trace of the Ricci tensor gives the scalar curvature $S\equiv
g^{\mu\nu}Ric_{\mu\nu}$. We starts from the second Bianchi identities on
Berwald-Finsler space
$\displaystyle
R^{~{}\alpha}_{\mu~{}\lambda\nu|\beta}+R^{~{}\alpha}_{\mu~{}\nu\beta|\lambda}+R^{~{}\alpha}_{\mu~{}\beta\lambda|\nu}=0,$
(8)
where the $|$ means the covariant derivative. The metric-compatibility
$\displaystyle
g_{\mu\nu|\alpha}=0~{}~{}~{}~{}\mathrm{and}~{}~{}~{}~{}g^{\mu\nu}_{~{}~{}|\alpha}=0,$
(9)
and contraction of (8) with $g^{\mu\beta}$ gives that
$\displaystyle
R^{\mu\alpha}_{~{}~{}\lambda\nu|\mu}+R^{\mu\alpha}_{~{}\nu\mu|\lambda}+R^{\mu\alpha}_{~{}\mu\lambda|\nu}=0.$
(10)
Lowering the index $\alpha$ and contracting with $g^{\alpha\lambda}$, we
obtain
$\displaystyle\left[Ric_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}S\right]_{|\mu}+\left\\{\frac{1}{2}B^{~{}\alpha}_{\alpha~{}\mu\nu}+B^{~{}\alpha}_{\mu~{}\nu\alpha}\right\\}_{|\mu}=0,$
(11)
where
$\displaystyle
B_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}=-A_{\mu\nu\lambda}R^{~{}\lambda}_{\theta~{}\alpha\beta}y^{\theta}/F.$
(12)
Thus, the counterpart of the Einstein’s field equation on Berwald - Finsler
space takes the form
$\displaystyle\left[Ric_{\mu\nu}-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu\nu}S\right]+\left\\{\frac{1}{2}B^{~{}\alpha}_{\alpha~{}\mu\nu}+B^{~{}\alpha}_{\mu~{}\nu\alpha}\right\\}=8\pi
GT_{\mu\nu}.$ (13)
To get a modified Newton’s gravity, we consider a particle moving slowly in a
weak stationary gravitational field[24]. We suppose that the metric is close
to the locally Minkowskian metric,
$\begin{array}[]{l}g_{\mu\nu}(x,y)=\eta_{\mu\nu}(y)+h_{\mu\nu}(x,y),\\\\[5.69046pt]
\eta_{\mu\nu}(y)=f(y)*{\rm diag}\\{1,-1,-1,-1\\}~{},\end{array}$ (14)
where $|h_{\mu\nu}|\ll 1$.
The field is stationary and all time derivatives of $g_{\mu\nu}$ vanish. The
Cartan tensor is symmetric in its three indices. To first order in
$h_{\mu\nu}$, we have
$\displaystyle\Gamma^{i}_{00}=\frac{1}{2f}\frac{\partial h_{00}}{\partial
x^{i}}-\frac{1}{4f^{2}}\frac{\partial f}{\partial y^{0}}y^{0}\frac{\partial
h_{00}}{\partial x^{i}},$ (15)
and
$\displaystyle Ric_{00}=\frac{\partial\Gamma^{i}_{00}}{\partial x^{i}}.$ (16)
All particles here are moving slowly. The velocity $y^{0}$ equal to the speed
of light approximately and can be regarded as constant. Then, the connection
$\Gamma^{i}_{00}$ reduces as
$\displaystyle\Gamma^{i}_{00}=\frac{1}{2f}\frac{\partial h_{00}}{\partial
x^{i}}.$ (17)
From the definition of $B_{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}$, to first order in
$h_{\mu\nu}$, we know that all components of $B$ vanish. By making use of the
non-relativistic perfect fluid approximation, we obtain the non vanished
component of energy-momentum tensor $T_{00}=\rho g_{00}$. Here $\rho$ is the
proper energy density. After the above manipulations, the velocity four-vector
reduces to the normal velocity $v$, which is defined in the manifold $M$ and
function of distance. In the above approximations, the field equation(3)
reduces to
$\displaystyle\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_{i}}\left(\frac{1}{2f(v)}\frac{\partial h_{00}}{\partial x^{i}}\right)=4\pi
G\rho f(v).$ (18)
The geodesic equation in Finsler space is given as[21]
$\displaystyle\frac{d^{2}x^{\lambda}}{d\tau^{2}}+\gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}\frac{dx^{\mu}}{d\tau}\frac{dx^{\nu}}{d\tau}=0.$
(19)
Though the form of the geodesic equation is the same with the one in Riemann
geometry, but one should notice that the connection
$\gamma^{\lambda}_{\mu\nu}$ here depends both on coordinates and velocities.
We will show the physical meaning of the velocity dependence in an indirect
way by solving the geodesic equation in weak field approximation. In the
approximation of moving slowly and weak field, the geodesic equation(19)
reduces to
$\displaystyle\frac{d^{2}t}{d\tau^{2}}$ $\displaystyle=$ $\displaystyle 0,$
$\displaystyle\frac{d^{2}x^{i}}{d\tau^{2}}$ $\displaystyle=$
$\displaystyle-\frac{1}{2f}\frac{\partial h_{00}}{\partial
x^{i}}\left(\frac{dt}{d\tau}\right)^{2}.$ (20)
The solution of first equation in (S0.Ex3) is $dt/d\tau=const.$. Dividing the
second equation in (S0.Ex3) by $(dt/d\tau)^{2}$, we obtain
$\displaystyle\frac{d^{2}x^{i}}{dt^{2}}=-\frac{1}{2f}\frac{\partial
h_{00}}{\partial x^{i}}\equiv-\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial x^{i}},$ (21)
where $\varphi$ is the gravitational potential. Substituting the relation (21)
into equation (18), we get
$\displaystyle\nabla^{2}\varphi=4\pi G\rho f(v).$ (22)
The velocity $v$ is a function of coordinate. In spherical coordinate, we can
rewrite $f(v)$ into $\rho_{geo}(r)$. The integration of (22) gives
$\displaystyle\nabla\varphi(r)=\frac{G}{r^{2}}\int\rho(r)\rho_{geo}(r)dV=\frac{G\mathcal{M}}{r^{2}}.$
(23)
One can see clearly that the effective mass $\mathcal{M}$ is different from
the baryonic mass. It is enlarged by the factor $\rho_{geo}(r)$ due to Finsler
geometrical effect.
We suppose the energy density of baryons is constant for convenience. Denotes
$M$ the mass of visible matter.
We would like limit the metric (14) to be the form
$\begin{array}[]{l}\displaystyle f(\xi)=\frac{\frac{5}{6}\frac{3a_{0}}{4\pi
G\rho\xi}+1}{\sqrt{\frac{3a_{0}}{4\pi G\rho\xi}+1}}~{},\\\\[28.45274pt]
v=\left(\frac{4}{3}\pi Ga_{0}\rho\xi^{3}+\left(\frac{4}{3}\pi
G\rho\right)^{2}\xi^{4}\right)^{1/4}~{}.\end{array}$ (24)
Here $a_{0}$ is the deformation parameter of Finsler geometry. It is the
measurement of deviation from Riemann geometry. The deformation of Finsler
space may have cosmological significance. One wishes naturally the deformation
parameter relates with the cosmological constant $\Lambda$. In fact, Milgrom
observed[7] that $2\pi a_{0}\approx c(\sqrt{\Lambda/3})$. Eqs (22) and (23)
give the geometrical factor of the density of baryons,
$\displaystyle\rho_{geo}(r)=\frac{\frac{5}{6}+\frac{GM}{r^{2}a_{0}}}{\sqrt{(\frac{GM}{r^{2}a_{0}})^{2}+\frac{GM}{r^{2}a_{0}}}}.$
(25)
In the zero limit of the deformation parameter, familiar results on Riemann
geometry are recovered. Thus, the acceleration $a$ is expressed as
$\displaystyle
a=\nabla\varphi(r)=\frac{GM}{r^{2}}\sqrt{\frac{r^{2}+GM/a_{0}}{GM/a_{0}}}.$
(26)
We can rewrite it in a compact form,
$\displaystyle a=\frac{GM}{r^{2}}\nu\left(\frac{GM}{r^{2}a_{0}}\right),$ (27)
where
$\displaystyle\nu(x)=\sqrt{\frac{1+x}{x}}\approx\left\\{1~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}{\rm
for}~{}~{}x\gg 1\atop x^{-1/2}~{}~{}{\rm for}~{}~{}x\ll 1\right..$ (28)
It is obvious that the above formula is just the MOND [25]. The MOND reduces
to Newton’s gravity when $x\gg 1$. Meanwhile, in our model the metric
$\eta_{\mu\nu}$ returns to Minkowskian metric.
Persic, Salucci and Stel analyzed about 1100 rotational curves of spiral
galaxies[26]. They gave a universal formula for the rotation curves, called
Universal Rotation Curves (URC),
$\displaystyle
V_{URC}(r)=V(r_{opt})\bigg{[}\left(0.72+0.44\log\frac{L}{L_{\ast}}\right)\frac{1.97x^{1.22}}{(x^{2}+0.78^{2})^{1.43}}$
$\displaystyle+1.6e^{-0.4(L/L_{\ast})}\frac{x^{2}}{x^{2}+1.5^{2}(L/L_{\ast})^{0.4}}\bigg{]}^{1/2}{\rm
km/s},$ (29)
where $r_{opt}$ is the radius encircling 83% of the integrated light and
$x=r/r_{opt}$. The luminous matter in spiral galaxies is composed by
spheroidal bugle and an extended thin exponential disk. The spheroidal bugle
has density distribution of the form
$I(r)=I_{0}e^{-7.67(r/r_{e})^{1/4}}$(where $r_{e}$ is the half-light
radius)[27]. The thin exponential disk has density distribution of the form
$I(r)=I_{0}e^{-r\alpha}$($\alpha^{-1}$ is the disk scale-length)[28].
Phenomenological similarities between the URC and MOND have been investigated
in detail by looking for properties predicted in one framework that are also
reproducible in the other one[29]. We wish a general Finslerian metric be
found to reproduced the URC naturally. In fact, many works about dark matter
have been done, and the density profile of dark matter halos surrounding
galaxies have been given. The Finsler geometrical factor is determined by
$\displaystyle\rho_{geo}=1+\rho_{DM}/\rho.$ (30)
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank T. Chen, P. Wang, N. Wu and Y. Yu for useful
discussion. The work was supported by the NSF of China under Grant NO.
10575106.
## References
* [1] V. T. Trimble, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 25, 425 (1987).
* [2] J. N. Bahcall, C. Flynn, and A. Gould, Astrophys. J. 389, 234 (1992).
* [3] S. S. Vogt, M. Mateo, E. W. Olszewski, and M. J. Keane, Astron. J. 109, 151 (1995).
* [4] V. C. Rubin, W. K. Ford, and N. Thonnard, Astrophys. J. 238, 471 (1980).
* [5] C. Xu, G. F. R. Ellis and X. Wu et al. S. Afr. J. Phys. 15, 5 (1992).
* [6] R. H. Sanders, Astron. Astrophys. 136, L21 (1984); 154, 135 (1984).
* [7] M. Milgrom, Astrophys. J. 270, 365 (1983).
* [8] R. B. Tully and J. R. Fisher, Astr. Ap. 54, 661 (1977).
* [9] J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 70, 083509 (2004).
* [10] V. V. Zhytnikov and J. M. Nester, Phys. Rev. Lett 73, 2950 (1994).
* [11] M. E. Soussa and R. P. Woodard, arXiv: astro-ph/037358v1.
* [12] Z. Chang and X. Li, Phys. Lett. B. 663, 103 (2008).
* [13] G. Yu. Bogoslovsky, Nuovo Cimento B, 40, 99 (1977).
* [14] G. Yu. Bogoslovsky, arXiv: gr-qc/0706.2621.
* [15] G. W. Gibbons, J. Gomis, and C. N. Pope, arXiv: gr-qc/0707.2174.
* [16] Y. Takano, Lett. Nuovo Cimento, 10, 747 (1974).
* [17] S. Ikeda, Ann. der Phys., 44, 558 (1987).
* [18] R. Tavakol, N. van den Bergh, Phys. Lett. A, 112, 23 (1985).
* [19] G. Yu. Bogoslovsky, Phys. Part. Nucl., 24, 354 (1993).
* [20] X. Li and Z. Chang, arXiv: gr-qc/0711.1934.
* [21] D. Bao, S. S. Chern and Z. Shen, An Introduction to Riemann–Finsler Geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathmatics 200, Springer, New York, 2000.
* [22] S. S. Chern, Sci. Rep. Nat. Tsing Hua Univ. Ser. A 5, 95 (1948); or Selected Papers, vol. II, 194, Springer 1989.
* [23] H. Akbar-Zadeh, Acad. Roy. Belg. Bull. Cl. Sci. (5) 74, 281 (1988).
* [24] S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, John Wiley & Sons New York, 1972.
* [25] M. Milgrom, arXiv: astro-ph/0801.3133v2.
* [26] M. Persic, P. Salucci and F. Stel, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 281, 27 (1996).
* [27] G. de Vaucouleurs, Ann. d’Astroph., 11, 247 (1948).
* [28] K. C. Freeman, Astrophys. J. 160, 811 (1970).
* [29] G. Gentile, arXiv: astro-ph/0805.1731v1.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-13T04:57:11 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.235164 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Zhe Chang and Xin Li",
"submitter": "Xin Li",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2184"
} |
0806.2229 | # Cut and singular loci up to codimension 3
Pablo Angulo Ardoy
Department of Mathematics
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Luis Guijarro
Department of Mathematics
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
ICMAT CSIC-UAM-UCM-UC3M
(31 August 2009)
###### Abstract
We give a new and detailed description of the structure of cut loci, with
direct applications to the singular sets of some Hamilton-Jacobi equations.
These sets may be non-triangulable, but a local description at all points
except for a set of Hausdorff dimension $n-2$ is well known. We go further in
this direction by giving a clasification of all points up to a set of
Hausdorff dimension $n-3$.
## 1 Introduction
In this paper we improve the current knowledge about the sets known as the
_cut locus_ in differential geometry and the _singular set_ of solutions to
static Hamilton-Jacobi equations:
$\displaystyle H(x,du(x))=1$ $\displaystyle x\in M$ (1.1) $\displaystyle
u(x)=g(x)$ $\displaystyle x\in\partial M$ (1.2)
for $H$ smooth and convex in the second argument and $g$ satisfying a standard
_compatibility condition_ (see 3.1).
The solution to the equations above is given by the Lax-Oleinik formula:
$u(p)=\inf_{q\in\partial M}\left\\{d(p,q)+g(q)\right\\}$ (1.3)
where $d$ is the distance function of a Finsler metric constructed in $\Omega$
from the hamiltonian function $H$. Thus, when $g=0$, the solution to the
equations is the distance to the boundary, and then the singular set of the
solution is the cut locus from the boundary (see [LN]), an object of
differential geometry. In section 3 we find a similar relationship when $g\neq
0$.
Our main result is a local description around any point of the cut locus
_except for a set of Hausdorff dimension $n-3$_ (see Theorem 2.2).
This structure result was originally motivated by its use in the paper [AG].
This application motivated some important decisions. For example, all the
proofs apply to the more general _balanced split locus_. We show in this paper
that cut loci (hence singular sets of solutions to HJ equations) are balanced
split loci. In general, there are many balanced split loci besides the cut
locus. In the paper [AG], and using the results in this paper, we study and
classify all possible balanced split loci.
We believe that our description of the cut locus could also be useful in other
contexts. For instance, the study of brownian motion on manifolds is often
studied on the complement of the cut locus from a point, and then the results
have to be adapted to take care of the situation when the brownian motion hits
the cut locus. As brownian motion almost never hits a set with null
$\mathcal{H}^{n-2}$ measure, we think our result might be useful in that
field.
The paper is divided in six sections besides this introduction and an
appendix. For the convenience of the reader we have included separate
statements of our results in section 2 together with examples showing that
some of them are sharp, a compendium of previous results in the literature and
suggestions for future work. In section 3 we enlarge the class of Hamilton-
Jacobi problems for which our results apply: this allows to expand the
applicability of a result by Li and Nirenberg (cf. [LN]). Section 4 contains
all the necessary definitions that we use along the paper; although some of
them have already appeared elsewhere, we have considered useful to collect
them here in order to save the reader some effort. More important, this
section contains also the key notions of _split locus_ and _balanced split
locus_ , that play a key role in the rest of the paper. In section 5 we show
that the cut locus of a submanifold in a Finsler metric is a balanced set.
This is an extension of the corresponding Riemannian claim in [IT2], and it is
necessary in order to apply our results in situations requiring the extra
Finsler generality, as for instance in the already mentioned Hamilton-Jacobi
problems. Section 6 proves our results concerning focal vectors in a balanced
split locus (in the context of a cut locus, focal minimizing geodesics), and
section 7 contains the results about the structure of balanced split loci up
to codimension 3. An Appendix contains some important facts about Finsler
exponential maps.
#### Acknowlegdements
The first author came upon this problem after working with Yanyan Li, who gave
many insights. The authors benefited from conversations with Luc Nguyen and
Juan Carlos Álvarez Paiva. Both authors were partially supported during the
preparation of this work by grants MTM2007-61982 and MTM2008-02686 of the MEC
and the MCINN respectively.
## 2 Statements of results
### 2.1 Setting
From now on, we will work in the following setting:
* •
A $C^{\infty}$ Finsler manifold $M$ with _compact_ boundary $\partial M$. The
space $M\cup\partial M$ need not be compact.
* •
The geodesic vector field $r$ in $TM$.
* •
A smooth map $M:\partial M\rightarrow TM$ that is a section of the projection
map $\pi:TM\rightarrow M$ of the tangent to $M$, and such that $\Gamma(x)$
points to the inside of $M$ for every $x\in\partial M$.
Let $\Phi$ be the flow of $r$, and $D(\Phi)$ its domain. We introduce the set
$V$:
$V=\left\\{\Phi(t,\Gamma(x)),t\geq 0,x\in\partial M,(t,\Gamma(x))\in
D(\Phi)\right\\}$ (2.1)
The interior of $V$ is locally invariant under $\Phi_{t}$ (equivalently, $r$
is tangent to $V$). We set $F$ to be the map $\pi|_{V}:V\rightarrow M$.
We say a point $x\in V$ is a _focal_ point iff $d_{x}F$ is a singular map, and
call $\dim\ker(d_{x}F)$ the _order_ of $x$. Finally, let $S$ be a balanced
split locus for this setting.
#### Remark.
Our results covers both the cut locus from a point and the cut locus from a
hypersurface. However, let us recall that, when the interest is in the cut
locus, we only need to consider the exponential map from an hypersurface. The
cut locus of a point is also the cut locus of a small sphere centered at the
point. In this way, our _focal points_ with respect to the sphere are the
_conjugate points_ with respect to the point. The cut locus of a smooth
submanifold is also the cut locus of an $\varepsilon$-neighborhood of the
submanifold.
Observe also that some authors use the term conjugate instead of focal, even
when studying the distance function from a hypersurface (see for instance
[LN]).
### 2.2 Results
We will show that a cut locus is a balanced split locus (see section 4 for the
definition of this term and section 5 for the proof), so the reader may simply
think that the following results apply to the cut locus. In this situation,
the set $R_{p}$ with $p\in M$ consists of the vectors tangent to the
minimizing geodesics from $p$ to $\partial M$. Nonetheless, the notation for
the general case is explained in definition 4.4.
Our main result asserts that we can avoid focal points of order $2$ and above
if we neglect a set of Hausdorff dimension $n-3$.:
###### Theorem 2.1 (Focal points of order $2$).
There is a set $N\subset S$ of Hausdorff dimension at most $n-3$ such that for
any $p\in S\setminus N$ and $x\in V$ such that $F(x)=p$ and $d_{x}F(r_{x})\in
R_{p}$:
$\dim(\ker d_{x}F)\leq 1$
Combining this new result with previous ones in the literature, we are able to
provide the following description of a cut locus. All the extra results
required for the proof of these result will be proved in this paper, for the
convenience of the reader, and also because some of them had to be slightly
generalized to serve our purposes.
###### Theorem 2.2 (The cut locus up to $\mathcal{H}$-codimension 3).
Let $S$ be either the cut locus of a point or submanifold in a Finsler
manifold or the closure of the singular locus of a solution of 1.1 and 1.2.
Then $S$ consists of the following types of points :
* •
Cleave points: Points at which $R_{p}$ consists of two non-focal vectors. The
set of cleave points is a smooth hypersurface;
* •
Edge points: Points at which $R_{p}$ consists of exactly one vector of order
1. This is a set of Hausdorff dimension at most $n-2$;
* •
Degenerate cleave points: Points at which $R_{p}$ consists of two vectors,
such that one of them is conjugate of order 1, and the other may be non-
conjugate or conjugate of order 1. This is a set of Hausdorff dimension at
most $n-2$;
* •
Crossing points: Points at which $R_{p}$ consists of non-focal and focal
vectors of order 1, and $R^{\ast}_{p}$ is contained in an affine subspace of
dimension $2$. This is a rectifiable set of dimension at most $n-2$;
* •
Remainder: A set of Hausdorff dimension at most $n-3$;
Finally, in regard to singular sets of viscosity solutions to HJ equations, we
prove the following extension Theorem 1.1 of [LN]. In this result $\partial M$
may not be compact.
###### Theorem 2.3.
Let $S$ be the singular set of a solution to the Hamilton-Jacobi system
$\displaystyle H(x,du(x))=1$ $\displaystyle x\in M$ $\displaystyle u(x)=g(x)$
$\displaystyle x\in\partial M$
where $g:\partial M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a positive smooth function such
that $\left|g(y)-g(z)\right|<kd(y,z)$ for some $k<1$. If $\mu$ is the function
whose value at $y\in\partial M$ is the distance to $S$ along the unique
characteristic departing from $y$, then
1. 1.
$\mu$ is Lipschitz.
2. 2.
If in addition $\partial M$ is compact, then the $(n-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff
measure of $S\cap K$ is finite for any compact $K$.
3. 3.
$S$ is a Finsler cut locus from the boundary of some Finsler manifold.
### 2.3 Examples
We provide examples of Riemannian manifolds and exponential maps which
illustrate our results.
First, consider a solid ellipsoid with two equal semiaxis and a third larger
one. This is a 3D manifold with boundary, and the geodesics starting at the
two points that lie further away from the center have a first focal of order
$2$ while remaining minimizing up to that point. This example shows that our
bound on the Hausdorff dimension of the points in the cut locus with a
minimizing geodesic of order $2$ cannot be improved.
Second, consider the surface of an ellipsoid with three different semiaxis (or
any generic surface as in [B], with metric close to the standard sphere) and
an arbitrary point in it. It is known that in the tangent space the set of
first focal points is a closed curve $C$ bounding the origin, and at most of
these points the kernel of the exponential map is transversal to the curve
$C$. More explicitely, the set $C^{\ast}$ of points of $C$ where it is not
transversal is finite. Consider then the product $M$ of two such ellipsoids.
The exponential map onto $M$ has a focal point of order $2$ at any point in
$(C\setminus C^{\ast})\times(C\setminus C^{\ast})$, and the kernel of the
exponential map is transversal to the tangent to $C\times C$. Thus the image
of the set of focal points of order $2$ is a smooth manifold of codimension
$2$.
This example shows that the statement of theorem 2.1 cannot be simplified to
say only that the image of the focal points of order $2$ has Hausdorff
dimension $n-3$.
Finally, recall the construction in [GS], where the authors build a riemannian
surface whose cut locus is not triangulable. Their example shows that the set
of points with a focal minimizing geodesic can have infinite
$\mathcal{H}^{n-2}$ measure. A similar construction replacing the circle in
their construction with a 3d ball shows that the set of points with a
minimizing geodesic focal of order $2$ can have infinite $\mathcal{H}^{n-3}$
measure.
### 2.4 Relation to previous results in the literature
Our structure theorem generalizes a standard result that has been proven
several times by mathematicians from different fields (see for example [BL],
[H], [MM] and [IT]):
> A cut locus in a Riemannian manifold is the union of a smooth
> $(n-1)$-dimensional manifold $\mathcal{C}$ and a set of zero
> $(n-1)$-dimensional Hausdorff measure (actually, a set of Hausdorff
> dimension at most $n-2$). The set $\mathcal{C}$ consists of cleave points,
> which are joined to the origin or initial submanifold by exactly two
> minimizing geodesics, both of which are non-focal.
We observe that this theorem follows from our theorem 2.2, since the union of
edge, degenerate cleave, and crossing points is a set of Hausdorff dimension
at most $n-2$. Our main contribution is to show that, up to codimension 3,
these latter ones are the only new type of points that can appear.
The statement on cleave points quoted above follows from lemmas 7.2, 7.3, and
6.3 only. Theorem 2.1 is not necessary if a description is needed only up to
codimension $2$. The proof of the three lemmas is simple and has many features
in common with earlier results on the cut locus. However, we have decided to
include a proof of them that applies to balanced split loci, because not every
balanced split locus coincides with the cut locus (see [AG]), and the extra
generality is necessary for forthcoming work.
In a previous paper, A. C. Mennucci studied the singular set of solutions to
the HJ equations with only $C^{k}$ regularity. Under this hypothesis, the set
$S\setminus\mathcal{C}$ may have Hausdorff dimension strictly between $n-1$
and $n-2$ (see [M]). We work only in a $C^{\infty}$ setting, and under this
stronger condition, the set $S\setminus\mathcal{C}$ has always Haussdorf
dimension at most $n-2$.
Our result 2.2 uses the theory of singularities of semi-concave functions that
can be found for example in [AAC]. Though their result can be applied to a
Finsler manifold, we had to give a new proof that applies to balanced sets
instead of just the cut locus.
Finally, the very definition of _balanced split locus_ is inspired in lemma
2.1 of [IT2]. Slight changes were required to adapt the property to Finsler
manifolds, and the proof of the lemma itself.
### 2.5 Further questions
Theorem 2.1 and the classical result quoted earlier suggest the following
conjecture: although the image of the focal points of order $k$ in an
exponential map can have Hausdorff dimension $n-k$, the set of points in $M$
with a _minimizing_ geodesic of order $k$ only has Hausdorff dimension
$n-k-1$.
The examples in the above section can be extended to focal points of greater
order without pain, showing that this conjecture cannot be improved.
In this paper all the structure results about cut loci follow from the split
and balanced properties of a cut locus. We will address the question of how
many balanced split sets are there in a future paper. We believe this approach
is an interesting way to look at viscosity solutions and their relation with
classical solutions by characteristics.
Finally, we would like to mention that similar hypothesis and similar
structure results hold in other settings. It would be interesting to study the
structure of the singular locus of the solutions to other Hamilton-Jacobi
equations, when the Hamiltonian depends not only on $x$ and $du$, but also in
$t$ and $u$ itself, for the Dirichlet and Cauchy problems, or maybe without
the convexity hypothesis on $H$.
## 3 Singular locus of Hamilton-Jacobi equations
In this section we study the relationship between Hamilton-Jacobi equations
and Finsler geometry. The reader can find more details in [LN] and [L].
Let $M$ be an open set (or manifold) $M$ with possibly non-compact boundary.
We are interested on solutions to the system
$\displaystyle H(x,du(x))=1$ $\displaystyle x\in M$ $\displaystyle u(x)=g(x)$
$\displaystyle x\in\partial M$
where $H:T^{\ast}M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function that is
$1$-homogeneous and subadditive for linear combinations of covectors lying
over the same point $p$, and $g:\partial M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a smooth
function that satisfies the following compatibility condition:
$\left|g(y)-g(z)\right|<kd(y,z)\quad\forall y,z\in\partial M$ (3.1)
for some $k<1$.
As is well known, _the unique viscosity solution_ is given by the Lax-Oleinik
formula:
$u(p)=\inf_{q\in\partial M}\left\\{d(p,q)+g(q)\right\\}$ (3.2)
where $d$ is the distance induced by the Finsler metric that is the pointwise
dual of the metric in $T^{\ast}M$ given by $H$:
$\varphi_{p}(v)=\sup\left\\{\left\langle
v,\alpha\right\rangle_{p}\,:\,\alpha\in
T^{\ast}_{p}M,\,H(p,\alpha)=1\right\\}$ (3.3)
A local _classical_ solution can be computed near $\partial M$ following
_characteristic_ curves, which are geodesics of the metric $\varphi$ starting
from a point in $\partial M$ with initial speed given by a vector field on
$\partial M$ that we call the characteristic vector field. The viscosity
solution can be thought of as a way to extend the classical solution to the
whole $M$.
When $g=0$, the solution (1.3) is the _distance to the boundary_. It can be
found in [LN], among others, that the closure of the singular set of this
function is the _cut locus_ , given for example by:
$S=\left\\{x\in M:\begin{tabular}[]{l}there are at least two minimizing
geodesics from $\partial M$ to $x$\\\ or the unique minimizing geodesic is
focal\end{tabular}\right\\}$ (3.4)
Hamilton-Jacobi equations fit our setting if we let the vector field $r$ be
the geodesic vector field, and $\Gamma$ be the vector field at $\partial M$
that is tangent to the departing characteristics. The map $F:V\rightarrow M$
is the map sending $(x,t)\in\partial M\times\mathbb{R}$ to $\gamma_{v(x)}(t)$,
for the geodesic $\gamma$ with initial speed $v(x)$, where $v:\partial
M\rightarrow SM$ is the characteristic vector field, and $V\subset\partial
M\times\mathbb{R}$ is the domain of definition of $F$. The characteristic
vector at $x$ is the inner pointing normal if $g=0$ (see the appendix for the
definition of normal under Finsler conditions).
Our intention in this section is to adapt this result to the case $g>0$. If
$\partial M$ is compact, a global constant can be added to an arbitrary $g$ so
that this is satisfied and $S$ is unchanged. We still require that $g$
satisfies the compatibility condition 3.1. Under these conditions, our
strategy will be to show that the Finsler manifold $(M,\varphi)$ can be
embedded in a new manifold with boundary $(N,\tilde{\varphi})$ such that $u$
is the restriction of the unique solution $\tilde{u}$ to the problem
$\displaystyle\tilde{H}(x,d\tilde{u}(x))=1$ $\displaystyle x\in N$
$\displaystyle\tilde{u}(x)=0$ $\displaystyle x\in\partial N$
thus reducing to the original problem ($\tilde{H}$ and $\tilde{\varphi}$ are
dual to one another as in 3.3). This allows us to characterize the singular
set of (1.3) as a cut locus, as well as draw conclusions similar to those in
[LN].
###### Definition 3.1.
The _indicatrix_ of a Finsler metric $\varphi$ at the point $p$ is the set
$I_{p}=\left\\{v\in T_{p}M\,:\,\varphi(p,v)=1\right\\}$
###### Lemma 3.2.
Let $\varphi_{0}$ and $\varphi_{1}$ be two Finsler metrics in an open set $U$,
and let $X$ be a vector field in $U$ such that:
* •
The integral curves of $X$ are geodesics for $\varphi_{0}$.
* •
$\varphi_{0}(p,X_{p})=\varphi_{1}(p,X_{p})=1$
* •
At every $p\in U$, the tangent hyperplanes to the indicatrices of
$\varphi_{0}$ and $\varphi_{1}$ in $T_{p}U$ coincide.
Then the integral curves of $X$ are also geodesics for $\varphi_{1}$
###### Proof.
Let $p$ be a point in $U$. Take bundle coordinates of $T_{p}U$ around $p$ such
that $X$ is one of the vertical coordinate vectors. An integral curve $\alpha$
of $X$ satifies:
$(\varphi_{0})_{p}(\alpha(t),\alpha^{\prime}(t))=(\varphi_{1})_{p}(\alpha(t),\alpha^{\prime}(t))=0$
because of the second hypothesis. The third hypothesis imply:
$(\varphi_{0})_{v}(\alpha(t),\alpha^{\prime}(t))=(\varphi_{1})_{v}(\alpha(t),\alpha^{\prime}(t))$
So inspection of the geodesic equation:
$\varphi_{p}(\alpha(t),\alpha^{\prime}(t))=\frac{d}{dt}\left(\varphi_{v}(\alpha(t),\alpha^{\prime}(t))\right)$
(3.5)
shows that $\alpha$ is a geodesic for $\varphi_{1}$. ∎
###### Corollary 3.3.
Let $\varphi$ be a Finsler metric and $X$ a vector field whose integral curves
are geodesics. Then there is a Riemannian metric for which those curves are
also geodesics.
###### Proof.
The Riemannian metric $g_{ij}(p)=\frac{\partial}{\partial
v_{i}v_{j}}\varphi(p,X)$ is related to $\varphi$ as in the preceeding lemma. ∎
###### Lemma 3.4.
Let $X$ be a non-zero geodesic vector field in a Finsler manifold and $\omega$
its dual differential one-form. Then the integral curves of $X$ are geodesics
if and only if the Lie derivative of $\omega$ in the direction of $X$
vanishes.
###### Proof.
Use lemma 3.3 to replace the Finsler metric with a Riemann metric for which
$\omega$ is the standard dual one-form of $X$ in Riemannian geometry. Now the
lemma is standard. ∎
###### Proposition 3.5.
Let $M$ be an open manifold with smooth boundary and a Finsler metric
$\varphi$. Let $X$ be a smooth transversal vector field in $\partial M$
pointing inwards (resp. outwards). Then $M$ is contained in a larger open
manifold admitting a smooth extension $\tilde{\varphi}$ of $\varphi$ to this
open set such that the geodesics starting at points $p\in\partial M$ with
initial vectors $X_{p}$ can be continued indefinitely backward (resp. forward)
without intersecting each other.
###### Proof.
We will only complete the proof for a compact open set $M$ and inward pointing
vector $X$, as the other cases require only minor modifications.
We start with a naive extension $\varphi^{\prime}$ of $\varphi$ to a larger
open set $M_{2}\supset M$. The geodesics with initial speed $X$ can be
continued backwards to $M_{2}$, and there is a small $\varepsilon$ for which
the geodesics starting at $\partial M$ do not intersect each other for
negative values of time before the parameter reaches $-\varepsilon$.
Define
$P:\partial M\times(-\varepsilon,0]\to M_{2},\qquad P(q,t):=\alpha_{q}(t)$
where $\alpha_{q}:(-\varepsilon,0]\to M_{2}$ is the geodesic of
$\varphi^{\prime}$ starting at the point $q\in\partial M$ with initial vector
$X_{q}$. When $p\in U_{\varepsilon}:=\operatorname{Image}(P)$ there is a
unique value of $t$ such that $p=P(q,t)$ for some $q\in\partial M$. We will
denote such $t$ by $d(p)$. Extend also the vector $X$ to $U_{\varepsilon}$ as
$X_{p}=\dot{\alpha_{q}}(t)$ where $p=P(q,t)$.
Let $c:(-\varepsilon,0]\rightarrow[0,1]$ be a smooth function such that
* •
$c$ is non-decreasing
* •
$c(t)=1\text{ for }-\varepsilon/3\leq t$
* •
$c(t)=0\text{ for }t\leq-2\varepsilon/3$
and finally define
$\tilde{X}_{p}=c(d(p))X_{p}$
in the set $U_{\varepsilon}$.
Let $\omega_{0}$ be the dual one form of $\tilde{X}$ with respect to $\varphi$
for points in $\partial M$, and let $\omega$ be the one form in
$U_{\varepsilon}$ whose Lie derivative in the direction $\tilde{X}$ is zero
and which coincides with $\omega_{0}$ in $\partial M$. Then we take any metric
$\varphi^{\prime\prime}$ in $U_{\varepsilon}$ (which can be chosen Riemannian)
such that $\tilde{X}$ has unit norm and the kernel of $\omega$ is tangent to
the indicatrix at $\tilde{X}$.
By lemma 3.4, the integral curves of $\tilde{X}$ are geodesics for
$\varphi^{\prime\prime}$. Now let $\rho$ be a smooth function in
$U_{\varepsilon}\cup M$ such that $\rho|_{M}=1$,
$\rho|_{U_{\varepsilon}\setminus U_{\varepsilon/3}}=0$ and $0\leq\rho\leq 1$,
and define the metric:
$\tilde{\varphi}=\rho(p)\varphi(p,v)+(1-\rho(p))\varphi^{\prime\prime}(p,v)$
This metric extends $\varphi$ to the open set $U_{\varepsilon}$ and makes the
integral curves of $\tilde{X}$ geodesics. As the integral curves of $X$ do not
intersect for small $t$, the integral curves of $\tilde{X}$ reach infinite
length before they approach $\partial U_{\varepsilon}$ and the last part of
the statement follows. ∎
Application of this proposition to $M$ and the characteristic, inwards-
pointing vector field $v$ yields a new manifold $N$ containing $M$, and a
metric for $N$ that extends $\varphi$ (so we keep the same letter) such that
the geodesics departing from $\partial M$ which correspond to the
characteristic curves continue indefinitely backwards without intersecting.
This allows the definition of
$\tilde{P}:\partial M\times(-\infty,0]\to N,\qquad
P(q,t):=\tilde{\alpha}_{q}(t)$
where $\tilde{\alpha}$ are the geodesics with initial condition $X$, continued
backwards. Finally, define $\tilde{u}:U\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ by:
$\tilde{u}(x)=\begin{cases}g(y)+t&x=\tilde{P}(y,t),\quad x\in N\setminus M\\\
u(x)&x\in M\end{cases}$ (3.6)
We notice that both definitions agree in an _inner_ neighborhood of $\partial
M$, so the function $\tilde{u}$ is a smooth extension of $u$ to $N$.
###### Theorem 3.6.
Let $\Lambda=\tilde{u}^{-1}(0)$. Then the following identity holds in
$\left\\{\tilde{u}\geq 0\right\\}$ :
$\tilde{u}(x)=d(x,\Lambda)$ (3.7)
###### Proof.
Let $g_{t}$ be the flux associated to the characteristic vector field $X$. By
definition of $\tilde{u}$, we see that:
$g_{t}^{\ast}\tilde{u}(x)=\tilde{u}(x)+t$
at least for $(x,t)$ in an open set $\mathcal{O}$ containing $N\setminus
M\times(-\infty,0]$. We deduce that $g_{t}$, restricted to a small ball $B$,
sends the intersection of a level set of $\tilde{u}$ with the ball to another
level set of $\tilde{u}$, whenever $t$ is small enough so that $g_{t}(B)$ is
contained in $\mathcal{O}$.
In particular, the tangent distribution to the level sets is transported to
itself by the flow of $X$. On the other hand, the orthogonal distribution to
$X$ is also parallel, so if we show that they coincide near $\partial M$, we
will learn that they coincide in $\mathcal{O}$.
Now recall that inside $M$, $\tilde{u}$ coincides with $u$, which is also
given by the Lax-Oleinik formula 1.3. Let $y\in\partial M$ and $t>0$ small.
This formula yields the same value as the local solution by characteristics,
and we learn that the point $y$ is the closest point to $g_{t}(y)$ on the
level curve $\left\\{u=u(y)\right\\}$. By appeal to lemma 2.3 in [LN], or
reduction to the Riemannian case as in 3.3, we see that the level set
$\left\\{u=u_{0}\right\\}$ is orthogonal to the vector $X_{y}$. It follows
that, in $\mathcal{O}$:
$H(x,d\tilde{u}(x))=\sup\\{\,d\tilde{u}(x)(Y)\,:\,\varphi(Y)=1\,\\}=d\tilde{u}(x)(\tilde{X})=1$
In order to show that $\tilde{u}$ and $d(\,\cdot\,,\Lambda)$ agree in $U$, we
use the uniqueness properties of viscosity solutions. Let $N$ be the open set
where $\tilde{u}>0$. The distance function to $\Lambda$ is characterized as
the unique viscosity solution to:
* •
$\tilde{u}=0$ in $\Lambda$
* •
$H(x,d\tilde{u}(x))=1$ in $N$
Clearly $\tilde{u}$ satisfies the first condition. It also satisfies the
second for points in the set $M$ because it coincides with $u$, and for points
in $N\setminus M$ because $H(x,d\tilde{u}(x))=1$ there.
∎
###### Proof of Theorem 2.3.
The first part follows immediately from Theorem 3.6 and Theorem 1.1 in [LN].
The second is an easy consequence of the first, while the last is contained in
the results of this section. ∎
#### Remark.
Regularity hypothesis can be softened. In order to apply the results in [LN],
it is enough that the geodesic flow, the characteristic vector field and $g$
itself are $C^{2,1}$, which implies that $\Lambda$ is $C^{2,1}$. Thus the
result in true for less regular hamiltonians and open sets.
## 4 Split locus and balanced split locus
We now introduce some properties of a set necessary in the proofs of our
results. We prove in section 5 that a cut loci in Finsler manifolds have all
of them.
###### Definition 4.1.
For a pair of points $p,q\in M$ such that $q$ belongs to a convex neighborhood
of $p$, we define, following [IT2],
$v_{p}(q)=\dot{\gamma}(0)$ (4.1)
as the speed at $0$ of the unique unit speed minimizing geodesic $\gamma$ from
$p$ to $q$.
###### Definition 4.2.
The _approximate tangent cone_ to a subset $E$ at $p$ is:
$T(E,p)=\left\\{r\theta:\theta=\lim v_{p}(p_{n}),\exists\\{p_{n}\\}\subset
E,p_{n}\rightarrow p,r>0\right\\}$
and the _approximate tangent space_ $Tan(E,p)$ to $E$ at $p$ is the vector
space generated by $T(E,p)$.
We remark that the definition is independent of the Finsler metric, despite
its apparent dependence on the vectors $v_{p}(p_{n})$.
###### Definition 4.3.
For a set $S\subset M$, let $A(S)$ be the union of all integral segments of
$r$ with initial point in $\Gamma$ whose projections in $M$ do not meet $S$.
We say that a set $S\subset M$ _splits_ $M$ iff $\pi$ restricts to a bijection
between $A(S)$ and $M\setminus S$.
Whenever $S$ splits $M$, we can define a vector field $R_{p}$ in $M\setminus
S$ to be $dF_{x}(r_{x})$ for the unique $x$ in $V$ such that $F(x)=p$ and
there is an integral segment of $r$ with initial point in $\Gamma$ and end
point in $x$ that does not meet $F^{-1}(S)$.
###### Definition 4.4.
For a point $p\in S$, we define the _limit set_ $R_{p}$ as the set of vectors
in $T_{p}M$ that are limits of sequences of the vectors $R_{q}$ defined above
at points $q\in M\setminus S$.
Figure 1: An arbitrary split locus and a balanced split locus
###### Definition 4.5.
A set $S$ that splits $M$ is a split locus iff
$S=\overline{\left\\{p\in S:\quad\sharp R_{p}\geq 2\right\\}}$
The role of this condition is to restrict $S$ to its essential part. A set
that merely splits $M$ could be too big: actually $M$ itself splits $M$.
Finally, we introduce the following more restrictive condition.
###### Definition 4.6 (Balanced split locus).
We say a split locus $S\subset M$ is _balanced_ at $p\in S$ iff for any
sequence $\\{p_{n}\\}$ converging to $p$ with $v_{p_{n}}(p)$ and $X_{n}\in
R_{p_{n}}$ approaching $v\in T_{x}M$ and $X_{\infty}\in R_{p}$ respectively,
then
$w_{\infty}(v)=\max\left\\{w(v)\,:\,w\text{ is dual to some $R\in
R_{p}$}\right\\}$
where $w_{\infty}$ is the dual of $X_{\infty}$. We say $S$ is _balanced_ if it
is balanced at every point.
## 5 Balanced property of the Finsler cut locus
In this section we show that the cut locus of a Finsler exponential map is a
balanced set. The proof is the same as in lemma 2.1 in [IT2], only adapted to
Finsler manifolds, where angles are not defined.
###### Proposition 5.1.
The cut locus of a Finsler manifold $M$ with boundary is a balanced split
locus. Moreover, for $p$, $p_{n}$, $v$ and $X_{\infty}$ as in the definition
of a balanced split locus, we have
$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\dfrac{d(\partial M,p)-d(\partial
M,p_{n})}{d(p,p_{n})}=w_{\infty}(v)$
###### Proof.
The cut locus $S$ splits $M$, as follows from the well-known property that if
a geodesic $\gamma$ from $\partial M$ to $p=\gamma(t)$ is minimizing, and
$s<t$, then $\gamma|_{[0,s]}$ is the unique minimizing geodesic from $\partial
M$ to $\gamma(s)$, and is non-focal.
It is also a split locus, as follows from the characterization of the cut
locus as the closure of the singular set of the function distance to the
boundary (as found in [LN] for example). The distance to the boundary is
differentiable at a point if and only if there is a unique minimizing geodesic
from the point to the boundary.
Next we show that $S$ is balanced. Take any $Y\in R_{p}$, and let $\gamma$ be
the minimizing geodesic segment joining $\partial M$ to $p$ with speed $Y$ at
$p$. Take any point $q\in\gamma$ that lies in a convex neighborhood of $p$ and
use the triangle inequality to get:
$d(\partial M,p)-d(\partial M,p_{n})\geq d(q,p)-d(q,p_{n})$
Then the first variation formula yields, for a constant $C$:
$d(q,p)-d(q,p_{n})\geq w(v_{p_{n}}(p))d(p_{n},p)-Cd(p,p_{n})^{2}$
and we get:
$\liminf_{n\rightarrow\infty}\dfrac{d(\partial M,p)-d(\partial
M,p_{n})}{d(p,p_{n})}\geq w(X)$
for any $w$ that is dual to a vector in $R_{p}$.
Then consider $X_{\infty}$, let $\gamma$ be the minimizing geodesic segment
joining $\partial M$ to $p$ with speed $X_{\infty}$ at $p$, and let
$\gamma_{n}$ be the minimizing geodesic segment joining $\partial M$ to
$p_{n}$ with speed $X_{n}$ at $p_{n}$. Take points $q_{n}$ in $\gamma_{n}$
that lie in a fix convex neighborhood of $p$. Again:
$d(\partial M,p)-d(\partial M,p_{n})\leq d(q_{n},p)-d(q_{n},p_{n})$
while the first variation formula yields, for a constant $C$:
$d(q_{n},p)-d(q_{n},p_{n})\leq w(v_{p_{n}}(p))d(p_{n},p)-Cd(p,p_{n})^{2}$
and thus:
$\limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\dfrac{d(\partial M,p)-d(\partial
M,p_{n})}{d(p,p_{n})}\leq w_{\infty}(X)$
This proves the claim that $S$ is balanced. ∎
## 6 Focal points in a balanced split locus
In this section we prove Theorem 2.1. Throughout this section, $M$, $r$, $V$
and $F$ are as in section 2.1 and $S$ is a balanced split locus as defined in
4.6.
###### Definition 6.1.
A singular point $x\in V$ of the map $F$ is an _A2_ point if $ker(dF_{x})$ has
dimension $1$ and is transversal to the tangent to the set of focal vectors.
#### Remark.
Warner shows in [W] that the set of focal points of order $1$ is a smooth
(open) hypersurface inside $V$, and that for adequate coordinate functions in
$V$ and $M$, the exponential has the following normal form around any A2
point,
$\displaystyle(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{m})\longrightarrow(x_{1}^{2},x_{2},\dots,x_{m})$
(6.1)
###### Proposition 6.2.
For any $p\in M$ and $X\in R_{p}$, the vector $X$ is not of the form
$dF_{x}(r)$ for any A2 point $x$.
###### Proof.
The proof is by contradiction: let $p\in S$ be such that $R_{p}$ contains an
A2 vector $Z$. There is a unique $c\in V$ such that $F(c)=p$ and
$dF_{c}(r_{c})=Z$. By the normal form (6.1), we see there is a neighborhood
$U$ of $c$ such that no other point in $U$ maps to $p$. Furthermore, in a
neighborhood $B$ of $p$ the image of the focal vectors is a hypersurface $H$
such that all points at one side (call it $B_{1}$) have two preimages of
$F|_{U}$, all points at the other side $B_{2}$ of $H$ have no preimages, and
points at $H$ have one preimage, whose corresponding vector is A2-focal. It
follows that $Z$ is isolated in $R_{p}$.
We notice there is a sequence of points $p_{n}\rightarrow p$ in $B_{2}$ with
vectors $Y_{n}\in R_{p_{n}}$ such that $Y_{n}\rightarrow Y\neq X$. Thus
$R_{a}$ does not reduce to $Z$.
The vector $Z$ is tangent to $H$, so we can find a sequence of points
$p_{n}\in B_{2}$ approaching $p$ such that
$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}v_{p_{n}}(p)=Z$
We can find a subsequence $p_{n_{k}}$ of the $p_{n}$ and vectors $X_{k}\in
R_{p_{n_{k}}}$ such that $X_{k}$ converges to some $X_{\infty}\in R_{p}$. By
the above, $X_{\infty}$ is different from $Z$, but $\hat{Z}(X)<1=\hat{Z}(Z)$
(where $\hat{Z}$ is the dual form to $Z$), so the balanced property is
violated. ∎
The following is the analogous to theorem 2.1 for focal points of order $1$.
###### Proposition 6.3 (Focal points of order $1$).
There is a set $N\subset S$ of Hausdorff dimension $n-2$ such that for all
$p\in S\setminus N$ and $x\in V$ such that $F(x)=p$ and $d_{x}F(r_{x})\in
R_{p}$, the linear map $d_{x}F$ is non-singular.
###### Proof.
The proof is identical to the proof of lemma 2 in [IT] for a cut locus, but we
include it here for completeness. First of all, at the set of focal vectors of
order $k\geq 2$ we can apply directly the Morse-Sard-Federer theorem (see [F])
to show that the image of the set of focal cut vectors of order $k\geq 2$ has
Hausdorff dimension at most $n-2$.
Let $Q$ be the set of focal vectors of order $1$ (recall it is a smooth
hypersurface in $V$). Let $G$ be the set of focal vectors such that the kernel
of $dF$ is tangent to the focal locus. Apply the Morse-Sard-Federer theorem
again to the map $F|_{Q}$ to show that the image of $G$ has Hausdorff
dimension at most $n-2$. Finally, the previous result takes cares of the $A2$
points. ∎
We now turn to the main result of this paper: we state and prove Theorem 6.4
which has 2.1 as a direct consequence. In order to study the map $F$ more
comfortably, we define the _special coordinates_ in a neighborhood of a focal
point $z$ of order $k$.
#### Special coordinates.
Let $\mathcal{B}=\\{v_{1},\dots,v_{n}\\}$ be the basis of $T_{z}V$ indicated
in the second part of Proposition 8.3, and $\mathcal{B}^{\prime}_{F(z)}$ the
corresponding basis at $F(z)\in M$ formed by vectors $d_{z}F(v_{1})$,
$\widetilde{d^{2}_{z}F(v_{1}\sharp
v_{2})},\dots,\widetilde{d^{2}_{z}F(v_{1}\sharp v_{k+1})}$, and
$d_{z}F(v_{i}),i>k+1$.
Make a linear change of coordinates in a neighborhood of $F(z)$ taking
$\mathcal{B}^{\prime}_{F(z)}$ to the canonical basis. The coordinate functions
$F^{i}(x)-F^{i}(z)$ of $F$ for $i\neq 2,\dots,k+1$ can be extended to a
coordinate system near $z$ with the help of $k$ functions having
$v_{2},\dots,v_{k+1}$ as their respective gradients at $z$. In this
coordinates $F$ looks:
$F(x_{1},x_{2},\dots,x_{k+1},\dots,x_{n})=(x_{1},F_{z}^{2}(x),\dots,F_{z}^{k+1}(x),x_{k+2},\dots,x_{n})$
(6.2)
###### Theorem 6.4.
Let $M$, $V$, $F$ and $r$ be as in section 2.1. Let $S$ be a balanced split
locus (4.6). The set of focal points of order $2$ in $V$ decomposes as the
union of two subsets $Q_{2}^{1}$ and $Q_{2}^{2}$ such that:
* •
No vector in $Q_{2}^{1}$ maps under $dF$ to a vector in any of the $R_{a}$.
* •
The image under $F$ of $Q_{2}^{2}$ has Hausdorff dimension at most $n-3$.
###### Proof.
Let $z$ be a focal point of order $2$ and take special coordinates at $U_{z}$
near $z$. In the special coordinates near $z$, $F$ is written:
$F(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4},\dots,x_{n})=(x_{1},F_{z}^{2}(x),F_{z}^{3}(x),x_{4},\dots,x_{n})$
(6.3)
for some functions $F_{z}^{2}$ and $F_{z}^{3}$, and $x=(x_{1},\dots,x_{n})$ in
a neighborhood $U_{z}$ of $z$ with $F(0,\dots,0)=(0,\dots,0)$.
The Jacobian of $F$ is:
$JF=\begin{bmatrix}1&*&*&0&\dots&0\\\\[8.61108pt] 0&\frac{\partial
F_{z}^{2}}{\partial x_{2}}&\frac{\partial F_{z}^{3}}{\partial
x_{2}}&0&\dots&0\\\\[8.61108pt] 0&\frac{\partial F_{z}^{2}}{\partial
x_{3}}&\frac{\partial F_{z}^{3}}{\partial x_{3}}&0&\dots&0\\\\[8.61108pt]
0&*&*&1&\dots&0\\\ \vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\\
0&*&*&0&\dots&1\end{bmatrix}$
A point $x$ is of second order if and only if the $2\times 2$ submatrix for
the $x_{2}$ and $x_{3}$ variables vanish:
$\begin{bmatrix}\frac{\partial F_{z}^{2}}{\partial x_{2}}(x)&\frac{\partial
F_{z}^{3}}{\partial x_{2}}(x)\\\\[8.61108pt] \frac{\partial
F_{z}^{2}}{\partial x_{3}}(x)&\frac{\partial F_{z}^{3}}{\partial
x_{3}}(x)\end{bmatrix}=0$ (6.4)
We write:
$F_{z}^{2}(x)=x_{1}x_{2}+q(x_{2},x_{3})+T^{2}(x)$
$F_{z}^{3}(x)=x_{1}x_{3}+r(x_{2},x_{3})+T^{3}(x)$
where $q(x_{2},x_{3})$ and $r(x_{2},x_{3})$ are the quadratic terms in $x_{2}$
and $x_{3}$ in a Taylor expansion, and $T$ consists of terms of order $\geq 3$
in $x_{2}$ and $x_{3}$, and terms of order $\geq 2$ with at least one
$x_{i},i\neq 2,3$. x The nature of the polynomials $q$ and $r$ in the special
coordinates at $z$ will determine whether $z$ is in $Q_{2}^{1}$ or in
$Q_{2}^{2}$. We have the following possibilities:
1. 1.
either $q$ or $r$ is a sum of squares of homogeneous linear functions in
$x_{2}$ and $x_{3}$ (possibly with a global minus sign).
2. 2.
both $q$ and $r$ are products of distinct linear functionals (equivalently,
they are difference of squares). Later on, we will split this class further
into three types: 2a, 2b and 2c.
3. 3.
one of $q$ and $r$ is zero, the other is not.
4. 4.
both $q$ and $r$ are zero.
We set $Q_{2}^{1}$ to be the points of type 1 and 2c, and $Q_{2}^{2}$ to be
the points of type 2a, 3 and 4. Points of type 2b do not appear under the
hypothesis of this theorem.
#### Type 1.
The proof is similar to Proposition 6.2. Assume $z=(0,\dots,0)$ is of type 1.
If, say, $q$ is a sum of squares, then in the subspace given by $x_{1}=a$ and
$x_{4}=\dots=x_{n}=0$, $x_{2}$ will reach a minimum value that will be greater
than $-Ca^{2}$ for some $C>0$. We learn there is a sequence
$p^{k}=(t^{k},-(C+1)(t^{k})^{2},0,\dots,0)$, for $t^{k}\nearrow 0$,
approaching $(0,\dots,0)$ with incoming speed $(1,0,\dots,0)$ and staying in
the interior of the complement of $F(U)$ for $k$ large enough. Pick up any
vectors $V_{k}\in R_{p^{k}}$ converging to some $V_{0}$ (passing to a
subsequence if necessary). Then $V_{0}$ is different from $(1,0,\dots,0)\in
R_{0}$, and
$\widehat{V_{0}}\left((1,\dots,0)\right)<\widehat{(1,\dots,0)}\left((1,\dots,0)\right)=1$
violating the balanced condition.
#### Type 2 and 3.
We take special coordinates at a fixed $x_{0}$ and assume $q\neq 0$. Before we
start, we will change coordinates to simplify the expression of $F$ further.
Consider a linear change of coordinates near $x$ that mix only the $x_{2}$ and
$x_{3}$ coordinates.
$\left(\begin{array}[]{c}x^{\prime}_{2}\\\
x^{\prime}_{3}\end{array}\right)=A\cdot\left(\begin{array}[]{c}x_{2}\\\
x_{3}\end{array}\right)$
followed by the linear change of coordinates near $p$ that mix only the
$y_{2}$ and $y_{3}$ coordinates with the inverse of the matrix above:
$\left(\begin{array}[]{c}y^{\prime}_{2}\\\
y^{\prime}_{3}\end{array}\right)=A^{-1}\cdot\left(\begin{array}[]{c}y_{2}\\\
y_{3}\end{array}\right)$
Straightforward but tedious calculations show that there is a matrix $A$ such
that the map $F$ has the following expression in the coordinates above:
$F(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4},\dots,x_{n})=(x_{1},x_{1}x_{2}+(x_{2}^{2}-x^{2}_{3}),x_{1}x_{3}+r(x_{2},x_{3}),x_{4},\dots,x_{n})+T$
In other words, we can assume $q(x_{2},x_{3})=(x_{2}^{2}-x^{2}_{3})$.
Take $x_{i}$, fixed and small, $i>3$. At the origin, $JF$ is a diagonal matrix
with zeros in the positions $(2,2)$ and $(3,3)$. We recall that $z$ is focal
of order $2$ iff the submatrix (6.4) vanishes. This submatrix is the sum of
$\displaystyle\begin{bmatrix}x_{1}+2x_{2}&r_{x_{2}}\\\
-2x_{3}&x_{1}+r_{x_{3}}\end{bmatrix}$ (6.5)
and some terms that either have as a factor one of the $x_{i},i>3$, or are
quadratic in $x_{2}$ and $x_{3}$.
We want to show that, near points of type 3 and some points of type 2, all
focal points of order $2$ are contained in a submanifold of codimension $3$.
The claim will follow if we show that the gradients of the four entries span a
$3$-dimensional space at points in $U$. For convenience, write
$r(x_{2},x_{3})=\alpha x_{2}^{2}+\beta x_{2}x_{3}+\gamma x_{3}^{2}$. It is
sufficient that the matrix with the partial derivatives with respect to
$x_{i}$ for $i=1,2,3$ of the four entries have rank $3$:
$A=\begin{bmatrix}1&2&0\\\ 0&0&-2\\\ 0&2\alpha&\beta\\\
1&\beta&2\gamma\end{bmatrix}$
The claim holds for $x_{i}$ small, $i>3$, unless $\alpha=0$ and $\beta=2$.
This covers points of type $3$. We say a point of type 2 has type 2a if the
rank of the above matrix is $3$. Otherwise, the polynomial $r$ looks:
$r(x_{2},x_{3})=2x_{2}x_{3}+\gamma
x_{3}^{2}=2x_{3}(x_{2}+\frac{\gamma}{2}x_{3})$
We say a point of type 2 has type 2b if $r$ has the above form and
$-1<\frac{\gamma}{2}<1$. We will show that there are integral curves of $r$
arbitrarily close to the one through $z$ without focal points near $z$, which
contradicts property 3 in Proposition 8.3.
Take a ray $t\rightarrow\zeta_{x_{3}}(t)$ passing through a point
$(0,0,x_{3},0,\dots,0)$. The determinant of 6.4 along the ray is:
$\begin{array}[]{rl}p(t)&=\frac{\partial F_{z}^{2}}{\partial
x_{2}}(\zeta(t))\frac{\partial F_{z}^{3}}{\partial
x_{3}}(\zeta(t))-\frac{\partial F_{z}^{3}}{\partial
x_{2}}(\zeta(t))\frac{\partial F_{z}^{2}}{\partial x_{3}}(\zeta(t))\\\
&=t^{2}+t(4x_{2}+2\gamma x_{3})+(4x_{2}^{2}+4\gamma
x_{2}x_{3}+4x_{3}^{2})+R_{3}(x_{3},t)\\\ &=(t+2x_{2}+\gamma
x_{3})^{2}+(4-\gamma^{2})x_{3}^{2}+R_{3}(x_{3},t)\\\ &\geq
c(t^{2}+x_{3}^{2})+R_{3}(x_{3},t)\end{array}$
for a remainder $R_{3}$ of order $3$. Thus there is a $\delta>0$ such that for
any $x_{3}\neq 0$ and $|t|<\delta$, $|x_{3}|<\delta$, $\zeta_{x_{3}}(t)$ is
not a focal point.
We have already dealt with points of type 3, 2a and 2b. Now we turn to the
rest of points of type 2 (type 2c). We have either $\frac{\gamma}{2}\geq 1$ or
$\frac{\gamma}{2}\leq-1$. We notice that $x_{2}^{2}-x_{3}^{2}\leq 0$ iff
$|x_{2}|\leq|x_{3}|$, but whenever $|x_{2}|\leq|x_{3}|$, the sign of
$r(x_{2},x_{3})$ is the sign of $\gamma$. Thus the second order part of $F$
maps $U$ into the complement of points with negative second coordinate and
whose third coordinate has the opposite sign of $\gamma$.
A similar argument as the one for type 1 points yields a contradiction with
the balanced condition. If, for example, $\gamma\geq 2$, none of the following
points
$x^{k}=(t^{k},-(C+1)(t^{k})^{2},-(C+1)(t^{k})^{2},..0,)$
is in $F(U)$, for $t^{k}\rightarrow 0$. But then we can carry a vector other
than $(1,0,\dots,0)$ as we approach $F(x_{0})$.
#### Type 4.
Let $z$ be a focal point of order $2$. We show now that the image of the
points of type 4 inside $U_{z}$ has Hausdorff dimension at most $n-3$. $U_{z}$
is an open set around an arbitrary point $z$ of order $2$, and thus the result
follows.
First, we find that for any point $x$ of type 4, we have $d^{2}_{x}F(v\sharp
w)=0$ for all $v,w\in\ker d_{x}F$, making the computation in the special
coordinates at $x\in U_{z}$ (see section 8.1 for the definition of $d^{2}F$).
Then we switch to the special coordinates around $z$. In these coordinates,
the kernel of $dF$ at $x$ is generated by $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{2}}$
and $\frac{\partial}{\partial x_{3}}$. Thus
$\frac{\partial^{2}F_{z}^{2}}{\partial x_{i}x_{j}}=0$ for $i,j=2,3$ at any
point $x\in U_{z}$ of type 4.
The set of focal points of order $2$ is contained in the set
$H=\\{\frac{\partial F_{z}^{2}}{\partial x_{2}}(x)=0\\}$. This set is a smooth
hypersurface: the second property in 8.3 implies that
$\frac{\partial^{2}F_{z}^{2}}{\partial x_{1}x_{2}}\neq 0$ at points of $H$. At
every focal point of type 4, the kernel of $dF$ is contained in the tangent to
$H$. Thus focal points of type 4 are focal points of the restriction of $F$ to
$H$. The Morse-Sard-Federer theorem applies, and the image of the set of
points of type 4 has Hausdorff dimension $n-3$.
∎
###### Proof of Theorem 2.1.
Follows immediately from the above, setting $N=F(Q^{2}_{2})$. ∎
## 7 Structure up to codimension 3
This section contains the proof of 2.2, splitted into several lemmas. All of
them are known for cut loci in riemannian manifolds, but we repeat the proof
so that it applies to balanced split loci in Finsler manifolds.
###### Definition 7.1.
We say $p\in S$ is a _cleave_ point iff $R_{p}$ has two elements $X^{1}$ and
$X^{2}$, with $(p,X^{1})=(F(y_{1}),dF_{y_{1}}(r_{y_{1}}))$ and
$(p,X^{2})=(F(y_{2}),dF_{y_{2}}(r_{y_{2}}))$, and both $dF_{y_{1}}$ and
$dF_{y_{2}}$ are non-singular.
###### Proposition 7.2.
$\mathcal{C}$ is a $(n-1)$-dimensional manifold.
###### Proof.
Let $p=F(y_{1})=F(y_{2})$ be a cleave point, with
$R_{p}=\\{dF_{y_{1}}(r),dF_{y_{2}}(r)\\}$. We can find a small neighborhood
$U$ of $p$ so that the following conditions are satisfied:
1. 1.
$U$ is the diffeomorphic image of neighborhoods $U_{1}$ and $U_{2}$ of the
points $y_{1}$ and $y_{2}$.
Thus, the two smooth vector fields $X^{1}_{q}=dF|_{U_{1}}(r)$ and
$X^{2}_{q}=dF|_{U_{2}}(r)$ are defined in points $q\in U$.
2. 2.
At all points $q\in U$, $R_{q}\subset\\{X^{1}_{q},X^{2}_{q}\\}$. Other vectors
must be images of the vector $r$ at points not in $U_{1}$ or $U_{2}$, and if
they accumulate near $p$ there is a subsequence converging to a vector that is
neither $X_{1}$ nor $X_{2}$.
3. 3.
Let $\Gamma_{1}$ be an hypersurface in $U_{1}$ passing through $y_{1}$ and
transversal to $X_{1}$, and let $\tilde{\Gamma}=F(\Gamma)$. We define local
coordinates $q=(x,t)$ in $U$, where $x\in\tilde{\Gamma}$ and $t\in\mathbb{R}$
are the unique values for which $q$ is obtained by following the integral
curve of $X^{1}$ that starts at $x$ for time $t$. $U$ is a cube in these
coordinates.
We will show that $S$ is a graph in the coordinates $(x,t)$. Let $A_{i}$ be
the set of points $q$ for which $R_{q}$ contains $X^{i}_{q}$, for $i=1,2$. By
the hypothesis, $S=A_{1}\cap A_{2}$.
Every tangent vector $v$ to $S$ at $q\in S$ (in the sense of 4.2), satisfies
the following property (where $\hat{X}$ is the dual covector to a vector $X\in
TM$.):
$\hat{X}^{i}(v)=\max_{Y\in R_{p}}\hat{Y}(v)$
which in this case amounts to $\hat{X}^{1}(v)=\hat{X}^{2}(v)$, or
$v\in\ker(\hat{X}^{1}-\hat{X}^{2})$
We can define in $U$ the smooth distribution
$D=\ker(\hat{X}^{1}-\hat{X}^{2})$. $S$ is a closed set whose approximate
tangent space is contained in $D$.
We first claim that for all $x$, there is at most one time $t_{0}$ such that
$(x,t_{0})$ is in $S$. If $(x,t)$ is in $A_{1}$, $R_{(x,t)}$ contains $X^{1}$
and, unless $(x,s)$ is contained in $A_{1}$ for $s$ in an interval
$(t-\varepsilon,t)$, we can find a sequence $(x_{n},t_{n})$ converging to
$(x,t)$ with $t_{n}\nearrow t$ and carrying vectors $X^{2}$. The incoming
vector is $X^{1}$, but
$\tilde{X^{2}}(X^{1})<\tilde{X^{1}}(X^{1})=1$
which contradicts the balanced property. Analogously, if $R_{(x,t)}$ contains
$X^{2}$ there is an interval $(t,t+\varepsilon)$ such that $(x,s)$ is
contained in $A_{2}$ for all $s$ in the interval. Otherwise there is a
sequence $(x_{n},t_{n})$ converging to $(x,t)$ with $t_{n}\searrow t$ and
carrying vectors $X^{1}$. The incoming vector is $-X^{1}$, but
$-1=\tilde{X^{1}}(-X^{1})<\tilde{X^{2}}(-X^{1})$
which is again a contradiction. The claim follows easily.
We show next that the set of $x$ for which there is a $t$ with $(x,t)\in S$ is
open and closed in $\Gamma$, and thus $S$ is the graph of a function $h$ over
$\Gamma$. Take $(x,t)\in U\cap S$ and choose a cone $D_{\varepsilon}$ around
$D_{x}$. We can assume the cone intersects $\partial U$ only in the $x$
boundary. There must be a point in $S$ of the form $(x^{\prime},t^{\prime})$
inside the cone for all $x^{\prime}$ sufficiently close to $x$: otherwise
there is either a sequence $(x_{n},t_{n})$ approaching $(x,t)$ with
$t_{n}>h_{+}(x)$ ($h$ being the upper graph of the cone $D_{\varepsilon}$) and
carrying vectors $X^{1}$ or a similar sequence with $t_{n}<h_{-}(x)$ and
carrying vectors $X^{2}$. Both options violate the balanced condition.
Closedness follows trivially from the definition of $S$.
Define $t=h(x)$ whenever $(x,t)\in S$. The tangent to the graph of $h$ is
given by $D$ at every point, thus $S$ is smooth and indeed an integral maximal
submanifold of $D$. ∎
#### Remark.
It follows from the proof above that there cannot be any balanced split locus
unless $D$ is integrable. This is not strange, as the sister notion of cut
locus does not make sense if $D$ is not integrable.
We recall that the orthogonal distribution to a geodesic vector field is
parallel for that vector field, so the distribution is integrable at one point
of the geodesic if and only if it is integrable at any other point. In
particular, if the vector field leaves a hypersurface orthogonally (which is
the case for a cut locus) the distribution $D$ (which is the difference of the
orthogonal distributions to two geodesic vector fields) is integrable. It also
follows from 2.3 that the characteristic vector field in a Hamilton-Jacobi
problem has an integrable orthogonal distribution.
#### Remark.
We commented earlier on our intention of studying whether a balanced split
locus is actually a cut locus. The proof of the above lemma showed there is a
unique sheet of cleave points near a given point in a balanced split loci. It
is not too hard to deal with the case when all incoming geodesics are non-
focal, but focal geodesics pose a major problem.
###### Proposition 7.3.
The set of points $p\in S$ where $co\,(R^{\ast}_{p})$ has dimension $k$ is
$(n-k)$-rectifiable.
###### Proof.
Throughout the proof, let $\hat{X}$ be the dual covector to the vector $X\in
TM$.
Let $p_{n}$ be a sequence of points such that $co\,(R^{\ast}_{p_{n}})$
contains a $k$-dimensional ball of radius greater than $\delta$. Suppose they
converge to a point $p$ and $v_{p_{n}}(p)$ converges to a vector $\eta$.
We take a neighborhood $U$ of $p$ and fix product coordinates in $\pi^{-1}(U)$
of the form $U\times\mathbb{R}^{n}$. Then, we extract a subsequence of $p_{n}$
and vectors $X_{n}^{1}\in R_{p_{n}}$ such that $X_{n}^{1}$ converge to a
vector $X^{1}$ in $R_{p}$. Outside a ball of radius $c\delta$ at
$\hat{X}_{n}^{1}$, where $c$ is a fixed constant and $n>>0$, there must be
vectors in $R_{p_{n}}$, and we can extract a subsequence of $p_{n}$ and
vectors $X_{n}^{2}$ converging to a vector $X^{2}$ such that $\hat{X}^{2}$ is
at a distance at least $c\delta$ of $\hat{X}^{1}$. Iteration of this process
yields a converging sequence $p_{n}$ and $k$ vectors
$X_{n}^{1},..,X_{n}^{k}\in R_{p_{n}}$
converging to vectors
$X^{1},..,X^{k}\in R_{p}$
such that the distance between $\hat{X}^{k}$ and the linear span of
$\hat{X}^{1},..\hat{X}^{k-1}$ is at least $c\delta$, so that $coV^{\ast}_{p}$
contains a $k$-dimensional ball of radius at least $c^{\prime}\delta$.
The balanced property implies that the $\hat{X}^{j}$ evaluate to the same
value at $\eta$, which is also the maximum value of the $\hat{Z}(\eta)$ for a
vector $Z$ in $R_{p}$. In other words, the convex hull of the $\hat{X}^{j}$
belong to the face of $R^{\ast}_{p}$ that is exposed by $\eta$. If
$co\,R_{p}^{\ast}$ is $k$-dimensional, $\eta$ belongs to
$\begin{array}[]{rl}\left(co\,R_{p}^{\ast}\right)^{\perp}=&\left\\{v\in
T_{p}M\>:\quad\langle w,v\rangle\text{ is constant for }w\in
co\,R_{p}^{\ast}\right\\}\\\\[8.61108pt] =&\left\\{v\in
T_{p}M\>:\quad\langle\hat{X},v\rangle\text{ is constant for }X\in
R_{p}\right\\}\end{array}$
which is a $n-k$ dimensional subspace.
Let $\Sigma^{k}_{\delta}$ be the set of points $p\in S$ for which
$co\,R_{p}^{\ast}$ is $k$-dimensional and contains a $k$-dimensional ball of
radius greater than or equal to $\delta$. We have shown that all tangent
directions to $\Sigma^{k}_{\delta}$ at a point $p$ are contained in a $n-k$
dimensional subspace. We can apply theorem 3.1 in [AAC] to deduce
$\Sigma^{k}_{\delta}$ is $n-k$ rectifiable, so their union for all $\delta>0$
is rectifiable too.
∎
## 8 Appendix: Finsler geometry and exponential maps
###### Definition 8.1.
The _dual one form_ to a vector $V\in T_{p}M$ with respect to a Finsler metric
$\varphi$ is the unique one form $\omega\in T^{\ast}_{p}M$ such that
$\omega(V)=\varphi(V)^{2}$ and $\omega|_{H}=0$, where $H$ is the hyperplane
tangent to the level set
$\left\\{W\in T_{p}M:\varphi(W)=\varphi(V)\right\\}$
at $V$. It coincides with the usual definition of dual one form in Riemannian
geometry.
For a vector field, the dual differential one-form is obtained by applying the
above construction at every point.
#### Remark.
In coordinates, the dual one form $w$ to the vector $V$ is given by:
$w_{j}=\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial V^{j}}(p,V)$
Actually $\varphi$ is 1-homogeneous, so Euler’s identity yields:
$w_{j}V^{j}=\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial V^{j}}(p,V)V^{j}=1$
and, for a curve $\gamma(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\rightarrow T_{p}M$ such
that $\gamma(0)=V$, $\varphi(\gamma(t))=\varphi(V)$ and
$\gamma^{\prime}(0)=z$,
$w_{j}z^{j}=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|_{t=0}\varphi(\gamma(t))=0$
#### Remark.
The hypothesis on $H$ imply that the orthogonal form to a vector is unique.
###### Definition 8.2.
The orthogonal hyperplane to a vector is the kernel of its dual one form. The
orthogonal distribution to a vector field is defined pointwise.
There are two unit vectors with a given hyperplane as orthogonal hyperplane.
The first need not to be the opposite of the second unless $H$ is symmetric
($H(-v)=H(v)$). We can define two unit normal vectors to a hypersurface (the
_inner_ normal and _outer_ normal).
### 8.1 Regular exponential map
The following proposition states some properties of a Finsler exponential map
that correspond approximately to the definition of _regular exponential map_
introduced in [W]:
###### Proposition 8.3.
In the setting 2.1 the following holds:
* •
$dF_{x}(r_{x})$ is a non zero vector in $T_{F(x)}M$.
* •
at every point $x\in V$ there is a basis
$\mathcal{B}=\left\\{v_{1},..,v_{n}\right\\}$
of $T_{x}V$ where $r=v_{1}$ and $v_{2},..,v_{k}$ span $\ker dF_{x}$, and such
that:
$\mathcal{B}^{\prime}=\left\\{dF(v_{1}),\widetilde{d^{2}F(r\sharp
v_{2})},\dots\widetilde{d^{2}F(r\sharp v_{k})},dF(v_{k+1}),\dots
dF(v_{n})\right\\}$
is a basis of $T_{F(x)}M$, where $\widetilde{d^{2}F(r\sharp v_{2})}$ is a
representative of $d^{2}F(r\sharp v_{2})\in T_{F(x)}M/dF(TV_{x})$.
* •
Any point $x\in V$ has a neighborhood $U$ such that for any ray $\gamma$ (an
integral curve of $r$), the sum of the dimensions of the kernels of $dF$ at
points in $\gamma\cap U$ is constant.
* •
For any two points $x_{1}\neq x_{2}$ in $V$ with $F(x_{1})=F(x_{2})$,
$dF_{x_{1}}(r_{x_{1}})\neq dF_{x_{2}}(r_{x_{2}})$
#### Proof.
The first three properties follow from the work of Warner [W, Theorem 4.5] for
a Finsler exponential map. We emphasize that they are local properties. The
last one follows from the uniqueness property for second order ODEs. We remark
that the second property implies the last one locally. Combined, they imply
that the map $p\rightarrow(F(p),dF_{p}r)$ is an embedding of $V$ into $TM$.
Indeed, properties 1 and 3 are found in standard textbooks ([M]). For the
convenience of the reader, we recall some of the notation in [W] and show the
equivalence of the second property with his condition (R2) on page 577.
* •
A second order tangent vector at $x\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ is a map $\sigma$:
$\sigma(f)=\sum_{i,j}a_{ij}\frac{\partial^{2}f}{\partial x_{i}\partial x_{j}}$
* •
The second order differential of $F:V\rightarrow M$ at $x$ is a map
$d^{2}_{x}F:T^{2}_{x}V\rightarrow T^{2}_{x}M$ defined by:
$d^{2}_{x}F(\sigma)f=\sigma(f\circ F)$
* •
The symmetric product $v\sharp w$ of $v\in T_{x}V$ and $w\in T_{x}V$ is a well
defined element of $T^{2}_{x}V/T_{x}V$ with a representative given by the
formula:
$(v\sharp w)f=\frac{1}{2}(v(w(f))+w(v(f)))$
for arbitrary extensions of $v$ to $w$ to vector fields near $x$.
* •
The map $d^{2}_{x}F$ induces the map $d^{2}F:T^{2}V_{x}/TV_{x}\rightarrow
T^{2}_{F(x)}M/dF(TV_{x})$ by the standard procedure in linear algebra.
* •
For $x\in V$, $v\in T_{x}V$ and $w\in\ker dF_{x}$, $d^{2}F(v\sharp w)$ makes
sense as a vector in the space $T_{F(x)}M/dF(TV_{x})$. For any extension of
$v$ and $w$, the vector $d^{2}F(v\sharp w)$ is a first order vector.
Thus, our condition is equivalent to property (R2) of Warner:
At any point $x$ where $\ker dF_{x}\neq 0$, the map
$d^{2}F:T^{2}V_{x}/TV_{x}\rightarrow T^{2}M_{F(x)}/dF(TV_{x})$ sends $\langle
r_{x}\rangle\sharp\ker dF_{x}$ isomorphically onto $T_{F(x)}M/dF(TV_{x})$.
Finally, we recall that $d_{x}F(v)$ is the Jacobi field of the variation
$F(\phi_{t}(x+sv))$ at $F(x)$, where $\phi_{t}$ is the flow of $r$ and,
whenever $d_{x}F(v)=0$, $d^{2}_{x}F(v\sharp r)$ is represented by the
derivative of the Jacobi field along the geodesic.
## References
* [AG] P. Angulo Ardoy, L. Guijarro, Balanced split sets and Hamilton Jacobi equations
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.2046, (2008-2009)
* [AAC] G. Alberti, L. Ambrosio, P. Cannarsa,On the singularities of convex functions, Manuscripta Mathematica 76 (1992), 421-435
* [BL] D. Barden, H. Le, Some consequences of the nature of the distance function on the cut locus in a riemannian manifold, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 56 , no. 2 (1997), 369–383.
* [B] M. A. Buchner, The structure of the cut locus in dimension less than or equal to six, Compositio Math. 37 , no. 1 (1978), 103–119.
* [F] Federer, Herbert, Geometric measure theory, Springer-Verlag New York Inc., New York, 153 (1969).
* [GS] H. Gluck, D. Singer Scattering of Geodesic Fields, I, Annals of Mathematics, 108 no. 2 (1978), pp. 347-372
* [H] J. Hebda, Parallel translation of curvature along geodesics, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 299 (1987), pp. 559-572.
* [IT] J. Itoh, M. Tanaka. The dimension of a cut locus on a smooth Riemannian manifold. Tohoku Math. J. (2) 50 (1998), no. 4, 571–575
* [IT2] J. Itoh, M. Tanaka. The Lipschitz continuity of the distance function to the cut locus. Transactions of the A.M.S. 353 (2000), no. 1, 21-40
* [LN] YY.Li, L. Nirenberg, The distance function to the boundary, Finsler geometry, and the singular set of viscosity solutions of some Hamilton-Jacobi equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 58, no. 1 (2005), 85-146.
* [L] P. L. Lions, Generalized Solutions of Hamilton-Jacobi Equations, Pitman, Boston, MA, 69 (1982).
* [M] J. Milnor, Morse theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies, 51, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. (1963).
* [M] A. C. Mennucci, Regularity And Variationality Of Solutions To Hamilton-Jacobi Equations. Part I: Regularity (2nd Edition), ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 13 2 (2007), pp 413-417
* [MM] C. Mantegazza, A. C. Mennucci, Hamilton-Jacobi Equations and Distance Functions on Riemannian Manifolds Appl. Math. Optim. 47 (2003), pp.1-25
* [W] F. W. Warner, The conjugate locus of a Riemannian manifold, Amer. J. of Math. 87 (1965) pp. 575-604.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-13T11:21:41 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.240373 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/",
"authors": "Pablo Angulo Ardoy, Luis Guijarro",
"submitter": "Pablo Angulo Ardoy",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2229"
} |
0806.2274 | # Exposing Multi-Relational Networks to Single-Relational Network Analysis
Algorithms111Rodriguez M.A., Shinavier, J., Exposing Multi-Relational Networks
to Single-Relational Network Analysis Algorithms, Journal of Informetrics,
volume 4, number 1, pages 29-41, ISSN:1751-1577, Elsevier,
doi:10.1016/j.joi.2009.06.004, LA-UR-08-03931, December 2009.
Marko A. Rodriguez Joshua Shinavier T-5 Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 Tetherless World
Constellation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, 12180
###### Abstract
Many, if not most network analysis algorithms have been designed specifically
for single-relational networks; that is, networks in which all edges are of
the same type. For example, edges may either represent “friendship,”
“kinship,” or “collaboration,” but not all of them together. In contrast, a
multi-relational network is a network with a heterogeneous set of edge labels
which can represent relationships of various types in a single data structure.
While multi-relational networks are more expressive in terms of the variety of
relationships they can capture, there is a need for a general framework for
transferring the many single-relational network analysis algorithms to the
multi-relational domain. It is not sufficient to execute a single-relational
network analysis algorithm on a multi-relational network by simply ignoring
edge labels. This article presents an algebra for mapping multi-relational
networks to single-relational networks, thereby exposing them to single-
relational network analysis algorithms.
###### keywords:
multi-relational networks , path algebra , network analysis
††journal: Journal of Informetrics and published
## 1 Introduction
Much of graph and network theory is devoted to understanding and analyzing
single-relational networks (also known as directed or undirected unlabeled
graphs). A single-relational network is composed of a set of vertices (i.e.
nodes) connected by a set of edges (i.e. links) which represent relationships
of a single type. Such networks are generally defined as $G=(V,E)$, where $V$
is the set of vertices in the network, $E$ is the set of edges in the network,
and $E\subseteq(V\times V)$. For example, if $i\in V$ and $j\in V$, then the
ordered pair $(i,j)\in E$ represents an edge from vertex $i$ to vertex
$j$.222This article is primarily concerned with directed networks, as opposed
to undirected networks, in which an edge is an unordered set of two vertices
(e.g. {i,j}). However, the formalisms presented work with undirected networks.
Ignoring the differences in the vertices that edges connect, all edges in $E$
share a single nominal, or categorical, meaning. For example, the meaning of
the edges in a single-relational social network may be kinship, friendship, or
collaboration, but not all of them together in the same representation as
there is no way distinguish what the edges denote. Moreover, single-relational
networks may be weighted, where $w:E\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is a function that
maps each edge in $E$ to a real value. Weighted forms are still considered
single-relational as all the edges in $E$ have the same meaning; the only
difference is the “degree of meaning” defined by $w$.
The network, as a data structure, can be used to model many real and
artificial systems. However, because a network representation of a system can
be too complicated to understand directly, many algorithms have been developed
to map the network to a lower dimensional space. For a fine review of the many
popular network analysis algorithms in use today, refer to [1, 2]. Examples of
such algorithms, to name a few of the more popularly used algorithms, include
the the family of geodesic [3, 4, 5, 6], spectral [7, 8, 9], and community
detection algorithms [10, 11, 12].
Most network analysis algorithms have been developed for single-relational
networks as opposed to multi-relational networks. A multi-relational network
is composed of two or more sets of edges between a set of vertices. A multi-
relational network can be defined as $M=(V,\mathbb{E})$, where $V$ is the set
of vertices in the network, $\mathbb{E}=\\{E_{1},E_{2},\ldots,E_{m}\\}$ is a
family of edge sets in the network, and any $E_{k}\subseteq(V\times V):1\leq
k\leq m$. Each edge set in $\mathbb{E}$ has a particular nominal, or
categorical, interpretation. For example, within the same network $M$,
$E_{1},E_{2}\in\mathbb{E}$ may denote “kinship” and “coauthorship,”
respectively.
The multi-relational network is not new. These structures have been used in
various disciplines ranging from cognitive science and artificial intelligence
[13] (e.g. semantic networks for knowledge representation and reasoning) to
social [1] and scholarly [14, 15] modeling. Furthermore, the multi-relational
network is the foundational data structure of the emerging Web of Data [16,
17]. While a multi-relational network can be used to represent more
complicated systems than a single-relational network, unfortunately, there are
many fewer multi-relational algorithms than single-relational algorithms.
Moreover, there are many more software packages and toolkits to analyze
single-relational networks. Multi-relational network analysis algorithms that
do exist include random walk [18], unique path discovery [19], community
identification [20], vertex ranking [21], and path ranking algorithms [22].
The inclusion of multiple relationship types between vertices complicates the
design of network algorithms. In the single-relational world, with all edges
being “equal,” the executing algorithm need not be concerned with the meaning
of the edge, but only with the existence of an edge. Multi-relational network
algorithms, on the other hand, must take this information into account in
order to obtain meaningful results. For example, if a multi-relational network
contains two edge sets, one denoting kinship ($E_{1}\in\mathbb{E}$) and the
other denoting coauthorship ($E_{2}\in\mathbb{E}$), then for the purposes of a
scholarly centrality algorithm, kinship edges should be ignored. In this
simple case, the centrality algorithm can be executed on the single-relational
network defined by $G=(V,E_{2})$. However, there may exist more complicated
semantics that can only be expressed through path combinations and other
operations. Thus, isolating single-relational network components of $M$ is not
sufficient. As a remedy to this situation, this article presents an algebra
for defining abstract paths through a multi-relational network in order to
derive a single-relational network representing vertex connectivity according
to such path descriptions. From this single-relational representation, all of
the known single-relational network algorithms can be applied to yield
meaningful results. Thus, the presented algebra provides a means of exposing
multi-relational networks to single-relational network analysis algorithms.
## 2 Path Algebra Overview
This section provides and overview of the various constructs of the path
algebra and primarily serves as a consolidated reference. The following
sections articulate the use of the constructs summarized here.
The purpose of the presented algebra is to transform a multi-relational
network into a “semantically-rich” single-relational network. This is
accomplished by manipulating a three-way tensor representation of a multi-
relational network. The result of the three-way tensor manipulation yields an
adjacency matrix (i.e. a two-way tensor).333The term tensor has various
meanings in mathematics, physics, and computer science. In general, a tensor
is a structure which includes and extends the notion of scalar, vector, and
matrix. A zero-way tensor is a scalar, a one-way tensor is a vector, a two-way
tensor is a matrix, and a three-way tensor is considered a “cube” of scalars.
For a three-way tensor, there are three indices used to denote a particular
scalar value in the tensor. The resultant adjacency matrix represents a
“semantically-rich” single-relational network. The “semantically-rich” aspect
of the resultant adjacency matrix (i.e. the single-relational network) is
determined by the algebraic path description used to manipulate the original
three-way tensor (i.e. the multi-relational network). More formally, the
multi-relational path algebra is an algebraic structure that operates on
$n\times n$ adjacency matrix “slices” of a $n\times n\times m$ three-way
tensor representation of a multi-relational network in order to generate a
$n\times n$ path matrix. The generated $n\times n$ path matrix represents a
“semantically-rich” single-relational network that can be subjected to any of
the known single-relational network analysis algorithms. The path algebra is a
matrix formulation of the grammar-based random walker framework originally
presented in [18]. However, the algebra generates “semantically-rich” single-
relational networks, as opposed to only executing random walk algorithms in a
“semantically-rich” manner. In other words, the algebra is cleanly separated
from the analysis algorithms that are ultimately applied to it. This aspect of
the algebra makes it generally useful in many network analysis situations.
The following list itemizes the various elements of the algebra to be
discussed in §3.
* 1.
$\mathcal{A}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n\times m}$: a three-way tensor
representation of a multi-relational network.444This article is primarily
concerned with boolean tensors. However, note that the presented algebra works
with tensors in $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n\times m}$.
* 2.
$\mathbf{Z}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}$: a path matrix derived by means of
operations applied to $\mathcal{A}$.
* 3.
$\mathbf{R}_{i}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$: a row “from” path filter.
* 4.
$\mathbf{C}_{i}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$: a column “to” path filter.
* 5.
$\mathbf{E}_{i,j}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$: an entry path filter.
* 6.
$\mathbf{I}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$: the identity matrix as a self-loop
filter.
* 7.
$\mathbf{1}\in 1^{n\times n}$: a matrix in which all entries are $1$.
* 8.
$\mathbf{0}\in 0^{n\times n}$: a matrix in which all entries are $0$.
The following list itemizes the various operations of the algebra to be
discussed in §4.
* 1.
$\mathbf{A}\cdot\mathbf{B}$: ordinary matrix multiplication determines the
number of $(\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B})$-paths between vertices.
* 2.
$\mathbf{A}^{\top}$: matrix transpose inverts path directionality.
* 3.
$\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{B}$: Hadamard, entry-wise multiplication applies a
filter to selectively exclude paths.
* 4.
$n(\mathbf{A})$: not generates the complement of a $\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$
matrix.
* 5.
$c(\mathbf{A})$: clip generates a $\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ matrix from a
$\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}$ matrix.
* 6.
$v^{\pm}(\mathbf{A})$: vertex generates a $\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ matrix from
a $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}$ matrix, where only certain rows or columns
contain non-zero values.
* 7.
$\lambda\mathbf{A}$: scalar multiplication weights the entries of a matrix.
* 8.
$\mathbf{A}+\mathbf{B}$: matrix addition merges paths.
In short, any abstract path $\sigma$ is a series of operations on
$\mathcal{A}$ that can be generally defined as
$\sigma:\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n\times m}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}.$
The resultant $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}$ matrix is an adjacency matrix.
Thus, the resultant matrix is a single-relational network. This resultant
single-relational network can be subjected to single-relational network
analysis algorithms while still preserving the semantics of the original
multi-relational network.
Throughout the remainder of this article, scholarly examples are provided in
order to illustrate the application of the various elements and operations of
the path algebra. All of the examples refer to a single scholarly tensor
denoted $\mathcal{A}$. The following list itemizes the tensor “slices” and
their domains and ranges, where $H\subset V$ is the set of all humans,
$A\subset V$ is the set of all articles, $J\subset V$ is the set of all
journals, $S\subset V$ is the set of all subject categories, and $P\subset V$
is the set of all software programs:
* 1.
$\mathcal{A}^{1}$: $\texttt{authored}:H\rightarrow A$
* 2.
$\mathcal{A}^{2}$: $\texttt{authoredBy}:A\rightarrow H$
* 3.
$\mathcal{A}^{3}$: $\texttt{cites}:A\rightarrow A$
* 4.
$\mathcal{A}^{4}$: $\texttt{contains}:J\rightarrow A$
* 5.
$\mathcal{A}^{5}$: $\texttt{category}:J\rightarrow S$
* 6.
$\mathcal{A}^{6}$: $\texttt{developed}:H\rightarrow P$.
## 3 Path Algebra Elements
This section introduces the elements of the algebra and the next section
articulates their use in the various operations of the algebra. The elements
of the path algebra are structures that are repeatedly used when mapping a
multi-relational tensor to a single-relational path matrix.
### 3.1 Three-way Tensor Representation of a Multi-Relational Network
A single-relational network defined as
$G=(V,E\subseteq(V\times V))$
can be represented as the adjacency matrix $\mathbf{A}$, where
$\mathbf{A}_{i,j}=\begin{cases}1&\text{if }(i,j)\in E\\\
0&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}$
without loss of information. This adjacency matrix is also known as a two-way
tensor because it has two dimensions, each with an order of $n$, where
$n=|V|$. Stated another way, $\mathbf{A}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$.
A three-way tensor can be used to represent a multi-relational network [23].
If
$M=(V,\mathbb{E}=\\{E_{1},E_{2},\ldots,E_{m}\subseteq(V\times V)\\})$
is a multi-relational network, then
$\mathcal{A}^{k}_{i,j}=\begin{cases}1&\text{if }(i,j)\in E_{k}:1\leq k\leq
m\\\ 0&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}$
In this formulation, two dimensions have an order of $n$ while the third has
an order of $m$, where $m=|\mathbb{E}|$. Thus,
$\mathcal{A}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n\times m}$ and any adjacency matrix “slice”
$\mathcal{A}^{k}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}:1\leq k\leq m$. $\mathcal{A}$
represents the primary structure by which individual adjacency matrices are
indexed and composed in order to derive a resultant single-relational path
matrix.
### 3.2 Path Matrices
The path algebra operates on $n\times n$ adjacency matrix elements of
$\mathcal{A}$ to construct a “semantically-rich” path matrix. The simplest
path is made up of a single edge type. Thus, $\mathcal{A}^{k}$ is a path
matrix for vertex-to-vertex paths of length $1$. The meaning of that path is
simply defined by the meaning of $\mathbb{E}_{k}$. When constructing complex
paths through $\mathcal{A}$ (when utilizing multiple edge types in
$\mathcal{A}$), the resulting matrix may have entries with values greater than
$1$. Furthermore, in conjunction with the use of $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ scalar
multiplication (described in §4.3), entries of a path matrix may be non-
negative real numbers. Therefore, in general, all path matrices discussed
throughout the remainder of this article are matrices in
$\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}$ and are denoted $\mathbf{Z}$. In short, the
resultant $\mathbf{Z}$ matrix can be seen as a positively weighted single-
relational network. In other words, $\mathbf{Z}$ denotes a single-relational
network of the form $G=(V,E,w)$, where $w:E\rightarrow R_{+}$.
### 3.3 Filter Matrices
Filters are used to ensure that particular paths through $\mathcal{A}$ are
either included or excluded from a path composition. Generally, a filter is a
$\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ matrix. Filters may be derived from intermediate path
matrices (described in §4.2) or may target a specific vertex that is known a
prior. A vertex-specific filter is either a row
$\mathbf{R}_{i}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$, column
$\mathbf{C}_{i}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$, or entry
$\mathbf{E}_{i,j}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ filter.
1. 1.
A row filter is denoted $\mathbf{R}_{i}$, where all entries in row $i$ are
equal to $1$ and all other entries are equal to $0$. Row filters are useful
for allowing only those paths that have an origin of $i$.
2. 2.
A column filter is denoted $\mathbf{C}_{i}$, where all entries in column $i$
are equal to $1$ and other entries are equal to $0$. Column filters are useful
for allowing only those paths that have a destination of $i$.
3. 3.
Entry filters are denoted $\mathbf{E}_{i,j}$ and have a $1$ at the
$(i,j)$-entry and $0$ elsewhere. Entry filters allow only those paths that
have an origin of $i$ or a destination of $j$.
Useful properties of the vertex-specific filters include:
* 1.
$\mathbf{R}_{i}=\mathbf{C}_{i}^{\top}$
* 2.
$\mathbf{C}_{i}=\mathbf{R}_{i}^{\top}$
* 3.
$\mathbf{E}_{i,j}=\mathbf{E}_{j,i}^{\top}$.
The identity matrix $\mathbf{I}$ is useful for allowing or excluding self-
loops. Finally, the filter $\mathbf{1}\in 1^{n\times n}$ is a matrix in which
all entries are equal to $1$, and $\mathbf{0}\in 0^{n\times n}$ is a matrix in
which all entries are equal to $0$.
## 4 Path Algebra Operations
The previous section defined the common elements of the path algebra. These
elements are composed with one another to create a path composition. This
section discusses the various operations that are used when composing the
aforementioned elements.
### 4.1 The Traverse Operation
A useful property of the single-relational adjacency matrix
$\mathbf{A}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ is that when it is raised to the
$t^{\text{th}}$ power, the entry $\mathbf{A}^{(t)}_{i,j}$ is equal to the
number of paths of length $t$ that connect vertex $i\in V$ to vertex $j\in V$
[24]. This is simple to prove using induction. Given, by definition, that
$\mathbf{A}^{(1)}_{i,j}$ (i.e. $\mathbf{A}_{i,j}$) represents the number of
paths that go from $i$ to $j$ of length $1$ (i.e. a single edge) and by the
rules of ordinary matrix multiplication,
$\mathbf{A}_{i,j}^{(t)}=\sum_{l\in
V}\mathbf{A}_{i,l}^{(t-1)}\cdot\mathbf{A}_{l,j}:t\geq 2.$
The same mechanism for finding the number of paths of length $t$ in a single-
relational network can be used to find the number of semantically meaningful
paths through a multi-relational network. For example, suppose
$\mathcal{A}^{1}$ has the label authored, $\mathcal{A}^{2}$ has the label
authoredBy, $\mathcal{A}^{3}$ has the label cites, and
$\mathbf{Z}=\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot\mathcal{A}^{3}\cdot\mathcal{A}^{2}.$
Semantically, $\mathbf{Z}_{i,j}$ is the number of paths from vertex $i$ to
vertex $j$ such that a path goes from author $i$ to one the articles he or she
has authored, from that article to one of the articles it cites, and finally,
from that cited article to its author $j$.555If vertex $i$ is not an author,
then such a path composition would yield $0$ paths from $i$ to any $j$. A path
composition must respect the domains and ranges of the edge types if a
meaningful path matrix is to be generated. The meaning of $\mathbf{Z}$ is
$\texttt{hasCited}:H\rightarrow H$ and represents an edge if some author has
cited some other author by means of their respective articles (i.e. an author
citation network). This method is analogous to raising an adjacency matrix to
the $t^{\text{th}}$ power, except that, in place of multiplying the same
adjacency matrix with itself, a sequence of different adjacency matrix
“slices” in $\mathcal{A}$ are used to represent typed paths with a
compositionally defined meaning.
It is worth noting that ordinary matrix multiplication is not commutative.
Thus, for the most part, when $\mathbf{A}\neq\mathbf{B}$,
$\mathbf{A}\cdot\mathbf{B}\neq\mathbf{B}\cdot\mathbf{A}$. Given paths through
a multi-relational network, this makes intuitive sense. The path from authored
to cites is different than the path from cites to authored. In the first case,
if the resultant path is seen as a mapping, then
$\texttt{authored}:H\rightarrow A$ (i.e. human to article) and
$\texttt{cites}:A\rightarrow A$ (i.e. article to article). Thus, through
composition $\texttt{cites}\circ\texttt{authored}:H\rightarrow A$.666The
symbol $\circ$ is overloaded in this article meaning both function composition
and the Hadamard matrix product. The context of the symbol indicates its
meaning. However, in the latter case, composition is not possible as cites has
a range of an article and authored has a domain of human.
Finally, any $n\times n$ adjacency matrix element of $\mathcal{A}$ can be
transposed in order to traverse paths in the opposite direction. For example,
given $\mathcal{A}_{1}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{2}$ identified as authored and
authoredBy, respectively, where ${\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}=\mathcal{A}^{2}$,
then
$\mathbf{Z}=\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot\mathcal{A}^{3}\cdot\mathcal{A}^{2}=\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot\mathcal{A}^{3}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}$.
Thus, inverse edge types can be created using matrix transpose.
### 4.2 The Filter Operation
In many cases, it is important to exclude particular paths when traversing
through $\mathcal{A}$. Various path filters can be defined and applied using
the entry-wise Hadamard matrix product denoted $\circ$ [25], where
$\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{B}=\left[\begin{array}[]{ccc}\mathbf{A}_{1,1}\cdot\mathbf{B}_{1,1}&\cdots&\mathbf{A}_{1,m}\cdot\mathbf{B}_{1,m}\\\
\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\\
\mathbf{A}_{n,1}\cdot\mathbf{B}_{n,1}&\cdots&\mathbf{A}_{n,m}\cdot\mathbf{B}_{n,m}\\\
\end{array}\right].$
The following list itemizes various properties of the Hadamard product:
* 1.
$\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{1}=\mathbf{A}$
* 2.
$\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{0}=\mathbf{0}$
* 3.
$\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{B}=\mathbf{B}\circ\mathbf{A}$
* 4.
$\mathbf{A}\circ(\mathbf{B}+\mathbf{C})=(\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{B})+(\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{C})$
* 5.
$\mathbf{A}\circ\lambda\mathbf{B}=\lambda(\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{B})$
* 6.
$\mathbf{A}^{\top}\circ\mathbf{B}^{\top}=(\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{B})^{\top}$.
If $\mathbf{A}$ is a $\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ matrix, then
$\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{A}=\mathbf{A}$. For the row, column, and entry
filters,
* 1.
$\mathbf{R}_{i}\circ\mathbf{R}_{j}=\mathbf{0}\;:\;i\neq j$
* 2.
$\mathbf{C}_{i}\circ\mathbf{C}_{j}=\mathbf{0}\;:\;i\neq j$
* 3.
$\mathbf{R}_{i}\circ\mathbf{C}_{j}=\mathbf{E}_{i,j}$.
Finally, if $\mathbf{Z}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}$ and $\mathbf{Z}$ has a
trace of $0$ (i.e. no self-loops), then
$\mathbf{Z}\circ\mathbf{I}=\mathbf{0}$.
The Hadarmard product is used in the path algebra to apply a filter. As stated
previously, a typical filter is a $\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ matrix, where $0$
entries set the corresponding path counts in $\mathbf{Z}$ to $0$. The
following subsections define and illustrate some useful functions to generate
filters.
#### 4.2.1 The Not Function
The not function is defined as
$n:\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}\rightarrow\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$
with a function rule of
$n(\mathbf{A})=\mathbf{1}-\mathbf{A}.$
In words, the not takes a $\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ matrix and replaces all the
$0$s with $1$s and all the $1$s with $0$s. Some evident and useful properties
of a not filter include
* 1.
$n(n(\mathbf{A}))=\mathbf{A}$
* 2.
$\mathbf{A}\circ n(\mathbf{A})=\mathbf{0}$
* 3.
$n(\mathbf{A})\circ n(\mathbf{A})=n(\mathbf{A})$.
Furthermore, if $\mathbf{Z}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}$ and $\mathbf{Z}$ has
a trace of $0$, then $\mathbf{Z}\circ n(\mathbf{I})=\mathbf{Z}$.
A not function is useful for excluding a set of paths to or from a vertex. For
example, when constructing a coauthorship path matrix where $\mathcal{A}^{1}$
represents authored, the operation
$\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}\circ n(\mathbf{I})$ will ensure
that the authored relationship is taken and then the transpose of authored
(i.e. authoredBy) is taken. However, if only these two operations are applied,
then this does not yield a coauthorship matrix, as the traversal returns to
the originating vertex (i.e. vertex $i$ is considered a coauthor of vertex
$i$). Thus, the applied not-identity filter will remove all paths back to the
source vertex, at which point a coauthorship path matrix is generated.
#### 4.2.2 The Clip Function
The clip function maps an $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}$ path matrix to a
$\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ matrix. The function is defined as
$c:\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}\rightarrow\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$
with a function rule of
$c(\mathbf{Z})_{i,j}=\begin{cases}1&\text{if }\mathbf{Z}_{i,j}>0\\\
0&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}$
The general purpose of clip is to take a non-$\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ path
matrix and to “clip,” or normalize, it to a $\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ matrix.
Thus, clip creates a filter that can then be applied to a composition to
exclude paths.
If $\mathbf{A}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$, then evident and useful properties
are
* 1.
$c(\mathbf{A})=\mathbf{A}$
* 2.
$c(n(\mathbf{A}))=n(c(\mathbf{A}))=n(\mathbf{A})$.
###### Proposition 1
If $\mathbf{Y},\mathbf{Z}\in\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}$, then
$c(\mathbf{Y}\circ\mathbf{Z})=c(\mathbf{Y})\circ c(\mathbf{Z}).$
_Proof._ This property can be demonstrated given an entry-wise representation,
where
$c(\mathbf{Y}_{i,j}\cdot\mathbf{Z}_{i,j})=c(\mathbf{Y}_{i,j})\cdot
c(\mathbf{Z}_{i,j}).$
The equality holds for all cases where both entries are $0$, both entries are
greater than $0$, and where one entry is $0$ and the other is greater than
$0$.
###### Proposition 2
If $\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$, then
$n(\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{B})=c\left(n(\mathbf{A})+n(\mathbf{B})\right)$
_Proof._ This proposition follows a similar pattern as De Morgan’s law for
boolean values, where $\neg(P\wedge Q)=\neg P\vee\neg Q$. However, because
matrix addition over $\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ matrices has the potential to
yield a value of $2$ if $n(\mathbf{A}_{i,j})=n(\mathbf{B}_{i,j})=1$, clip will
ensure that $c(n(\mathbf{A})+c(\mathbf{B}))_{i,j}=1$.
Likewise,
###### Proposition 3
If $\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B}\in\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$, then
$n(c(\mathbf{A}+\mathbf{B}))=n(\mathbf{A})\circ n(\mathbf{B})$
_Proof._ This proposition follows a similar pattern as De Morgan’s law for
boolean values, where $\neg(P\vee Q)=\neg P\wedge\neg Q$.
To use a scholarly example, it is possible to exclude all coauthorship and
self-loop paths from a larger composite. For instance, if, as previously
demonstrated,
$\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}\circ n(\mathbf{I})$
defines a coauthorship path matrix and $\mathcal{A}^{3}$ denotes cites
relations, then
$\mathbf{Z}=\underbrace{\left(\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot\mathcal{A}^{3}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}\right)}_{\text{cites}}\circ\underbrace{n\left(c\left(\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}\circ
n(\mathbf{I})\right)\right)}_{\text{no
coauthors}}\circ\underbrace{n(\mathbf{I})}_{\text{no self}}$
is a hasCited′ path matrix where citing one’s coauthors and oneself is not
considered a legal citation path. As previously demonstrated in §4.1, the
first component (i.e. cites) generates a hasCited path matrix for all authors
citing each other’s articles, where coauthorship and self-citation are legal.
The second component (i.e. no coauthors) applies the not function to a path
matrix generated from a clip of a coauthorship path matrix. This excludes
coauthors as being legal author citations. Finally, the third component (i.e.
no self) disallows self-loops. The application of the two filter components
removes paths that go from an author to his- or herself as well as to his or
her respective coauthors.
With the help of the propositions and properties of the various operations of
the path algebra, the above composition can be simplified. While the following
simplification is lengthy, it utilizes many of the properties and propositions
demonstrated hitherto. If
$\mathbf{X}=\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot\mathcal{A}^{3}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}$
and $\mathbf{Y}=\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}$, then
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{ccl|l}\mathbf{Z}&=&\mathbf{X}\circ
n(c(\mathbf{Y}\circ n(\mathbf{I})))\circ n(\mathbf{I})&\\\ &=&\mathbf{X}\circ
n(c(\mathbf{Y})\circ c(n(\mathbf{I}))\circ n(\mathbf{I})&\text{prop.
}\ref{proposition:clip1}\\\ &=&\mathbf{X}\circ n(c(\mathbf{Y})\circ
n(\mathbf{I}))\circ n(\mathbf{I})&c(n(\mathbf{A}))=\mathbf{A}\\\
&=&\mathbf{X}\circ c(n(c(\mathbf{Y}))+n(n(\mathbf{I})))\circ
n(\mathbf{I})&\text{prop. }\ref{proposition:clip3}\\\ &=&\mathbf{X}\circ
c(n(c(\mathbf{Y}))+\mathbf{I})\circ
n(\mathbf{I})&n(n(\mathbf{A}))=\mathbf{A}\\\ &=&\mathbf{X}\circ
c(n(c(\mathbf{Y}))+\mathbf{I})\circ
c(n(\mathbf{I}))&c(n(\mathbf{A}))=n(\mathbf{A})\\\ &=&\mathbf{X}\circ
c(n(c(\mathbf{Y}))+\mathbf{I}\circ n(\mathbf{I})))&\text{prop.
}\ref{proposition:clip1}\\\ &=&\mathbf{X}\circ c(n(c(\mathbf{Y}))\circ
n(\mathbf{I})+\mathbf{I}\circ
n(\mathbf{I})))&\mathbf{A}\circ(\mathbf{B}+\mathbf{C})=(\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{B})+(\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{C})\\\
&=&\mathbf{X}\circ c(n(c(\mathbf{Y}))\circ n(\mathbf{I}))&\mathbf{A}\circ
n(\mathbf{A})=\mathbf{0}\\\ &=&\mathbf{X}\circ c(n(c(\mathbf{Y})))\circ
c(n(\mathbf{I}))&\text{prop. }\ref{proposition:clip1}\\\ &=&\mathbf{X}\circ
n(c(\mathbf{Y}))\circ
n(\mathbf{I})&c(n(\mathbf{A}))=n(\mathbf{A}).\end{array}$
Thus,
$\mathbf{Z}=\left(\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot\mathcal{A}^{3}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}\right)\circ
n\left(c\left(\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}\right)\right)\circ
n(\mathbf{I}).$
In words, only a single filter disallowing self-loops is necessary to yield
the same result.
#### 4.2.3 The Vertex Functions
In many cases, it is important to filter out particular paths from and to a
vertex. Two useful functions are $v^{-}$ and $v^{+}$, where
$v^{-}:\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}\times\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\\{0,1\\}^{n\times
n},$ $v^{-}(\mathbf{Z},p)_{i,j}=\begin{cases}1&\text{if }\sum_{l\in
V}\mathbf{Z}_{i,l}>p\\\ 0&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}$
turns a complete row into an all $1$-row if the sum of row entries is greater
than $p$ and
$v^{+}:\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}\times\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\\{0,1\\}^{n\times
n},$ $v^{+}(\mathbf{Z},p)_{i,j}=\begin{cases}1&\text{if }\sum_{l\in
V}\mathbf{Z}_{l,j}>p\\\ 0&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}$
turns a complete column into an all $1$-column if the sum of the column
entries is greater than $p$. The function $v^{-}$ is used to select paths
outgoing from particular vertices and $v^{+}$ is used to select paths incoming
to particular vertices. Moreover, by providing $p$, it excludes those vertices
with less than $p$ paths outgoing from or incoming to it. For the sake of
brevity, when no $p$ is supplied, it is assumed that $p=0$.
Some useful properties of the vertex filter are
* 1.
$v^{-}(\mathbf{R}_{i})=\mathbf{R}_{i}$
* 2.
$v^{+}(\mathbf{C}_{i})=\mathbf{C}_{i}$
* 3.
$v^{+}(\mathbf{E}_{i,j})\circ v^{-}(\mathbf{E}_{i,j})=\mathbf{E}_{i,j}$
* 4.
$v^{-}(\mathbf{Z}\circ\mathbf{R}_{i})=v^{-}(\mathbf{Z})\circ\mathbf{R}_{i}$
* 5.
$v^{+}(\mathbf{Z}\circ\mathbf{C}_{i})=v^{+}(\mathbf{Z})\circ\mathbf{C}_{i}$
* 6.
$v^{-}(\mathbf{Z},p)=v^{+}(\mathbf{Z}^{\top},p)^{\top}$
* 7.
$v^{+}(\mathbf{Z},p)=v^{-}(\mathbf{Z}^{\top},p)^{\top}$.
To demonstrate the use of the vertex function, consider the multi-relational
tensor $\mathcal{A}$ that includes journals, articles, and subject categories,
where $\mathcal{A}^{3}$ denotes $\texttt{cites}:A\rightarrow A$,
$\mathcal{A}^{4}$ denotes $\texttt{contains}:J\rightarrow A$,
$\mathcal{A}^{5}$ denotes $\texttt{category}:J\rightarrow S$, and vertex $1$
denotes the subject category “social science.” A social science journal
citation matrix can be created from $\mathcal{A}$ in which a path exists
between journals if and only if an article contained in a journal cites an
article contained in another journal. Furthermore, only those citing and cited
articles are considered that are in social science journals. Thus, the social
science journal citation path matrix is defined as
$\mathbf{Z}=\underbrace{\left[v^{-}\left(\mathbf{C}_{1}\circ{\mathcal{A}^{5}}\right)\circ\mathcal{A}^{4}\right]}_{\text{soc.sci.
journal
articles}}\cdot\mathcal{A}^{3}\cdot\underbrace{\left[{\mathcal{A}^{4}}^{\top}\circ
v^{+}\left(\mathbf{R}_{1}\circ{\mathcal{A}^{5}}^{\top}\right)\right]}_{\text{articles
in soc.sci. journals}}.$
First, a vertex-created filter is applied to remove all articles that are not
contained in social science journals. Next, the articles that these articles
cite is determined. Finally, those articles not in social science journals are
filtered out using another vertex-created filter. Thus, a citation path matrix
is generated which only includes social science journals.
Using the various aforementioned vertex function properties, the above
expression for a social science journal citation path matrix can be
simplified, because
$\displaystyle\begin{array}[]{ccl|l}v^{+}\left(\mathbf{R}_{1}\circ{\mathcal{A}^{5}}^{\top}\right)&=&v^{+}\left(\left(\mathbf{C}_{1}\circ\mathcal{A}^{5}\right)^{\top}\right)&\mathbf{R}_{1}=\mathbf{C}_{1}^{\top}\\\
&=&v^{-}\left(\mathbf{C}_{1}\circ\mathcal{A}^{5}\right)^{\top}&v^{-}(\mathbf{Z})=\\\
&&&\;\;\;v^{+}(\mathbf{Z}^{\top})^{\top}.\end{array}$
Therefore, given the above and because
$\mathbf{A}^{\top}\circ\mathbf{B}^{\top}=(\mathbf{A}\circ\mathbf{B})^{\top}$,
$\mathbf{Z}=\left[v^{-}\left(\mathbf{C}_{1}\circ{\mathcal{A}^{5}}\right)\circ\mathcal{A}^{4}\right]\cdot\mathcal{A}^{3}\cdot\left[v^{-}\left(\mathbf{C}_{1}\circ{\mathcal{A}^{5}}\right)\circ\mathcal{A}^{4}\right]^{\top}.$
The above composition reuses the computation for determining which articles
are contained in social science journals by simply reversing the
directionality of the final component. The two bracketed components represent
contains such that the domain is social science journals and the range is
articles. The ability to algebraically manipulate path expressions is one of
the primary benefits of utilizing an algebraic structure to map a multi-
relational network to a single-relational network.
### 4.3 The Weight Operation
Composed paths can be weighted using ordinary matrix scalar multiplication.
Given a scalar value of $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$, $\lambda\mathbf{Z}$ will
weight all the paths in $\mathbf{Z}$ by $\lambda$. This operation is useful
when merging path matrices in such a way as to make one path matrix more or
less significant than another path matrix. The next subsection, §4.4,
discusses the operation of merging two path matrices and presents an example
that includes the weight operation.
### 4.4 The Merge Operation
Ordinary matrix addition can be used to merge two path matrices. For example,
consider the multi-relational tensor $\mathcal{A}$, where $\mathcal{A}^{1}$
denotes authored and $\mathcal{A}^{6}$ denotes developed, authored maps humans
to articles, and developed maps humans to programs. Furthermore, consider a
definition of collaboration that includes both the coauthorship of articles
and the co-development of software, where article coauthorship is weighted as
being slightly more important than co-development. The path matrix
$\mathbf{Z}=0.6\underbrace{\left(\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}\circ
n(\mathbf{I})\right)}_{\text{coauthorship}}\;+\;0.4\underbrace{\left(\mathcal{A}^{6}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{6}}^{\top}\circ
n(\mathbf{I})\right)}_{\text{co-development}}$
merges the article and software program collaboration path matrices as
specified by their respective weights of $0.6$ and $0.4$. The resultant path
matrix denotes article and software program collaboration. Finally, using the
properties and propositions of the path algebra, a simplification of the
previous composition is
$\mathbf{Z}=\left[0.6\left(\mathcal{A}^{1}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}\right)+0.4\left(\mathcal{A}^{6}\cdot{\mathcal{A}^{6}}^{\top}\right)\right]\circ
n(\mathbf{I}).$
## 5 Network Analysis Applications
The previous sections presented various elements and operations of the path
algebra that can be applied to a multi-relational tensor in
$\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n\times m}$ in order to derive a “semantically-rich”
single-relational path matrix in $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times n}$. The resultant
path matrix yields the number of paths from vertex $i$ to vertex $j$ as
determined by the operations performed. The path matrix can be considered a
weighted single-relational network of the form $G=(V,E,w)$, where
$w:E\rightarrow R_{+}$. Many single-relational network analysis algorithms
require either a $\\{0,1\\}^{n\times n}$ matrix or a $[0,1]^{n\times n}$
weighted or stochastic matrix. The resultant path matrix can be manipulated in
various ways (e.g. normalized out going weight distribution) to yield a matrix
that can be appropriately used with the known single-relational network
analysis algorithms. This section discusses the connection of a path matrix to
a few of the more popular single-relational network analysis algorithms.
However, before discussing the single-relational network analysis algorithms,
the next subsection discusses the relationship between the path algebra and
multi-relational graph query languages.
### 5.1 Relationship to Multi-Relational Graph Query Languages
The presented path algebra has many similarities to graph query languages such
as GraphLog [26], Path Query Language (PQL) [27], and SPARQL Protocol and RDF
Query Language (SPARQL) [28]. All of these languages serve a similar function
of querying a graph for data, though they have different levels of
expressivity (e.g. some have mechanisms to include extension functions in the
query, to perform regular expressions on the vertex names, and the ability to
perform recursion). However, what these languages have in common is the
ability to perform graph pattern matching. Graph pattern matching is explained
using an example. Suppose the multi-relational network representation
$H\subseteq(V\times\Omega\times V)$, where $V$ is the set of vertices and
$\Omega$ is the set of edges labels. Given
$Z=\\{?x\;|\;(?x,\texttt{authoredBy},\texttt{marko})\in H\\},$
$Z$ is the set of all articles authored by Marko. In short, $?$-variables are
used to bind to particular vertices and must hold for the duration of the
query. This is made more salient in the following, more complicated example:
$\displaystyle Z=$
$\displaystyle\\{?y\;|\;(?x,\texttt{authoredBy},\texttt{marko})\in H$
$\displaystyle\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\wedge(?x,\texttt{cites},?y)\in H$
$\displaystyle\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\wedge(\texttt{JOI},\texttt{contains},?y)\in H$
$\displaystyle\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\wedge\;?x\neq?y\;\\}.$
In this example, the set $Z$ is the set of all articles that are
1. 1.
contained in the Journal of Informetrics (JOI),
2. 2.
cited by Marko’s authored articles, and
3. 3.
are not articles authored by Marko.
In SPARQL, this is represented as
SELECT ?y WHERE {
?x authoredBy marko .
?x cites ?y .
JOI contains ?y .
FILTER (?x != ?y) }.
In the presented path algebra, this same query is represented as
$\mathbf{Z}=c\left(\underbrace{\left[\left(\mathbf{C}_{2}\circ{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}\right)\cdot\mathcal{A}^{1}\circ\mathbf{I}\right]}_{\text{marko's
articles}}\cdot\underbrace{\left[\mathcal{A}^{3}\circ
n\left(v^{-}\left(\mathbf{C}_{2}\circ{\mathcal{A}^{1}}^{\top}\right)^{\top}\right)\right]}_{\text{citations
to non-marko
articles}}\cdot\underbrace{\left[\mathbf{C}_{3}\circ{\mathcal{A}^{4}}^{\top}\right]}_{\text{contained
in joi}}\right),$
where vertex $2$ is Marko and vertex $3$ is the Journal of Informetrics. The
resulting $\mathbf{Z}$ path matrix is a {0,1}-matrix, where the row vertices
that have a $1$ as an entry are equivalent to those vertices that bound to
$?y$ in the related SPARQL query. While the algebraic form may be considered
more cumbersome than the SPARQL form, the benefit of using the path algebra is
that the query can be simplified through algebraic manipulations, and that it
has a convenient implementation using existing linear algebra toolkits.
Moreover, a hybrid approach can be utilized that leverages the syntactic
convenience of the standard graph query languages and the algebraic properties
of the path algebra. That is, as many of the queries used in graph query
languages can be specified in the path algebra, it is possible to optimize
such queries in the algebra and then convert them back to the query language
for execution.
Finally, the path algebra provides more information than a binding of
variables to vertices. For instance, in the previous example, without the clip
function, the resultant $\mathbf{Z}$ would return how many paths exist from
Marko’s articles to those non-Marko cited articles that are contained in the
Journal of Informetrics. In this way, some Journal of Informetrics articles
may be deemed more “appropriate” to the query (as there may be more paths to
them). The result path matrix can be seen as a weighted single-relational
network that can be manipulated further by single-relational network analysis
algorithms or used in a larger path expression.
### 5.2 Shortest Path Calculation
The family of geodesic algorithms are based on the calculation of the shortest
path between vertices [1]. Example shortest path metrics include:
* 1.
eccentricity: defined for a vertex as the longest shortest path to all other
vertices [6],
* 2.
radius: defined for the network as the smallest eccentricity value for all
vertices,
* 3.
diameter: defined for the network as the largest eccentricity value for all
vertices,
* 4.
closeness: defined for a vertex as the mean shortest path of a vertex to all
other vertices [3],
* 5.
betweenness: defined for a vertex as the number of shortest paths that a
vertex is a part of [5].
A straightforward (though computationally expensive) way to calculate the
shortest path between any two vertices $i$ and $j$ in an adjacency matrix
$\mathbf{A}$ is to continue to raise the adjacency matrix by a power until
$\mathbf{A}^{(t)}_{i,j}>0$. The first $t$ where $\mathbf{A}^{(t)}_{i,j}>0$
denotes the length of the shortest path between vertex $i$ and $j$ as $t$.
This same principle holds for calculating the shortest path in a path matrix
$\mathbf{Z}$ and thus, the resulting path matrix generated from a path
composition can be used to determine “semantically-rich” shortest paths
between vertices.
### 5.3 Diffusing an Energy Vector through $\mathcal{A}$
Many network analysis algorithms can be represented as an energy diffusion,
where
$f:\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n\times
n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}$
maps a row-vector of size $n$ (i.e. “energy vector”) and a matrix of size
$n\times n$ to a resultant energy vector of size $n$. Algorithms of this form
include eigenvector centrality [7], PageRank [8], and spreading activation
[29, 30] to name but a few.
With respect to eigenvector centrality and PageRank, the general form of the
algorithm can be represented as a problem in finding the primary eigenvector
of an adjacency matrix such that $\pi\mathbf{A}=\lambda\pi$, where
$\pi\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $\pi$ is the energy vector being diffused. Both
algorithms can be solved using the “power method.” In one form of the power
method, the solution is found by iteratively multiplying $\pi$ by $\mathbf{A}$
until $\pi$ converges to a stable set of values as defined by
$||\pi^{(t-1)}-\pi^{(t)}||_{2}<\epsilon$ for some small
$\epsilon\in\mathbb{R}_{+}$. In another form, the problem is framed as finding
which $t$-power of $\mathbf{A}$ will yield a $\pi$ such that
$\pi\mathbf{A}^{(t)}=\lambda\pi$. With respect to spreading activation, the
same power method can be used; however, the purpose of the algorithm is not to
find the primary eigenvector, but instead to propagate an energy vector some
finite number of steps. Moreover, the total energy flow through each vertex at
the end of a spreading activation algorithm is usually what is determined.
#### 5.3.1 The PageRank Path Matrix
The PageRank algorithm was developed to determine the centrality of web pages
in a web citation network [8] and since, has been used as a general network
centrality algorithm for various other types of networks including
bibliographic [31, 32], social [33], and word networks [34]. The web citation
network can be defined as $G=(V,E)$, where $V$ is a set of web pages and
$E\subseteq(V\times V)$ is the set of directed citations between web pages
(i.e. href). The interesting aspect of the PageRank algorithm is that it
“distorts” the original network $G$ by overlaying a “teleportation” network in
which every vertex is connected to every other vertex by some weight defined
by $\delta\in(0,1]$. The inclusion of the teleportation network ensures that
the resulting hybrid network is strongly connected777Strongly connected means
that there exists a path from every vertex to every other vertex. In the
language of Markov chains, the network is irreducible and recurrent. and thus,
the resultant primary eigenvector of the network is a positive real-valued
vector.
In the matrix form of PageRank, there exist two adjacency matrices in
$[0,1]^{n\times n}$ denoted
$\mathcal{P}^{1}_{i,j}=\begin{cases}\frac{1}{\Gamma(i)}&\text{if }(i,j)\in
E\\\ 0&\text{otherwise}.\end{cases}$
and
$\mathcal{P}^{2}_{i,j}=\frac{1}{|V|},$
where $\Gamma(i)$ is the out degree of vertex $i$. $\mathcal{P}^{1}$ is a row-
stochastic adjacency matrix and $\mathcal{P}^{2}$ is a fully connected
adjacency matrix known as the teleportation matrix. The purpose of PageRank is
to identify the primary eigenvector of a merged, weighted path matrix of the
form
$\mathbf{Z}=\delta\mathcal{P}^{1}+(1-\delta)\mathcal{P}^{2}.$
$\mathbf{Z}$ is guaranteed to be a strongly connected single-relational path
matrix because there is some probability (defined by $1-\delta$) that every
vertex is reachable by every other vertex.
#### 5.3.2 Constrained Spreading Activation
The concept of spreading activation was made popular by cognitive scientists
and the connectionist approach to artificial intelligence [29, 35, 36], where
the application scenario involves diffusing an energy vector through an
artificial neural network in order to simulate the neural process of a
spreading activation potential in the brain. Spreading activation can be
computed in a manner analogous to the power method of determining the primary
eigenvector of an adjacency matrix. However, spreading activation does not
attempt to find a stationary energy distribution in the network and moreover,
usually includes a decay function or activation/threshold function that can
yield a resultant energy vector whose sum is different than the initial energy
vector.
The neural network models of connectionism deal with weighted, single-
relational networks. Spreading activation was later generalized to support
multi-relational networks [30]. While there are many forms of spreading
activation on single-relational networks and likewise, many forms on multi-
relational networks, in general, a spreading activation algorithm on a multi-
relational network is called constrained spreading activation as not all edges
to and from a vertex are respected equally. Constrained spreading activation
has been used for information retrieval on the web [30, 37, 38], semantic
vertex ranking [18, 39], and collaborative filtering [40]. The path algebra
provides a means by which to separate the spreading activation algorithm from
the data structure being computed on. That is, the constrained aspect of the
algorithm is defined by the path algebra and the spreading activation aspect
of the algorithm is defined by standard, single-relational spreading
activation.
### 5.4 Mixing Patterns
Given a network and a scalar or categorical property value for each vertex in
the network, it is possible to determine whether the network is assortative or
disassortative with respect to that property [41]. Example scalar properties
for journal vertices in a scholarly network include impact factor ranking,
years in press, cost for subscription, etc. Example categorical properties
include subject category, editor in chief, publisher, etc. A network is
assortative with respect to a particular vertex property when vertices of like
property values tend to be connected to one another. Colloquially,
assortativity can be understood by the phrase “birds of a feather flock
together,” where the “feather” is the property binding individuals [42]. On
the other hand, a network is disassortative with respect to a particular
vertex property when vertices of unlike property values tend to be connected
to one another. Colloquially, disassortativity can be understood by the phrase
“opposites attract.”
There are two primary components needed when calculating the assortativity of
a network. The first component is the network and the second component is a
set of property values for each vertex in the network. A popular publication
defining the assortative mixing for scalar properties uses the parametric
Pearson correlation of two vectors [43].888Note that scalar value
distributions may not be normally distributed and thus, in such cases, a non-
parametric correlation such as the Spearman $\rho$ may be the more useful
correlation coefficient. One vector is the scalar value of the vertex property
for the vertices on the tail of all edges. The other vector is the scalar
value of the vertex property for the vertices on the head of all the edges.
Thus, the length of both vectors is $|E|$ (i.e. the total number of edges in
the single-relational network). Formally, the correlation is defined as
$r=\frac{|E|\sum_{i}j_{i}k_{i}-\sum_{i}j_{i}\sum_{i}k_{i}}{\sqrt{\left[|E|\sum_{i}j^{2}_{i}-\left(\sum_{i}j_{i}\right)^{2}\right]\left[|E|\sum_{i}k^{2}_{i}-\left(\sum_{i}k_{i}\right)^{2}\right]}},$
where $j_{i}$ is the scalar value of the vertex on the tail of edge $i$, and
$k_{i}$ is the scalar value of the vertex on the head of edge $i$. The
correlation coefficient $r$ is in $[-1,1]$, where $-1$ represents a fully
disassortative network, $0$ represents an uncorrelated network, and $1$
represents a fully assortative network. On the other hand, for categorical
properties, the equation
$r=\frac{\sum_{a}e_{aa}-\sum_{a}i_{a}j_{a}}{1-\sum_{a}i_{a}j_{a}}$
yields a value in $[-1,1]$ as well, where $e_{aa}$ is the number of edges in
the network that have property value $a$ on both ends, $i_{a}$ is the number
of edges in the network that have property value $a$ on their tail vertex, and
$j_{a}$ is the number of edges that have property value $a$ on their head
vertex [41].
Given a path matrix, assortativity is calculated on paths, not on edges, where
there may be many paths (possibly weighted) between any two vertices.999It is
important to note that with multi-relational networks, vertex property values
can be encoded in the network itself. For instance, given the scholarly
network example of previous, the subject category “social science” is a vertex
adjacent to a set of journal vertices according to the relation
$\texttt{category}:J\rightarrow S$. More generally, vertex property values may
be determined through path composition. Thus, a weighted correlation is
required [44]. Let $j_{i}$ denote the scalar property value of the vertex on
the tail of path $i$ and $k_{i}$ denote the scalar property value of the
vertex on the head of path $i$. The previous scalar assortativity equation can
be generalized such that if $z_{i}$ is the fraction of path weight in
$\mathbf{Z}$ for path $i$, then
$r=\frac{\text{cov}_{j,k}}{\sqrt{\text{cov}_{j,j}\text{cov}_{k,k}}},$
where
$\text{cov}_{j,k}=\frac{1}{\sum_{i}z_{i}}\left[\sum_{i}z_{i}\left(j_{i}-\frac{\sum_{i}z_{i}j_{i}}{\sum_{i}z_{i}}\right)\left(k_{i}-\frac{\sum_{i}z_{i}k_{i}}{\sum_{i}z_{i}}\right)\right].$
Similarly, for categorical vertex properties,
$r=\frac{\sum_{a}e_{aa}-\sum_{a}i_{a}j_{a}}{1-\sum_{a}i_{a}j_{a}}$
where $e_{aa}$ is the total path weight of paths that have tail and head
vertices with a property value of $a$, $i_{a}$ is the total path weight of all
paths that have a tail vertex with a property value of $a$, and $j_{a}$ is the
total path weight of all paths that have a head vertex with a property value
of $a$.
## 6 Conclusion
The number of algorithms and toolkits for single-relational networks far
exceeds those currently available for multi-relational networks. However, with
the rising popularity of the multi-relational network, as made evident by the
Web of Data initiative and the multi-relational RDF data structure [45], there
is a need for methods that port the known single-relational network analysis
algorithms over to these multi-relational domains. A convenient method to do
so is a path algebra. Path algebras have been used extensively for analyzing
paths in single-relational networks [46, 47] and the application to multi-
relational networks can prove useful. The multi-relational path algebra
presented in this article operates on an $n\times n\times m$ tensor
representation of a multi-relational network. By means of a series of
operations on two-way “slices” of this tensor, a “semantically-rich” $n\times
n$ single-relational path matrix can be derived. The resulting path matrix
represents a single-relational network. This single-relational network may
then be subjected to any of the known single-relational network analysis
algorithms. Thus, the presented path algebra can be used to expose multi-
relational networks to single-relational network analysis algorithms.
## References
* [1] S. Wasserman, K. Faust, Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1994.
* [2] U. Brandes, T. Erlebach (Eds.), Network Analysis: Methodolgical Foundations, Springer, Berling, DE, 2005.
* [3] A. Bavelas, Communication patterns in task oriented groups, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 22 (1950) 271–282.
* [4] E. W. Dijkstra, A note on two problems in connexion with graphs, Numerische Mathematik 1 (1959) 269–271.
* [5] L. C. Freeman, A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness, Sociometry 40 (35–41).
* [6] F. Harary, P. Hage, Eccentricity and centrality in networks, Social Networks 17 (1995) 57–63.
* [7] P. Bonacich, Power and centrality: A family of measures., American Journal of Sociology 92 (5) (1987) 1170–1182.
* [8] S. Brin, L. Page, The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine, Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 30 (1–7) (1998) 107–117.
* [9] F. R. K. Chung, Spectral Graph Theory, American Mathematical Society, 1997.
* [10] M. E. J. Newman, M. Girvan, Finding and evaluating community structure in networks, Physical Review E 69 (2004) 026113.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0308217
* [11] M. Girvan, M. E. J. Newman, Community structure in social and biological networks, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (2002) 7821–7826.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0112110
* [12] M. E. J. Newman, Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices, Physical Review E 74\. arXiv:physics/0605087.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0605087
* [13] J. F. Sowa, Principles of Semantic Networks: Explorations in the Representation of Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 1991.
* [14] M. A. Rodriguez, A multi-relational network to support the scholarly communication process, International Journal of Public Information Systems 2007 (1) (2007) 13–29.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0601121
* [15] J. Bollen, M. A. Rodriguez, H. Van de Sompel, L. L. Balakireva, A. Hagberg, The largest scholarly semantic network…ever., in: Proceedings of the World Wide Web Conference, ACM Press, New York, NY, 2007, pp. 1247–1248. doi:10.1145/1242572.1242789.
* [16] T. Berners-Lee, J. A. Hendler, Publishing on the Semantic Web, Nature 410 (6832) (2001) 1023–1024. doi:10.1038/35074206.
* [17] M. A. Rodriguez, Data Management in the Semantic Web, Nova Publishing, 2009, Ch. Interpretations of the Web of Data.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.3378
* [18] M. A. Rodriguez, Grammar-based random walkers in semantic networks, Knowledge-Based Systems 21 (7) (2008) 727–739. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2008.03.030.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4355
* [19] S. Lin, Interesting instance discovery in multi-relational data, in: D. L. McGuinness, G. Ferguson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press, 2004, pp. 991–992.
* [20] D. Cai, Z. Shao, X. He, X. Yan, J. Han, Community mining from multi-relational networks, in: Proceedings of the 2005 European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Vol. 3721 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Porto, Portugal, 2005, pp. 445–452. doi:10.1007/11564126.
* [21] H. Zhuge, L. Zheng, Ranking semantic-linked network, in: Proceedings of the International World Wide Web Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 2003.
* [22] B. Aleman-Meza, C. Halaschek-Wiener, I. B. Arpinar, C. Ramakrishnan, A. P. Sheth, Ranking complex relationships on the semantic web, IEEE Internet Computing 9 (3) (2005) 37–44. doi:http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MIC.2005.63.
* [23] T. G. Kolda, B. W. Bader, J. P. Kenny, Higher-order web link analysis using multilinear algebra, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining ICDM’05, IEEE, 2005, pp. 242–249.
* [24] G. Chartrand, Introductory Graph Theory, Dover, 1977.
* [25] R. Horn, C. Johnson, Topics in Matrix Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1994\.
* [26] M. P. Consens, A. O. Mendelzon, Graphlog: a visual formalism for real life recursion, in: Proceedings of the Symposium on Principles of Database Systems, ACM, New York, NY, 1990, pp. 404–416. doi:10.1145/298514.298591.
* [27] U. Leser, A query language for biological networks, Bioinformatics 21 (2) (2005) 33–39. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bti1105.
* [28] E. Prud’hommeaux, A. Seaborne, SPARQL query language for RDF, Tech. rep., World Wide Web Consortium (October 2004).
URL http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-rdf-sparql-query-20041012/
* [29] J. R. Anderson, A spreading activation theory of memory, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 22 (1983) 261–295.
* [30] P. R. Cohen, R. Kjeldsen, Information retrieval by constrained spreading activation in semantic networks, Information Processing and Management 23 (4) (1987) 255–268.
* [31] J. Bollen, M. A. Rodriguez, H. Van de Sompel, Journal status, Scientometrics 69 (3) (2006) 669–687. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0176-z.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/cs/0601030
* [32] P. Chen, H. Xie, S. Maslov, S. Redner, Finding scientific gems with Google, Journal of Informetrics 1 (1) (2007) 8–15.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0604130
* [33] X. Liu, J. Bollen, M. L. Nelson, H. Van de Sompel, Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community, Information Processing and Management 41 (6) (2006) 1462–1480.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0502056
* [34] R. Mihalcea, P. Tarau, E. Figa, Pagerank on semantic networks, with application to word sense disambiguation, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, NJ, 2004, p. 1126. doi:10.3115/1220355.1220517.
* [35] A. M. Collins, E. F. Loftus, A spreading activation theory of semantic processing, Psychological Review 82 (1975) 407–428.
* [36] D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, MIT Press, 1993.
* [37] F. Crestani, Application of spreading activation techniques in information retrieval, Artificial Intelligence Review 11 (6) (1997) 453–582.
* [38] F. Crestani, P. L. Lee, Searching the web by constrained spreading activation, Information Processing and Management 36 (4) (2000) 585–605.
* [39] M. A. Rodriguez, Social decision making with multi-relational networks and grammar-based particle swarms, in: Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science, IEEE Computer Society, Waikoloa, Hawaii, 2007, pp. 39–49. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2007.487.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.CY/0609034
* [40] J. Griffith, C. O’Riordan, H. Sorensen, Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and Engineering Systems, Vol. 4253 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, 2006, Ch. A Constrained Spreading Activation Approach to Collaborative Filtering, pp. 766–773. doi:10.1007/11893011.
* [41] M. E. J. Newman, Mixing patterns in networks, Physical Review E 67 (2) (2003) 026126. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.67.026126.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0209450
* [42] M. McPherson, L. Smith-Lovin, J. Cook, Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks, Annual Review of Sociology 27 (2001) 415–444.
* [43] M. E. J. Newman, Assortative mixing in networks, Physical Review Letters 89 (20) (2002) 208701.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0205405/
* [44] J. M. Bland, D. G. Altman, Calculating correlation coefficients with repeated observations: Part 2–correlation between subjects, British Medical Journal 310 (6980) (1995) 633.
* [45] E. Miller, An introduction to the Resource Description Framework, Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 25 (1) (1998) 15–19. doi:10.1002/bult.105.
* [46] B. Carre, Graphs and Networks, Oxford University Press, 1979.
* [47] R. Manger, A new path algebra for finding paths in graphs, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, Vol. 1, 2004, pp. 657–662. doi:10.1109/ITI.2004.242700.
| arxiv-papers | 2008-06-13T16:07:19 | 2024-09-04T02:48:56.248070 | {
"license": "Public Domain",
"authors": "Marko A. Rodriguez, Joshua Shinavier",
"submitter": "Marko A. Rodriguez",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2274"
} |
Subsets and Splits